Did I say, "...even poorly trained pilots can beat you?" No. Poorly trained pilots can hurt you.

Don't forget that besides having poorly trained pilots, the IJN and Syrian Air Force were also severely lacking in modern equipment during those engagements.

EDIT: Oh, and also in numbers, which is another critical factor.

Technological quality more and more pushes back the need for human quality in war tech. Like it or not. Who can fire the missiles of higher reach and better sensors first, usually wins. Modern infrared A-A missiles are almost impossible to be intentionally evaded, for radar missiles he who shoots first forces the other into the defensive. While force multipliers like intel and AWACS are a factor, missile's legs obviously is a factor, too.

Modern Russian missiles have very long legs that outrun Western missiles.

Better technology can compensate numerical inferiority to a certain degree - and not beyond.

America never has confronted top modern Russian equipment and top trained Russian experts in combination. Beating less trained personnel of third world armies with B- and C-grade equipement of export quality, does not really tell you the ultimate truth about how it would end with the real enemy in place.

This because russian doctrine, inherited from USSR times, calls for a huge SAM umbrella while NATO doctrine was centered in airplanes to achieve air superiority.

Quantity has a quality all of its own.:03:

Lets hope it stays this way....

I thought about air-launched missiles and plane armament only anyway. If I were a pilot and wpuld have free choice, I am not sure that I would automatically pick for example AMRAAM´s for medium range missiles.