OK, so thank you for understanding the element of surprise isn't there. That's a topic that your fellow countrymen drag and try to act like it doesn't exist.
Next, yes, you are ALSO correct in that SU-30 can carry larger jamming systems, etc. But realize that for a modern fire-forget bvr.....dodging a missile also means it'll e-acquire a lock unless it explodes its warhead on a defensive target chaffs, flares, etc. Otherwise, if the missile has range and fuel, it'll come back. So in which case, what's easy to reacquire from an RCS's standpoint? A small Horse or an Elephant? Next, in dog fights, what's easy to maneuver.....a small plane or a larger twin turbine jet?
Why do you think Mig-21 and F-16's have always been considered two of the hardest to beat dog fighters in their basic configuration? Because both are small and agile.
I am not trying to project JFT or SU-30's superiority. I am taking both of them into account in combat, SU-30 in offense and JFT in a defensive role. Elsewhere, it will be an entirely different scenario and SU-30 will have an upper hand but in Indo-Pak's scenario, your best strength (in peace if that ever happens) is also your weakest link (such close proximity).
So in this case, SU-30's capabilities are marginalized by your distance. And, it doesn't matter what the bvr doctrine is. That's just focuses on pilot training and engagements. Proximity is just a reality and plays a role. A doctrine can't change the fact that both planes will see each other at the same time, irrespective of one have 200 km extra range.
Second, the doctrine also can't control the fact that the lock ons and missiles away will happen virtually at the same time. I'd be saying the SAME thing if Pakistan had SU-30's and India had JFT's. So my post shouldn't be considered 'anti India' or 'anti Pakistan'. I just speak the truth and if it hurts at times, too bad!
