Do you have evidence for this? Or is this your opinion? Training large numbers of crews like this requires training areas, and large amounts of munitions. How many well trained ATGM crews do you think the Taliban can put out?This is how training works in the Islamic World of a mujahid .
The group build a model of a Bushmaster. They select a firing position. Then they practice hitting it in the fuel tank with a weapon that is likely to leave them unhurt, so long range. When the firer can hit the fuel tank several times in a row, they set up a range where the target is moving slowly, maybe 5-10km/h pulled by a winch. The shooter starts his practice again.
Do you honestly think that this is what Soviet operations in Afghan looked like?Then, they all go out and drag this canon out to where they think there is a patrol and wait...a day, a week, even a month. Then one of the party goes out and kidnaps a child somewhere, and when the patrol vehicle is coming, they send out this child in front of the vehicle. When the vehicle starts to slow down, the shooter fires just one shot, that hits the fuel tank. As the troops dismount, the ambush party attacks at close range. Then the weapon gets buried and camouflaged, and the entire group disperses to meet elsewhere a day, a week or a month later, and start on their way back to the weapon.
The best tactic agains this is what the Soviet Spetznaz did. On foot they would cover no more than 3 km/h patrolling in open country, exposed to mines and IED's, in temperatures sometimes into the high 40's or minus 10 degrees. They would make any mujahideen be prime targets for a dragunov armed sniper. The patrol's sniper would fire just once. And wait, tracking the mujahideen to fire again, an hour, a day, a week later...just once. The mujahid is not afraid to die, but he is afraid to die without firing back.
What you mean to say is that you are unable to present your views systematically and coherently. Instead you ramble on, contradict yourself, and make factual errors one after another. Indeed if you were in a position to act on your ideas, I would be sorry for Australia. But I'm pretty sure you're not. Now why don't you get your facts straight, at least in terms of existing platforms and doctrines. And then start to figure out what you think is missing.If we can build an ICV in two decades we will have equalled the US effort with the Bradley. I think we can do better
I have decided to do, rather than talk, so will not participate in this forum actively since talking achieves nothing.
Actually 4th generation is a set of defined performance parameters, and capabilities. I'm well aware that you don't know what it is, but I do.I don't know what a 4th generation fighter aircraft is, and neither do you. Frankly I don't care. Air combat is greater than the sum of all those factors you listed, and the best aircraft is the one that gets to land rather than be collected by a garbage truck.
Until the J-10 flies in combat, we won't know.
And you're absolutely correct, air combat is more then a sum of those factors. Mainly because air combat is fought by a combined force of multiple platforms, attacking against a specific center of gravity within a certain doctrinal arrangement. However air combat is not some mystery. It's a thoroughly analyzable and understandable activity. The fact that you try to discount it as some sort of mystery only highlights your own ignorance.
You obviously have no interest in learning.
You obviously lack specific knowledge in the subject area.
You have very many ideas, but do not have a coherent and well organized system.
Between those 3, I don't see what there is for you to do on these forums so I believe I speak for all when I say good riddance.