And the aircraft itself is only one component of a networked strike package, as is its missiles and other weapons. Do correct me if Im wrong but the Archer isnt even designed for digital data link. In fact the Russian Air Force itself is far, far behind us in data links, data processing power and speed, battle space management, software development, avionics, multi mission capability.
All true, IMO anyway, but I was using the past Archer in the 80s vs Western missiles from the 80s, not Russian 80s vs future Western tech. The West at the time was far behind in terms of their best short range IR missiles as compared to the Soviet AA11 at the time, and had no idea, in fact the West thought the exact opposite, that the Aim9 was leaps ahead, when it was in fact leaps behind. Comparing the AA11 from THEN to Norwegian and other missiles NOW is apples and oranges. The point being that there IS exceptions to the "all Russian stuff is inferior and behind us", as the AA11 in the 80s is a perfect example, and shows that it's just as likely the case with certain exceptions currently as well. If the Russians had a huge advantage in the primary air to air weapons system used then in the 80s, it's certainly possible, even likely, they have systems in some arena that are far more effective than what the West is using overall right now. Also, speaking to the data link example you gave, the Mig 31 in fact had the first data link and airborne network back in the 80s, and it worked very well according to Western intel assessments.
A2A missiles may not operate in a "vacuum", but the bottom line is in the 80s active seeker radar guided missiles weren't fielded yet, and the semi active radar missiles were used at least as often as a means to force the enemy to maneuver to a place of disadvantage as they were to actually go for a kill - point being that the IR guided missile was the weapon most likely to be used to kill. Both sides operating in this fashion meant visual range/IR fights would have been happening all across the board, and HAD that war even happened, the Soviets had a huge, HUGE advantage with Archer, and the initial F16/F18 drills vs the German Mig29/ARcher combination proved this.
Sure, western tactics and strategy, employment of airborne control systems like AWACS and other types of EW aircraft, and all that, were far superior to the Soviets at that time, but there WOULD have been visual range fights still, a lot of them, since Soviet fighters outnumbered NATO by a large factor, and the primary weapon used by both sides would have been far more effective on the Russians side. My point is that the Archer advantage in the 80s was unknown, and by that, right now, there is likely other things we don't know about Russian (and Chinese now) hardware capabilities, places where the West thinks there is a huge advantage in capability, but there isn't, and maybe even the reverse.
I don't think anyone here will argue with you Rich that overall Western technology, and the fashion in which it is employed, is still ahead of all potential adversaries. The gap is closing though, and quickly. The RAND report just came out on Chinese military power. It trashes Chinese military capability, it's sure to get a response from the Chinese, should be a funny press release when it comes. Overall, interesting stuff.
Look at the picture Breaking Defense used at the head of the article they wrote covering the report, and try not to laugh, I dare you.
http://breakingdefense.com/category/intel-and-cyber/
