fair enough.
But do you apply this level of scrutiny to Western Or Indian systems? Did India really develop AESA tech? Sure DRDO published some photos and showcased some stuff in Defense fairs that look like AESA components. But we will actually never know until whatever platform it is integrated into excels in real combat? Or perhaps French were scamming us all alone. Given their much hyped Rafale got smoked while supposedly having high performance AESA and top notch EW suite. The proof is in the pudding. I would find this way of thinking irritating. Given we don’t actually have access to any classified technical specs of these systems, something has to be taken at face value to begin with or we will never know anything for sure Or make any meaningful value judgement.
Again things are static or they are dynamic assets (adding another vector).
99.9% folks have done zero study as to why say USN lost a full third of top of the line skyhawks in rolling thunder to begin with (ignoring USAF thunderchiefs faring even worse)...which had top of the line specs for the time vs Soviet IAD and soviet CAP around Hanoi-Haiphong.....as a lot of other things come into play regd how they were deployed (and those were many sequences of one-offs...i.e sustained sorties requiring timing between USN and USAF along with significant capacities held back due to conflict mitigation LBJ et al imposed).
Without studying the largest most relevant air campaigns of the largest force structures in 20th-21st century first (and the attrition they took on top assets), you dont really get the issue of dynamics (and ROE and constraint + timid tiers picked w.r.t assets at hand) vs just static assets....in more bite sized "tactical one-off" portions compared to sustained + strategic.
Various important variables like little SEAD and DEAD today cascading to compacted maneuvering zones after say holding/timing patterns in staging areas (that tip off the opponent the bigger you arrange them and get higher CAP alert and more scramble availability).... due to dodging both A2A and IAD rather than just one, and what are the timings of face-offs within this to be deduced in more measured fashion over time... given technology intensification from earlier era of it.
The US changed doctrinally just within rolling thunder (early lessons to late).... to linebacker and then decades later to GW1....in response to how IAD impacts compared to original 50s SAC doctrine vs "USSR only" that initially molded the post ww2 USAF....down to the level of pilots training + "bulky aircraft" it was stuck with vis a vis the USN when the 60s came around....and SEAD/DEAD became a big deal in the new context + strategic restraint opted for Vietnam.
All these concepts affect a relative bite sized tactical one-off correlation, back then or now....the tech just scales up and intensifies as it does....i.e North Vietnam would have done "even better" with AWACs...and conceptually its IAD and CAP (and tactics from weaknesses exploited by opponent limitation and constraint no matter their apex assets)... transcends and amplifies to today.
Fewer vectors (w.r.t relatively static assets like the SAMs themselves) is more clear cut to analyse in "proof is in the pudding way" as far less vectors added in deployment operationally.
It either intercepts well or it doesn't w.r.t its more limited "other factors" being things like the rest of IAD + C-UAS tiered around it...and the softening of these done by drones to whichever degrees....and the importance of all of this given the golden egg nest of assets + infra its responsible for protecting.
It's not got stages of strike package selection, flying, timing, delivery, rotation, maneuver space, no SEAD+DEAD, center of mass exposed for opponent BVR in time state 5 compared to time state 3 etc....the SAMs just dont fly to begin with....or have X amount of A2G (hammeer scalp) baked in that limits A2A (i.e rafale choice making in sortie that affects the dynamic factors)....as to say 3/72 attrition result in end for X amount of payload release in the context.
The static stuff being less complicated simply has to be hardened otherwise the opponent just easily and reliably drains and strikes your infra and assets contained within. These are more readily more scaleable to one-offs in higher conflict tiers too, so if its optimal return and low risk gauged of escalation, this is an issue in the end static wise.....just like lack of apex sharpness (for tactical strikes) is its issue for IAF currently in the more dynamic side of things.
