I think it is too early to predict the effectiveness of Indian air defense including the capabilities of their planes and fliers. India, has spent an average of $10-15 billion a year on its military in the last decade. Money, that I think India is just too poor to afford. I think a proper analyses of the effectiveness of all these Indian arm purchases and the ability of its pilots to fly those acquired planes should occur after the Indian military and its equipments have been tested in war-like conditions. Today, it is easy to predict the success and effectiveness of the US or Israeli airforces and their pilots because they have been tested and acquainted themselves quite well. Any other comparisons short of real-combat requirements is just comparing acquired weapon systems and paper strength. At least, that is my view. Cheers

Do you really think anyone would want to attack India? The most noted thing you are identified with now is that the northwestern corridor of your country is a pipeline for terrorists into Pakistan.

Dear lord! If you really think thats the case, then you really are ignorant mate. It's one thing to dislike sweeping statements that indian-2-the-core made, but completely another to use it as a cause to spout uninformed arguments that have no legs to stand on. A more specific rebuttal to you in my next post.

Lets start with the last part of your post... Deadgrunt: ...terrorists into Pakistan. Now thats a laugh, seeing as how terrorism is widely regarded as Pakistan's biggest export. In fact, Pakistan has funneled terrorists into various states in India, such as Kashmir, Punjab, Gujarat, Himachal Pradesh. Recently, they've even begun to use Bangladesh as a staging area for inserting terrorists into India's fragile North-Eastern states. Pakistan also supported the foundation of the Taliban, and some of its citizens support the Uigher uprising in China. Pakistan has its own terrorists aplenty, and doesn't need any other country to add to their numbers. India, on the other hand, has been fighting terrorists since just after its inception, namely: a) Seperatists in our North-Eastern states b) Communist (Maoist) guerilla's in several of our Southern and Eastern states c) Sikh terrorists in Punjab d) Islamic fundamentalists in Kashmir and now in Himachal Pradesh India has also helped combat terrorism in neighbouring countries, like Sri Lanka and Nepal. We have also signed effective anti-terrorist agreements with several key nations such as the US, the UK and Russia. Moving on... Deadgrunt: The most noted thing you are identified with now is that the northwestern corridor of your country is a pipeline for terrorists into Pakistan. Wrong. India has often been noted for many things. Some good and yes, some bad. But we have never been known as an exporter of terrorism or terrorists, nor do we tolerate any transit of terrorists through our country. Also, it would be wise to note that the same terrorists Coalition forces (and now) Pakistani troops are (reluctantly) engaging are the same terrorists that have been giving us hell in Kashmir for the past 16 years - we would get no profit from supporting them. The only profit we might get from this is watching Pakistan suffer at the hands of its own creation ;). India is mostly for its ancient civilisation, rigid adherence to a hierarchy, large (and growing) economy, increasing technological advancement, one of the strongest militaries in the world, large population, a spiritual centre, religious tolerance (with occasional hiccups), gorwing AIDS problem etc. Not perfect by any means, but we have never supported transit of, nor funneled terrorists into another country. Now to the first part of your post... Deadgrunt: Do you really think anyone would want to attack India? Yes, seeing as how we've been attacked four times (leading to 4 wars and one massive counter-insurgency operation), and how we have border disputes with several of our neighbours. I think there's a pretty good chance we can be attacked.

I would appreciate your views on my response. Cheers mate. Pacemaker.

I don't think Pakistan is the primary concern of India any more: China is liable to be the problem. When that is said: I would be more than stupid to think that India would be a walk-over. True India has a large and poor population, but the middle class in India is about 100-200 million and a military that can afford losses plus a number of competent soldiers and officers: China is well advised to stay away as India is going to fight back.

U.S and israeli pilots have never faced anyone from a decent airforce in combat.israelis faced arabpilots in the 60's(no points for guessing the skills of arab pilots)and now they deal with rag-tag hamas terrorists.U.S on the other hand dealt with iraqi pilots(arab brethren again!).this has led them to safely assume that they are the top in the job until they were given a rude awakening by "intelligent"hindu pilots.by the way su-30 mki's werent used in the joint exercises..su-27 was.indian pilots have demonstrated their superiority in the past..in '71 they were up against u.s made sabres with gnats.back to the point,the score in the joint exercises read 9-1 in favor of india.u.s pilots admitted they came prepared expecting to exercise with another third world airforce like iraq and iran.the U.S rush to replace tomcats and f-16's with f-22 is a direct result of this.shortly afterwards singapore airforce exercised with f-16's with even worse results opening their planes for ridicule.but finally, the ultimate joke was condoleeza rice offering india the sale of f-16's and f-18's even as the results were out.

Eggfooyoung, you are woefully misinformed regarding US capability. There have been many threads here detailing this general subject matter. Among other things, the Cope India 2004 exercise was scripted to have the USAF aircraft simulate a force remarkably similar to Pakistan's in capability, put the USAF aircraft at a major disadvantage compared to how we would fight if we needed to, and the results do not reflect anything remotely close to what the outcome would be of USAF v. anybody. Displacedjim

If I remember correctly in addition to what DJ said there has never been an international excercise that the USAF took part in where it has extensively practiced BVR tactics and weaponry/systems. Almost all of it was WVR combat and usually at heavy disadvantages to the US pilots. Is it heavily biased against the US winning? Sure, but it has extensive value because it forces our pilots to come up with some innovating piloting, gives them more time to learn dogfighting tactics, and lets them get a good look at how other countries pilots are training.