I was saying that GP is an unsuitable metric for measuring strength because of the flaws in their list. I stand by my statement that the Russians don't deserve 2nd place. They're getting there, though, with Putin at the helm. Bear in mind that the days of Soviet Russia are over.
I always like to begin a debate on a note of agreement. This paragraph serves the purpose very well!
Read your own article, ffs.
"The troops in Crimea MAY [emphasis mine] be the elite of the new Russian military. But the Kremlin’s investment, analysts said, has revived the military, which has now shown that it can field a competent and even formidable force, and both guard the nation and project power to neighboring states."
It's not my article, but NYT's. And I did read it. Same can't be said for you, I'm afraid.
A well-equipped soldier, with a sight, grips, and other attachments and accessories shows the ability of the country to arm its troops adequately. While I see such sophistication in the hands of NATO member troops, I don't observe this in Indian troops.
Ah yes, I remember the last time grips and Oakleys won a war. Oh wait . . .
There's "adequate", and there's "fancy". NATO armies these days look more like the latter, to be honest. Side from the US, I'm not sure if their very limited logistical capabilities can sustain such kit in the field.
The Indian Army grunt is equipped well-enough for his job. Good uniforms, BPJs, encrypted comms, a workable rifle, platoon-level passive night vision devices are all the norm.
Like I said, I have it on good authority from a professional.
Like euromaidanpress.com, I'm guessing? :)
He can place a unit and its location just by looking at insignia and uniforms
Which were missing in Crimea. For the express purpose of confounding professional experts like your friend.
An article from a reputable source regarding the operatives engaged in Crimea
I'm quoting the relevant bit: "The Russians are thought to have had roughly 15,000 troops in Crimea when the crisis began, and quickly added about another 5,000, mostly special operations troops." My reading of this is that most of the 5,000 that were added were SF. Which would make the rest regulars. The article further goes on to say:
_"The well-organized Crimea operation also suggests improvement in the quality and training of the Russian military . . .
. . . Russia evidently has been getting results for increased spending on its military: The 2012 edition of an annual survey by the International Institute for Strategic Studies estimated that Russia would spend 3.78 percent of its GDP on defense in 2013, by far the highest amount in more than a decade. Aging or incompetent Russian officers have been purged as part of a modernization campaign.
This Russian army, in short, is not the one that proved so feeble in Afghanistan. It is well-trained and stealthy and effectively uses a “small footprint.” "
An acquaintance who is a former tank commander from the IDF, and a current Reserve tank commander in the same confirmed for me that the IDF trains with the Indians.
Interesting. My acquaintances from the Indian military say that there was a limited amount of interaction with an IDF SF unit, but it did not go beyond that. Certainly nothing of the scale that happens between the Indian and US/Russian/British armies. Other acquaintances (not just from India) also have things to say about the IDF that would be uncharitable to mention here, so I'm not surprised at the scale of co-operation, or lack of it.
Further, here's an article about plans for the IDF to help India.
Those plans went nowhere.
Also, for good measure, here's a source from the US Navy's own site, which confirms cooperation between the Marines and Indians
Okay, I stand corrected there.
Doesn't mean all of them are fighting that fight.
The length of the conflict has ensured that practically every infantry unit in the IA has rotated through conflict zones, and that a vast majority of infantrymen (and a fair number of other servicemembers) have acquired experience in battle.
It is too far in the past to have any measurable effect of experience on current troops.
The Lieutenants and Captains that led units into battle are now Colonels and Brigadiers responsible for the training and readiness of larger formations. The grunts that fought the war are now senior NCOs and JCOs who do the same. The experience is there, and it is instrumental in shaping the Army as you see it today.
Those Ilyushins are old as hell, AFAIK,
Late eighties isn't "old as hell". Transport aircraft tend to soldier on for 30_ years easily. They're old alright, but they may undergo an extensive refit and upgrade soon.
That's not becoming of a super power.
I just went through the entire thread again, and no one has claimed that India is a superpower. It is a powerful regional player, though, and its capabilities reflect the clout it enjoys in the subcontinent. So good going, knocking down a strawman.
A transport chopper is an integral component of troop and equipment transport. All the attack choppers in the world ain't gonna help if you can't airlift troops.
Eh? Mi-17s, Alouettes, and Dhruvs are all transport choppers.
You conveniently forgot the F-22 or the F-35 projects, or even the talks for a 6th gen fighter. The truth is, those airframes are being phased out, and replaced- by all branches.
And the IAF is phasing out it's old MiGs too, replacing them with modern airframes.
Furthermore, the Indians had sent their most experienced airmen to fight against the Americans whereas the latter belonged to a standard squadron
You forgot to add "according to the Pentagon". Subsequent investigations by Indian journalists showed that it was BS claim. You don't just put your "most experienced" airmen in a squadron and expect them to work seamlessly. For one, not every IAF pilot is type-rated on the MiG-21. And secondly, unless you train and fly extensively together as a squadron, you don't perform effectively. In other words, clubbing the most experienced pilots together in a single unit for the purpose of one exercise would have decreased their performance when compared to a standard IAF unit.
Second, the air engagements typically involved six Eagles against up to eighteen IAF aircraft with no chance to simulate any beyond visual range (BVR) missile shot (due to the Indian request of not using the AMRAAM).
What they didn't mention is that AMRAAMs were simulated in the later stages of the exercise, and that they still failed to simply knock IAF fighters out of the sky without AWACS support. At one point, reports were flying around that the F-15 radars failed to pick up the tiny MiG-21 coated with radar-absorbent materials until the MiGs had gotten off a shot.
I'd love to see newer fighters put up against the IAF.
See Eurofighter vs Su-30MKIearlier this year.
A full-fledged satellite program, or a capable and proven army of drones (god I know, India has indigenous drones),
India doesn't have a full-fledged satellite program? Wow! An army of drones define "technological capabilities" how? They are but one component of a warfighting force. And yes, India has lots of drones in service with a few indigenous models under development too.
or the ability to export its own systems.
Can't export its own systems = lacks technology? Advanced equipment can be bought from abroad. Stupid government policies can prevent export of high-tech items (like radars, EW, missiles, etc.) and have done so regularly. The lack of industrial overcapacity can also prevent export sales if local demand takes up all available production resources.
This is comparing it to the world, by the way.
Well, it is a good thing that India isn't trying to take on "the world" all at once, then.
It's an element of warfare, an integral one in the modern world.
And one that India has demonstrated her capabilities in. So much for that.
The MARCOS won't stop a Chinese invasion, though.
Sir, honest question. Do your goalposts have wheels on them? I ask because you seem to shift them so easily.
First you note that India has old military equipment, buys weapons from abroad, has a conscript Army that needs the Muhreens to train it, etc. When all of this has been proven false, you say that special forces are what's really important. Then, when shown that the Indian special forces are doing just fine, you say that the won't stop a Chinese invasion. At this juncture I'm not sure what your point is, assuming that you are indeed trying to make one.
The MARCOS won't stop a Chinese invasion, though.
As opposed to the Navy Seals, I suppose? I'm sure they'll be able to beat the Chinese all by themselves.
I wasn't solely bashing India for the hell of it
You sure looked like you were.