U.S. can’t interfere in our strategic decisions

[Samsung J7]

Don't speak nonsense everytime. Su35 is the best 4.5 generation plane and Su30 MKI is the next best one. Su30 is rivaled only by the likes of Rafale and that too due to stealth characters. F16, F18, F15 are 40 year old models with hardly any stealth designs. Su30 with its TVC and supermaneuverability is far ahead of all USA planes except for 5th generation ones.

What nonsense? When was the last time Russian jets shoot down western jets? Otherhand western jets shoot down 100s of Russian jets in direct fight?

 

[Samsung J7]

Don't speak nonsense everytime. Su35 is the best 4.5 generation plane and Su30 MKI is the next best one. Su30 is rivaled only by the likes of Rafale and that too due to stealth characters. F16, F18, F15 are 40 year old models with hardly any stealth designs. Su30 with its TVC and supermaneuverability is far ahead of all USA planes except for 5th generation ones.

Flankers r r just another white elephant from russia. Russians bribed mulayam sing and forced india to buy flankers.

 

[Haldiram]

Can you explain hosting Tibet govt in exile and unnecessarily riling China? How is it good foreign policy? Would you be happy if China kept Kashmir govt in exile? Why should India behave like this with an important and big neighbour who is also known for friendly behaviour in history? The conflict of 1962 was also because of this. China does not want Arunachal or Ladakh but just wants India to not support Tibet separatists.

Tibet was a buffer state between India and China. The British understood it and maintained that status quo during their era. That is the reason there was peace between India and China during the Raj. India inherited that framework and failed to keep the status quo when China invaded and occupied Tibet thereby bringing their borders adjacent to India's. Protecting Dalai Lama and his subjects, giving them training and keeping them ready for a reverse takeover was India's attempt to push back against China's attempt to change the status quo. It was the right thing to do. The Tibet card is a strategic card with great potential dividends. One does not surrender strategic cards for fear or uncomfortable discussions. And one cannot hold on to strategic cards and expect that there wont be shrill noises from the other side. We took that decision after calculating our national goals and risks.

Having a stalemate with a larger power is better than having peace because it puts you on parity with them strategically, even though you cannot match them economically. Having peace with a large power usually means that the terms of such a peace are dictated by the larger power. That is why India can never have total peace with China, and Pakistan can never have any peace with India. The friction is not because the larger power has imposed it on the smaller power. It is the other way round. The larger power wants a pacified neighborhood because the status quo is already in its favor. The smaller power is forced to cultivate strategic cards to engineer disharmony at the border of the larger power to safeguard its core interests elsewhere, so it tries to alter the status quo. Pakistan has cultivated Kashmir, India has cultivated Tibet. Afghanistan has cultivated Pakhtoonistan. All for the same reason.

China would want to be left alone, and allowed to have Taiwan, Tibet, Xinxiang for itself, but what do we get from letting them have it? We only get concessions from China when we strategically discomfort them. In return, they try to discomfort us but the balancesheet is in our favor. By holding on to the Tibet card, India is able to present itself as a bulwark against Chinese aggression and get concessions from the Western bloc. If India didn't have the Tibet card, neither the West nor China would consider us worthy enough to be invited at the high table. Today we are a part of Chinese multilateral forums (SCO etc) at the same time we are doing military drills with the US, while buying weapons from Russia. We are disagreeing with everyone at the same time but still they are compelled to humor us.

 

[Kshithij]

Tibet was a buffer state between India and China. The British understood it and maintained that status quo during their era. That is the reason there was peace between India and China during the Raj. India inherited that framework and failed to keep the status quo when China invaded and occupied Tibet thereby bringing their borders adjacent to India's. Protecting Dalai Lama and his subjects, giving them training and keeping them ready for a reverse takeover was India's attempt to push back against China's attempt to change the status quo. It was the right thing to do. The Tibet card is a strategic card with great potential dividends. One does not surrender strategic cards for fear or uncomfortable discussions. And one cannot hold on to strategic cards and expect that there wont be shrill noises from the other side. We took that decision after calculating our national goals and risks.

Having a stalemate with a larger power is better than having peace because it puts you on parity with them strategically, even though you cannot match them economically. Having peace with a large power usually means that the terms of such a peace are dictated by the larger power. That is why India can never have total peace with China, and Pakistan can never have any peace with India. The friction is not because the larger power has imposed it on the smaller power. It is the other way round. The larger power wants a pacified neighborhood because the status quo is already in its favor. The smaller power is forced to cultivate strategic cards to engineer disharmony at the border of the larger power to safeguard its core interests elsewhere, so it tries to alter the status quo. Pakistan has cultivated Kashmir, India has cultivated Tibet. Afghanistan has cultivated Pakhtoonistan. All for the same reason.

China would want to be left alone, and allowed to have Taiwan, Tibet, Xinxiang for itself, but what do we get from letting them have it? We only get concessions from China when we strategically discomfort them. In return, they try to discomfort us but the balancesheet is in our favor. By holding on to the Tibet card, India is able to present itself as a bulwark against Chinese aggression and get concessions from the Western block.

Actually, India was not a smaller power in 1950. Indian population was big. The only advantage china had was larger land but most of it like Tibet and Xinjiang are deserts. Tibet is an extremely resource poor region with nothing useful and mostly a parasitic relation on China for resource. The Tibet is not capable of being independent due to its landlocked nature and resource deficiency. Indian real boundary lies in Himalayas which is the real buffer. Tibet can never be accessed by Indian troops as the himalayas prevent movement of logistics. The chinese mainland is also far away from India, mostly east of the great wall and hence there can be very little direct problems or leverage between the two countries. India and China are only technically neighbours, but the geography makes them quite far apart.

This so called strategic thinking of simply irritating the bigger opponent without basis is nothing short of foolishness. China and India don't have historical enmity. Nehru was an agent of British and hence under behest of USA and UK, Tibet issue was kept alive. Ideally, the goal should have been to take down USA and UK and stop their crony behaviour by allying with China. In 1950s, India was ahead of China in various technological parameters due to USA and UK setting up many industries for WW2. India also had a large enough population and access to the most strategic position of Indian Ocean along with the oil resource of the Arabs. The relation would have been the relation between equals rather than a one-sided relation.

Most importantly, Indian startegic advantage was ruined because India deliberately scuttled defence development under instructions from Nehru. In 1950, the difference between India and China in terms of technology was very much in favour of India. The technology of other powers like USA was also very close to Indian technology. If it was strategic advantage India needed, India would have been quick in developing weapons. China was in shambles in 1950, after independence, had to fight Korean war against a bigger adversary USA, face famines in 1962, 1970 and yet by 1975, China has Satellite launch vehicle, ICBM, nuclear submarine and thermonuclear bomb. Indian strategic advantage turned to disadvantage due to willful neglect of military technology by Nehru, not due to size of China being bigger.

The real reason of enmity between Pakistan and India is out of Islam. Kashmir was considered as muslim majority area that rightfully belonged to Pakistan. This is also the reason why there is no hostility between Myanmar or Nepal despite boundary disagreements. In Afghanistan, Pakistan was a close ally till about 2000. It was the USA's invasion and installment of puppet govt in Afghanistan is what causing problems to Pakistan.

It is unnecessary to have unnecessary enmity just out of size difference.Do you see enmity between canada and USA? Do you see enmity between UK and France? There is one thing which is about differing in decisions and another thing in fanning separatism and calling it leverage. Hosting a separatist regime and calling it "govt in exile" is too serious form of foolishness without objective.

 

[The Ultranationalist]

Even old American f16s will give run for money to newest flankers. Dont fool by Russian propaganda. Whenever russian and western jets came face to face , Russian jets lost in encounter

Oh yeah? Our flyboys kicked american asses with their Mig 21s during air combat exercises held in India before the red flag exercises were held in US. Americans were flying their f16s and 18s then and MKIs whitewashed the english typhoons. F16s and f18s stand no chance against flankers.

 

[Samsung J7]

Oh yeah? Our flyboys kicked american asses with their Mig 21s during air combat exercises held in India before the red flag exercises were held in US. Americans were flying their f16s and 18s then and MKIs whitewashed the english typhoons. F16s and f18s stand no chance against flankers.

Which world you r living? Come back to earth. Western jets always spanked Russian jets whenever they came face to face

http://www.migflug.com/jetflights/the-combat-statistics-for-all-the-aircraft-currently-in-use.html

 

[The Ultranationalist]

Which world you r living? Come back to earth. Western jets always spanked Russian jets whenever they came face to face

http://www.migflug.com/jetflights/the-combat-statistics-for-all-the-aircraft-currently-in-use.html

Yes only when flown by inferior and poorly trained muslim pilots.

 

[Samsung J7]

Yes only when flown by inferior and poorly trained muslim pilots.

Lol, this has nothing to do with religion. Pakis shoot down 10 soviet jets using western jets.Just accept Russian jets r behind their western counterparts

 

[shankyz]

Lol, this has nothing to do with religion. Pakis shoot down 10 soviet jets using western jets.Just accept Russian jets r behind their western counterparts

Training has an important role to play.

Just look at US M1 Abram performance in Yemen ...

 

[The Ultranationalist]

Lol, this has nothing to do with religion. Pakis shoot down 10 soviet jets using western jets.Just accept Russian jets r behind their western counterparts

Porks were flying f 16s and were shooting down An 32 and Su22s, su25 and maybe one or two mig 23, its piece of cake when you are flying a generation ahead fighter. And the shot down 8 aircraft not 10.

 

[Kalki_2018]

The F-16's were always garbage, Not sure where anyone got the idea they can go up against Flankers? That's why the F-15 exists.

 

[Samsung J7]

Porks were flying f 16s and were shooting down An 32 and Su22s, su25 and maybe one or two mig 23, its piece of cake when you are flying a generation ahead fighter. And the shot down 8 aircraft not 10.

The F-16's were always garbage, Not sure where anyone got the idea they can go up against Flankers? That's why the F-15 exists.

Lol f16 is one of the best fighter jets ever produced.
F16 air to air kill ratio is like 75:1 :biggrin2:
Non of the Russian jets hav anything close to this.

 

[Kalki_2018]

LOL yeah when they go up 10:1 against opponents like Iraq and Libya. F-16 was always a mediocre fighter, M2K was better in the 80's. Ever wondered why US needs that many aircrafts and is scared of taking on even chinese J series crap?? They only fight weak nations.

 

[Samsung J7]

LOL yeah when they go up 10:1 against opponents like Iraq and Libya. F-16 was always a mediocre fighter, M2K was better in the 80's. Ever wondered why US needs that many aircrafts and is scared of taking on even chinese J series crap?? They only fight weak nations.

You can say whatever you want, but fact remains western jets r always step ahead of their Russian counterpart jets.

 

[mayfair]

Lol, this has nothing to do with religion. Pakis shoot down 10 soviet jets using western jets.Just accept Russian jets r behind their western counterparts

Indian MiGs shot down Napaki jets in droves in 1971 war. So much so that Mig 21 was known as Sabre killer.

Likewise, Vietnamese MiGs shot down multiple Amreeki jets during the conflict.

Napkis did not shoot 10 Soviet jets in the Afghan war, they claim to have shot a couple of Mig 23s (at least a generation older than F-16s) and lost one F-solaah that they claim was lost in "friendly fire."

Lets not get into the bilateral exercises either.

 

[Kalki_2018]

You can say whatever you want, but fact remains western jets r always step ahead of their Russian counterpart jets.

You can believe the earth is flat, does not make it so. US jets only fight when they have at least 10:1 numerical superiority else they run away.

 

[Berkut]

You can believe the earth is flat, does not make it so. US jets only fight when they have at least 10:1 numerical superiority else they run away.

Technology is definitely an aspect but also the man who is flying the aircraft.
I don't have any stats to prove this but I feel that the demographics that end up flying fighters in Pak or the US don't have much of a stomach for a fight. They are really impressive bombing civilians from FL300 with no air defence to challenge them.
I read once (some pilot blog) , where a US Navy Pilot claimed a mig29 kill in Gulf war 1 from a F14, but the set up was that there was a numeric 3 to 1 superiority in the yank's favour. The Iraqi was unarmed. The Fulcrum jettisoned its drop tanks and the resulting glint(bright sun over desert sky shining off silver painted drop tank) resulted in the 3 Americans breaking formation and aborting their primary mission(they thought that the Mig had fired an air to air at them). Once they figured that it was safe, they chased the unarmed Mig29 fleeing towards the Jordanian airspace and took him down.

 

[The Ultranationalist]

Lol f16 is one of the best fighter jets ever produced.
F16 air to air kill ratio is like 75:1 :biggrin2:
Non of the Russian jets hav anything close to this.

Even spitfires are one of the best fighters ever produced so what? The thing is americans never picked on someone of their own size and all the f16 kills were against inferior fighters and inept pilots of islamic countries. And i dont where your statistics are coming from, 75 to 1 ratio, porkis downed 10 soviet aircrafts etc etc.

During the kargil war there was a brief face off between 2 pork f16 and Indian Mig 29 and everyone knows how porks fled with their tail between their legs.

 

[Samsung J7]

Why it is hard for you guys to accept pathetic performance of Russian jets against western jets? Just because our entire inventory is filled with soviet relic jets?

Just look at the statistics

http://www.migflug.com/jetflights/the-combat-statistics-for-all-the-aircraft-currently-in-use.html

 

[Kalki_2018]

Yeah and when was the last time US fought a decent army? There are lies , damned lies and statistics. IAF has enough experience wiping the floor with so called american planes like sabres and starfighters. If F-16's are stupid enough to cross their path they will be taken care off.
You still haven't answered when did US ever fight when they did not have 10:1 numerical superiority??