Airpower: India threatens US air superiority
Yeoman
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20040623/ap_on_re_us/us_air_force
General: U.S. Dominance of Skies May Wane
2 hours, 37 minutes ago
By JOHN J. LUMPKIN, Associated Press Writer
WASHINGTON - The success of the Indian air force against American
fighter planes in a recent exercise suggests other countries may soon
be able to threaten U.S. military dominance of the skies, a top Air
Force general said Wednesday.
"We may not be as far ahead of the rest of the world as we thought we
were," said Gen. Hal M. Hornburg, the chief of Air Combat Command,
which oversees U.S. fighter and bomber wings.
The U.S.-India joint exercise, "Cope India," took place in February
near Gwalior in central, India. It pitted some F-15C Eagle fighters
from the 3rd Wing at Elmendorf Air Force Base, Alaska, in mock combat
against Indian MiG, Sukhoi and Mirage fighters.
The F-15Cs are the Air Force's primary air superiority aircraft. The
Indian fighters, of Russian and French design, are the type of planes
U.S. fighters would most likely face in any overseas conflict.
Hornburg, speaking to reporters, called the results of the exercise "a
wake-up call" in some respects, but he declined to provide details,
other than to suggest the Indian air force scored several unexpected
successes against the American planes.
For the last 15 years, the U.S. military has enjoyed almost total
command of the air during conflicts. A few fighters and
fighter-bombers have gone down, usually victims of surface-to-air
missile fire, but in general, American planes have been able to target
enemy ground forces at will.
In the most recent invasion of Iraq (news - web sites), Saddam Hussein
(news - web sites)'s air force stayed grounded.
Still, new tactics, better Russian fighters like the Su-30, and a new
generation of surface-to-air missiles mean that U.S. dominance could
be ending, said Loren Thompson, who follows military issues for the
Lexington Institute, a Washington think tank.
"The United States has grown accustomed to having global air
superiority, yet we haven't put much very much money in the last
generation into maintaining that advantage," he said, noting the F-15
first flew in the 1970s.
"So of course the rest of the world is finally starting to catch up,"
he said.
Hornburg said the exercise shows the need for some new Air Force
fighters, particularly the F/A-22 Raptor, which is intended to replace
the F-15C. But critics deride the aircraft as too expensive and built
to counter a threat that hasn't existed since the Soviet Union
collapsed.
L'acrobat
"Yeoman" <yeoma...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1c4cedba.04062...@posting.google.com...
>
>
> Hornburg said the exercise shows the need for some new Air Force
> fighters, particularly the F/A-22 Raptor, which is intended to replace
> the F-15C. But critics deride the aircraft as too expensive and built
> to counter a threat that hasn't existed since the Soviet Union
> collapsed.
A cynic would suggest that the entire point of the exercise (for the USAF)
was to make sure that the F-15s did not win convincingly, allowing the USAF
to push the F-22.
Ragnar
"L'acrobat" <husky.65@delete_me.bigpond.com> wrote in message
news:OwvCc.61838$sj4....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
Another cynic would suggest that the F-15s were not flown with full support
packages, or were not flown to their max capability in order to not give
away too much to the Indians.
Stanley L Lock
This is a bit of tree shaking by the U.S. air force. They want the
F-22 built
by hook or crook and this I believe is somebodies crook attempt to
influence congress crittiers to build the F-22.
However the Russians and Indians are good and capable engineers and
know how to build an excellent airplane.
The part of the story about the Fishbed(mig 21-j) beating an F-15 is a
dead give away. THe Air force probadly rigged the test and allowed
India to win. An F-15 has a Fishbed outgunned and out powered and the
ability to outrun and then destroy the fishbed from quite a distance.
yours truly,
stanleverlock
Bryan Heit
>Notwithstanding the fact that operating in a non-hostile environment
>is a hell of a lot different that in a 'real' war; something Indian
>pilots have little or no experience. In every actual air war in which
>the U.S. has been involved, they have always come out on top.
>
>
>
You pay much attention to thw world? India has a lot of experience with
war, be it the three "formal" wars with Pakistan, their ongoing conflict
within Kashmir, or their ongoing conflict with China over their northern
boarder. Indian pilots probably have as near, if not as much, combat
experience as their US counterparts.
Bryan
Ed Rasimus
wrote:
And, one would most assuredly want to see the training objectives,
engagement scenarios and ROE for the exercise.
Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
Smithsonian Institution Press
ISBN #1-58834-103-8
Cam Newton
wrote:
>Notwithstanding the fact that operating in a non-hostile environment
>is a hell of a lot different that in a 'real' war; something Indian
>pilots have little or no experience. In every actual air war in which
>the U.S. has been involved, they have always come out on top.
>
Oh no, the Indian pilots do operate in a hostile environment: Indian
airspace. They keep dropping the old Rusky birds like gum wrappers.
Cam Newton
Come on. No other air force has as much experience as the US. The
Brist would be second.
Tim
>On Thu, 24 Jun 2004 07:37:18 GMT, "L'acrobat"
><husky.65@delete_me.bigpond.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>Notwithstanding the fact that operating in a non-hostile environment
>is a hell of a lot different that in a 'real' war; something Indian
>pilots have little or no experience. In every actual air war in which
>the U.S. has been involved, they have always come out on top.
>
Who have they actually fought with since W.W.II?
Steve Hix
Tim <noco...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
> >
> >Notwithstanding the fact that operating in a non-hostile environment
> >is a hell of a lot different that in a 'real' war; something Indian
> >pilots have little or no experience. In every actual air war in which
> >the U.S. has been involved, they have always come out on top.
>
> Who have they actually fought with since W.W.II?
North Korea/(+Soviet Russian pilots)
NVNaf.
Iraq AF in round 1.
Tuollaf43
> On Thu, 24 Jun 2004 17:06:49 +0900, "Ragnar" <rwo...@kornet.net>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >"L'acrobat" <husky.65@delete_me.bigpond.com> wrote in message
> >news:OwvCc.61838$sj4....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> >>
> >> "Yeoman" <yeoma...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> >> news:1c4cedba.04062...@posting.google.com...
> >>
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > Hornburg said the exercise shows the need for some new Air Force
> >> > fighters, particularly the F/A-22 Raptor, which is intended to replace
> >> > the F-15C. But critics deride the aircraft as too expensive and built
> >> > to counter a threat that hasn't existed since the Soviet Union
> >> > collapsed.
> >>
> >> A cynic would suggest that the entire point of the exercise (for the USAF)
> >> was to make sure that the F-15s did not win convincingly, allowing the
> USAF
> >> to push the F-22.
So losing to Fishbeds was part of a cunning plan too? hmmm.
I wonder what the defense appropiations committee (or whatever
equivalent there is in that part of the woods) will think about an
USAF General pleading for F-22s because the Eagles can no longer keep
up with the Fishbeds.
> >>
> >
> >Another cynic would suggest that the F-15s were not flown with full support
> >packages, or were not flown to their max capability in order to not give
> >away too much to the Indians.
Actually neither were the IAF aircraft. For instance the Flankers
flown against the USAF were vanilla versions, not the latest -MKI mark
which is still in purdah.
> >
>
> And, one would most assuredly want to see the training objectives,
> engagement scenarios and ROE for the exercise.
As far as I have been able to gather, none of the scenarios envisaged
a high-noon one on one air battles; atleast not any that has come to
my notice. The biggest USAF failure was not that the exchange ratio
was unfavorable (it was) but that they were unable to successfully
accomplish their assigned missions - 'their' airfield got 'bombed' and
the strike aircraft (IAF aircraft) they were providing cover to got
interdicted.
And incidents where the USAF were outnumbered involved those in which
the numerical superiority of their simulated adversaries was primarily
in strike aircraft, not fighters/interceptors. The aircraft that most
surprised the USAF is said to be the Fishbed and not the Flanker (this
according to the IAF observers, not USAF).
Notably CM and defensive suits were not part of the equation - very
probably the only significant area in which the USAF enjoys marked
superiority over IAF counterparts on an airframe to airframe basis. In
the real world an IAF pilot could get in a first shot with the Alamo
which is evaded and still get killed by a return 120 shot which is not
so easily evaded.
Tuollaf43
Not that I am arguing that fishbed is superior to the eagles but are
you aware that _these_ fishbeds can shoot medium range active radar
homing missiles? And in WVR the Eagle is no match for an nimble
R-73/HMS equipped Fishbed. These are not your grandma's fishbed from
SEA no more :)
>
> yours truly,
>
> stanleverlock
Ed Rasimus
>Ed Rasimus <rasimu...@adelphia.net> wrote in message news:<h1rld011jmgnqvdo6...@4ax.com>...
No part of what is quoted between this line and my sig below was
anything that I posted.
The text of my post leading to this exchange which has been excised
here was:
"And, one would most assuredly want to see the training objectives,
engagement scenarios and ROE for the exercise."
Nothing that has been added here addresses that aspect of the
exercise.
John Keeney
"Tuollaf43" <tuol...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:aeb0de85.04062...@posting.google.com...
> stanlever...@yahoo.com (Stanley L Lock) wrote in message
news:<267fe1f3.04062...@posting.google.com>...
> > dead give away. THe Air force probadly rigged the test and allowed
> > India to win. An F-15 has a Fishbed outgunned and out powered and the
> > ability to outrun and then destroy the fishbed from quite a distance.
>
> Not that I am arguing that fishbed is superior to the eagles but are
> you aware that _these_ fishbeds can shoot medium range active radar
> homing missiles? And in WVR the Eagle is no match for an nimble
> R-73/HMS equipped Fishbed. These are not your grandma's fishbed from
> SEA no more :)
I am as yet to find "the part of the story about the Fishbed".
It's clearly not in the article originally linked, wasn't to give
me a pointer?
Stanley L Lock
Dear Mr. Kenny,
There was no Mig -21j(fishbed) mentioned in the article.
When you start speaking about performance parameters of military
technologies, you must speak from a common frame of reference.
My statement built around the fact that the Mig-21J in a standup
dogfight with pilot training being equal (Which it is usually not)
against the American F-15C, 7 out of 10 times will be defeated by the
F-15C.
Also assuming the exercise was without air to air missiles or the
advantage of superior numbers.
The article is built around I believe around a typical air exercise
with the India Air force using / having superior numbers of at least 4
to 1 aircraft.
Also mentioned was a new model of Mig-21 called a (Bison).
This is an odd Nato code name to label a fighter as the Bison was a
Nato label attached to the M-3 / M-4 bomber /air tanker / Elint
aircraft flown by the Soviet air force from 1947? - 1977?
My understanding of what happened was an Air force exercise staged in
India where a prearranged aircraft numbers and types engage in an
dogfight happens in a montiored airspace to test pilot proficiency
and aircraft effectiveness against different national air forces.
My main theme is the exercise was rigged to the diadvantage of the
U.S. Air force and then used by the U.S. Air Force General staff to
demostrate a need for the congressional funding and production of the
F-22.
yours truly,
Stanleverlock
ZZBunker
>
> http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20040623/ap_on_re_us/us_air_force
> General: U.S. Dominance of Skies May Wane
>
> 2 hours, 37 minutes ago
>
> By JOHN J. LUMPKIN, Associated Press Writer
>
> WASHINGTON - The success of the Indian air force against American
> fighter planes in a recent exercise suggests other countries may soon
> be able to threaten U.S. military dominance of the skies, a top Air
> Force general said Wednesday.
That is not news. Since nobody other than *The US Army*
ever claimed that US *Fighter* jets of any type
were ever light years ahead of French fighter jets.
Since that goes back to before the US Air Force even existed,
circa 1910, that's obviously why we built the US Air Force
a hole in Wyoming to comptemplate strategy, rather than more
waste-of-US-taxpayer-money, Frenchish fighter jets
and Air Show vehicles. Since the entire Indian military,
including it's rockets, submarines, sat-coms,
AAW, ASW, ELINT, C3I, computers, Harpoons, Tomahawks,
Dam Busters, Stand-Off-Missles, SEAL Force, and Delta Force,
are still shall we say at the primitive military level of
Russian, Chinese, Iraqi, Israeli, and Korean tank technology.
So we are not worried about their French jets.
>
> "We may not be as far ahead of the rest of the world as we thought we
> were," said Gen. Hal M. Hornburg, the chief of Air Combat Command,
> which oversees U.S. fighter and bomber wings.
Since the B-52 is still the only non-stealth,
sub-sonic, gas-guzzing, black-smoke spewing
heavy bomber in the entire world, that regularly
bombs Iraq every 10 years, and optionally
bombs Israeli, and Saudia Arabia, that's
obviously why we didn't let the US Air Force
build bombers in WWII, and we don't let
them build them today.
ZZBunker
>
> http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20040623/ap_on_re_us/us_air_force
> General: U.S. Dominance of Skies May Wane
>
> 2 hours, 37 minutes ago
>
> By JOHN J. LUMPKIN, Associated Press Writer
>
> WASHINGTON - The success of the Indian air force against American
> fighter planes in a recent exercise suggests other countries may soon
> be able to threaten U.S. military dominance of the skies, a top Air
> Force general said Wednesday.
That is not news. Since nobody other than *The US Army*
ever claimed that US *Fighter* jets of any type
were ever light years ahead of French fighter jets.
Since that goes back to before the US Air Force even existed,
circa 1910, that's obviously why we built the US Air Force
a hole in Wyoming to comptemplate strategy, rather than more
waste-of-US-taxpayer-money, Frenchish fighter jets
and Air Show vehicles. Since the entire Indian military,
including it's rockets, submarines, sat-coms,
AAW, ASW, ELINT, C3I, computers, Harpoons, Tomahawks,
Dam Busters, Stand-Off-Missles, SEAL Force, and Delta Force,
are still shall we say at the primitive military level of
Russian, Chinese, Iraqi, Israeli, and Korean tank technology.
So we are not worried about their French jets.
>
> "We may not be as far ahead of the rest of the world as we thought we
> were," said Gen. Hal M. Hornburg, the chief of Air Combat Command,
> which oversees U.S. fighter and bomber wings.
Since the B-52 is still the only non-stealth,
Stanley L Lock
> "John Keeney" <jdke...@iglou.com> wrote in message news:<40dd1...@news.iglou.com>...
> > "Tuollaf43" <tuol...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > news:aeb0de85.04062...@posting.google.com...
> > > stanlever...@yahoo.com (Stanley L Lock) wrote in message
> news:<267fe1f3.04062...@posting.google.com>...
> > > > The part of the story about the Fishbed(mig 21-j) beating an F-15 is a
> > > > dead give away. THe Air force probadly rigged the test and allowed
> > > > India to win. An F-15 has a Fishbed outgunned and out powered and the
> > > > ability to outrun and then destroy the fishbed from quite a distance.
> > >
> > > Not that I am arguing that fishbed is superior to the eagles but are
> > > you aware that _these_ fishbeds can shoot medium range active radar
> > > homing missiles? And in WVR the Eagle is no match for an nimble
> > > R-73/HMS equipped Fishbed. These are not your grandma's fishbed from
> > > SEA no more :)
> >
> > I am as yet to find "the part of the story about the Fishbed".
> > It's clearly not in the article originally linked, wasn't to give
> > me a pointer?
>
>
> Dear Mr. Kenny,
>
> When you start speaking about performance parameters of military
> technologies, you must speak from a common frame of reference.
> My statement built around the fact that the Mig-21J in a standup
> dogfight with pilot training being equal (Which it is usually not)
> against the American F-15C, 7 out of 10 times will be defeated by the
> F-15C.
> Also assuming the exercise was without air to air missiles or the
> advantage of superior numbers.
> with the India Air force using / having superior numbers of at least 4
> to 1 aircraft.
"In the offensive counterair scenarios, a small number of F-15Cs
would attempt to intercept an enemy strike aircraft en route to a
target that was guarded by a larger number of Indian
fighters. In the defensive counterair missions, the F-15s would
attempt to defend a target against Indian fighters.
In these offensive and defensive missions, four F-15Cs were usually
flying against 10 or 12 of the same model Indian fighter, according to
Col. Greg Neubeck, deputy commander of operations for the wing's 3rd
Operations Group and exercise director for Cope India. "
This is a direct quote from the article as posted by an Indian
National on the Yahoo E-mail World War II discussion group. THe
article was published in the Indian Press.
> Also mentioned was a new model of Mig-21 called a (Bison).
> This is an odd Nato code name to label a fighter as the Bison was a
> Nato label attached to the M-3 / M-4 bomber /air tanker / Elint
> aircraft flown by the Soviet air force from 1947? - 1977?
"The Indians flew a number of different fighters, including the
French-made Mirage 2000 and the Russian-made MIG-27 and MIG-29, but
the two most formidable IAF aircraft proved to be the MIG-21 Bison, an
upgraded version of the Russian-made baseline MIG-21, and the SU-30K
Flanker, also made in Russia, Neubeck said. He emphasized the fact
that U.S. forces were always outnumbered in these scenarios, but said
the missions proved more difficult than expected."
This a direct quotation from the article that was posted to Yahoo
E-Mail WWII military history Site.
"Although service officials have been reluctant to detail how the
Indians performed against the six F-15Cs from the 3rd Wing that
participated in Cope India, Rep. Duke Cunningham (R-CA) said in a Feb.
26 House Appropriations defense subcommittee hearing that U.S. F-15Cs
were defeated more than 90 percent of the time in direct combat
exercises against the IAF."
again a direct quote from the article posted by an Indian National on
Yahoo E-mail site for W W II military history.
Tuollaf43
Bison is _not_ a NATO/ASCC codename. The original airframes (various
submarks of MiG-21bis) received a drastric upgrade and they needed a
new name to identify this variant. Someone in the IAF got cute and
named it 'Bison', presumably for 'Son of Bis'.
> My understanding of what happened was an Air force exercise staged in
> India where a prearranged aircraft numbers and types engage in an
> dogfight happens in a montiored airspace to test pilot proficiency
> and aircraft effectiveness against different national air forces.
> My main theme is the exercise was rigged to the diadvantage of the
> U.S. Air force and then used by the U.S. Air Force General staff to
> demostrate a need for the congressional funding and production of the
> F-22.
Yes, yes. Many are speculating that- but do you have any specific
information that can confirm or deny it?
>
>
> yours truly,
>
> Stanleverlock
Tuollaf43
> yeoma...@yahoo.com (Yeoman) wrote in message news:<1c4cedba.04062...@posting.google.com>...
> > What's going on here? Is this for real?
> >
> > http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20040623/ap_on_re_us/us_air_force
> > General: U.S. Dominance of Skies May Wane
> >
> > 2 hours, 37 minutes ago
> >
> > By JOHN J. LUMPKIN, Associated Press Writer
> >
> > WASHINGTON - The success of the Indian air force against American
> > fighter planes in a recent exercise suggests other countries may soon
> > be able to threaten U.S. military dominance of the skies, a top Air
> > Force general said Wednesday.
>
> That is not news. Since nobody other than *The US Army*
> ever claimed that US *Fighter* jets of any type
> were ever light years ahead of French fighter jets.
umm, the aircraft that were said to kick eagle butt were not french
(except for some cockpit components) but russian.
> Since that goes back to before the US Air Force even existed,
> circa 1910, that's obviously why we built the US Air Force
> a hole in Wyoming to comptemplate strategy, rather than more
> waste-of-US-taxpayer-money, Frenchish fighter jets
> and Air Show vehicles. Since the entire Indian military,
> including it's rockets, submarines, sat-coms,
> AAW, ASW, ELINT, C3I, computers, Harpoons, Tomahawks,
> Dam Busters,
I doubt weather the IAF or for that matter PAF will ever be uncouth
enough to target dams or for that matter water or sewage treatment
plants. That is a very US'ish thing.
> Stand-Off-Missles, SEAL Force, and Delta Force,
> are still shall we say at the primitive military level of
> Russian, Chinese, Iraqi, Israeli, and Korean tank technology.
Interesting. I never knew Indian Tomahawks had Korean or Chinese or
Israeli tank technology. This is facinating. Pray continue.
Tuollaf43
> > What's going on here? Is this for real?
> >
> > http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20040623/ap_on_re_us/us_air_force
> > General: U.S. Dominance of Skies May Wane
> >
> > 2 hours, 37 minutes ago
> >
> > By JOHN J. LUMPKIN, Associated Press Writer
> >
> > WASHINGTON - The success of the Indian air force against American
> > fighter planes in a recent exercise suggests other countries may soon
> > be able to threaten U.S. military dominance of the skies, a top Air
> > Force general said Wednesday.
>
> That is not news. Since nobody other than *The US Army*
> ever claimed that US *Fighter* jets of any type
> were ever light years ahead of French fighter jets.
> Since that goes back to before the US Air Force even existed,
> circa 1910, that's obviously why we built the US Air Force
> a hole in Wyoming to comptemplate strategy, rather than more
> waste-of-US-taxpayer-money, Frenchish fighter jets
> and Air Show vehicles.
Since you love the french so much here's something you will probably
like to hear. The frogs visited the IAF and thrashed them a while
back. Now the USAF came and got their butt spanked (with low tech
korean tank technology aircraft and missiles mind you).
> Since the entire Indian military,
> including it's rockets, submarines, sat-coms,
> AAW, ASW, ELINT, C3I, computers, Harpoons, Tomahawks,
> Dam Busters, Stand-Off-Missles, SEAL Force, and Delta Force,
> are still shall we say at the primitive military level of
> Russian, Chinese, Iraqi, Israeli, and Korean tank technology.
> So we are not worried about their French jets.
>
> >
> > "We may not be as far ahead of the rest of the world as we thought we
> > were," said Gen. Hal M. Hornburg, the chief of Air Combat Command,
> > which oversees U.S. fighter and bomber wings.
>
> Since the B-52 is still the only non-stealth,
> sub-sonic, gas-guzzing, black-smoke spewing
> heavy bomber in the entire world,
umm, the Bears dont fly any more? or they merely dont spew impressive
amounts of black smoke?
ZZBunker
Nobody cares what the hell the IAF does.
The RAF targeted German dams in WWII,
and helped us win WWII. Who wins
the Indian/Pakistan war nobody cares
except the Russians, the Commie
Chinese, The Queen Of England
and maybe Buddha, Lenin, Yoko Ono and
The Beatles.
>
> > Stand-Off-Missles, SEAL Force, and Delta Force,
> > are still shall we say at the primitive military level of
> > Russian, Chinese, Iraqi, Israeli, and Korean tank technology.
>
> Interesting. I never knew Indian Tomahawks had Korean or Chinese or
> Israeli tank technology. This is facinating. Pray continue.
The Indian Harpoons are the technological equivalent
of Russian Nuclear Reactors, which
are the technological equivalent of
Napeleon with a gay German, Israeli, or British tank
as it's mistress.
ZZBunker
> > yeoma...@yahoo.com (Yeoman) wrote in message news:<1c4cedba.04062...@posting.google.com>...
> > > What's going on here? Is this for real?
> > >
> > > http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20040623/ap_on_re_us/us_air_force
> > > General: U.S. Dominance of Skies May Wane
> > >
> > > 2 hours, 37 minutes ago
> > >
> > > By JOHN J. LUMPKIN, Associated Press Writer
> > >
> > > WASHINGTON - The success of the Indian air force against American
> > > fighter planes in a recent exercise suggests other countries may soon
> > > be able to threaten U.S. military dominance of the skies, a top Air
> > > Force general said Wednesday.
> >
> > That is not news. Since nobody other than *The US Army*
> > ever claimed that US *Fighter* jets of any type
> > were ever light years ahead of French fighter jets.
>
> umm, the aircraft that were said to kick eagle butt were not french
> (except for some cockpit components) but russian.
BTW, since MIG technology is 100% pure stolen
US technology, we are infinitely less curious about
what Russians or their Chinese Salesmen do with Jets
than what idiots in the French Air Force do with Jets.
t_mark
> information that can confirm or deny it?
How about the fact that the defense appropriations committee was the target
of these comments, and the fact that a US commander would so blatantly
state - with his name attached, knowing it would become public knowledge -
that we got our asses kicked, were surprised by it, and we need to do more
to ensure we don't lose our lead?
It's fairly obvious what's going on, and it's not an uncommon thing.
t_mark
> enough to target dams or for that matter water or sewage treatment
> plants. That is a very US'ish thing.
Or they could target civilians specifically and lay waste to everything they
see. You know, a Russian thing. Or perhaps just avoiding the air
altogether and committing crimes against humanity, you know, like Canadian
peacekeepers have been known to do.
t_mark
> like to hear. The frogs visited the IAF and thrashed them a while
> back. Now the USAF came and got their butt spanked (with low tech
> korean tank technology aircraft and missiles mind you).
Which should probably tell you something about the validity of what took
place. That is, if you could actually think for yourself.
Tuollaf43
But then Lenin, Yoko Ono and the Beatles - They are the ones who
really matter.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >
> > > Stand-Off-Missles, SEAL Force, and Delta Force,
> > > are still shall we say at the primitive military level of
> > > Russian, Chinese, Iraqi, Israeli, and Korean tank technology.
> >
> > Interesting. I never knew Indian Tomahawks had Korean or Chinese or
> > Israeli tank technology. This is facinating. Pray continue.
>
> The Indian Harpoons are the technological equivalent
> of Russian Nuclear Reactors, which
> are the technological equivalent of
> Napeleon with a gay German, Israeli, or British tank
> as it's mistress.
I am tempted to call you as a troll. But as I cant understand a word
of your gibberish I cant tell that with any certainity. So I will
settle for calling you as an incoherent idiot. It is possible that you
are so smart that you are wholly beyond my capacity to understand you
- but I think that the chances of that are rather remote.
Stanley L Lock
> > India where a prearranged aircraft numbers and types engage in an
> > dogfight happens in a montiored airspace to test pilot proficiency
> > and aircraft effectiveness against different national air forces.
> > My main theme is the exercise was rigged to the diadvantage of the
> > U.S. Air force and then used by the U.S. Air Force General staff to
> > demostrate a need for the congressional funding and production of the
> > F-22.
>
> Yes, yes. Many are speculating that- but do you have any specific
> information that can confirm or deny it?
>
the answer to your question is No , i have no direct verifible
source other than historical record.
My answer is based on the speculatution that the Air force want the
F-22 built and the way to win that sceanario is make sure that
Congress understands that the Russians and the Indians have built
better Airplanes.
Thee are too many co incidences in this little news item to make
knowledgeable people suspicious? Remember the bomber gap?
yours truly,
Stanleverlock
Tuollaf43
No it is not fairly obvious. The pilots who shot down the eagle
drivers were better pilots. The Flanker and the Eagle are aircraft of
rougly equal performance. The Flanker boys were on the home ground. It
is not unconceivable that eagles could have been shot down fair and
square.
Until you know the details and have have specific information (which
WILL surface eventually) I cant see how anyone can do anything but
speculate.
Tuollaf43
> > Since you love the french so much here's something you will probably
> > like to hear. The frogs visited the IAF and thrashed them a while
> > back. Now the USAF came and got their butt spanked (with low tech
> > korean tank technology aircraft and missiles mind you).
>
> Which should probably tell you something about the validity of what took
> place.
Little knowledge is dangerous, specially in the heads of the
semi-smart. First, I wrote what I wrote to pull one of ZZBunkers hind
legs. Second, What I said was true but it is not the complete story.
The french excercises took place between upgraded French Mirage 2000s
and older mark Indian Mirage 2000Hs. The Indians murdered the french
in WVR. But the French trounced the Indians in BVR because the Indian
Mirages have a radar that is an generation older than what the french
had. Second, unlike the flanker/bison boys the Mirage 2000 is treated
primarily as an precision attack aircraft in the IAF rather than a
counter-air or air-superiority machine.
So how the primarily attack oriented inferior Mirages did against the
french does not say anything about how the flankers would do against
the USAF.
> That is, if you could actually think for yourself.
Ah wonderful.
Let it be noted that uptil now I have not commented on the validity of
the results. I merely mentioned what I know about the excercises as
well as how the results even if 'cooked' are desirable to both the
players; the USAF and the IAF; for very different reasons. Yet
surprisingly you seem to have a pretty good idea what I think even
before I say it. You are either extremely smart or rather dumb - I
think I have a fairly good idea which of the two you actually are.
Finally let me return the complement and remind you to refrain from
making a complete ass of yourself by commenting on stuff you dont know
shit about.
Tuollaf43
> > I doubt weather the IAF or for that matter PAF will ever be uncouth
> > enough to target dams or for that matter water or sewage treatment
> > plants. That is a very US'ish thing.
>
> Or they could target civilians specifically and lay waste to everything they
> see. You know, a Russian thing.
Very unlikely. They fought three conventional wars and were careful to
refrain from that kind of stuff.
> Or perhaps just avoiding the air
> altogether and committing crimes against humanity, you know, like Canadian
> peacekeepers have been known to do.
Now that is a possibility.
Ed Rasimus
>> It's fairly obvious what's going on, and it's not an uncommon thing.
>
>No it is not fairly obvious. The pilots who shot down the eagle
>drivers were better pilots. The Flanker and the Eagle are aircraft of
>rougly equal performance. The Flanker boys were on the home ground. It
>is not unconceivable that eagles could have been shot down fair and
>square.
It is indeed, not inconceivable. We have a saying, "shit happens."
Everyone loses once in a while. The important rule about becoming an
"old, bold" type is to recognize that while you don't always win, you
can never afford to lose. Losing in an exercise scenario can have
positive outcomes for the future. Winning in an exercise scenario may
mean little more than you've gotten some training.
>
>Until you know the details and have have specific information (which
>WILL surface eventually) I cant see how anyone can do anything but
>speculate.
Ahh, at last! We come around to my original question. What was the
scenario? What were the training objectives? What were the ROE? What
all was in play? Did AWACS participate? Was there GCI? Did both sides
have full support? What weapons? Was it ACMI? What kill criteria? Was
it BVR, WVR or some combination? Who refereed?
I've got no doubt that the IAF can mount some very good drivers with a
load of experience. I've also got no doubt that the USAF can send some
inexperienced, marginally competent drivers to exercises and even into
combat. One can only recall Scott "Hoover" O'Grady for example.
To conclude the generality that Eagles are no longer viable isn't very
good. To conclude that IAF Flankers are uniformly superior isn't much
better. To conclude that this could be an orchestrated outcome for the
purpose of convincing a recalcitrant Congress that a 35-year old
weapon system might be due for replacing with F-22 isn't a bad option.
Check 6!
ZZBunker
That is not true, since the Rolling Stones, The Who,
and The Doors showed that the Beatles and Yoko Ono
are completely irrelevent to British Titles,
volume, and skreaking music.
And Elvis Presley that all of them,
Lenin, New York, Los Angelos, Washington DC,
and the entire Euro-Asian Continent are completely
irrelevent to idea of Economics.
>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > >
> > > > Stand-Off-Missles, SEAL Force, and Delta Force,
> > > > are still shall we say at the primitive military level of
> > > > Russian, Chinese, Iraqi, Israeli, and Korean tank technology.
> > >
> > > Interesting. I never knew Indian Tomahawks had Korean or Chinese or
> > > Israeli tank technology. This is facinating. Pray continue.
> >
> > The Indian Harpoons are the technological equivalent
> > of Russian Nuclear Reactors, which
> > are the technological equivalent of
> > Napeleon with a gay German, Israeli, or British tank
> > as it's mistress.
>
> I am tempted to call you as a troll. But as I cant understand a word
> of your gibberish I cant tell that with any certainity. So I will
> settle for calling you as an incoherent idiot. It is possible that you
> are so smart that you are wholly beyond my capacity to understand you
> - but I think that the chances of that are rather remote.
Since even a 767 is beyond the capacity of the
the US military, Russian military,
and Indian military to understand that
is obvious. Which is why they're all
sent to Iraq or Israel, with their retarted French
scientists, rather than stored locally
for computer assistance.
Tuollaf43
That is the problem; it is too pat. Is congress really that dumb?
> Remember the bomber gap?
No, but I have read about it.
>
> yours truly,
>
> Stanleverlock
Paul J. Adam
<rasimu...@adelphia.net> writes
>On 28 Jun 2004 09:50:36 -0700, tuol...@yahoo.com (Tuollaf43) wrote:
>>Until you know the details and have have specific information (which
>>WILL surface eventually) I cant see how anyone can do anything but
>>speculate.
>
>Ahh, at last! We come around to my original question. What was the
>scenario? What were the training objectives? What were the ROE? What
>all was in play? Did AWACS participate? Was there GCI? Did both sides
>have full support? What weapons? Was it ACMI? What kill criteria? Was
>it BVR, WVR or some combination? Who refereed?
I recall an article by the late Jeff Ethell in which he described how
the air force of Chile handed a US Navy carrier air group its head on a
silver platter. It made for entertaining reading and I'm sure useful
lessons were learned by both sides. Certainly the fact that Mr Ethell
was a backseat passenger in an F-5F for several sorties could never have
influenced his opinion :)
I would be extremely wary of extrapolating, from that exercise, that
F-14s and F/A-18s would be rapidly clawed from the skies by F-5s and
Hawker Hunters. No radar-guided weapons were considered (whether carried
by fighters or by ships), AWACS was kept back and limited to traffic
control, EA-6Bs didn't seem to play at all, scoring was imprecise, and
the Chilean conclusion that the Tomcat was "not a problem" may owe much
more to ROE limitations than to its actual combat capabilities. After
all, in real life, if they get into WVR it's because the Tomcat screwed
up...
This sort of multinational exercise is of much value for military as
well as diplomatic reasons, but is also frequently scripted and those
limits must be borne in mind.
--
He thinks too much: such men are dangerous.
Julius Caesar I:2
Paul J. Adam MainBox<at>jrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk
Nik Simpson
>> Thee are too many co incidences in this little news item to make
>> knowledgeable people suspicious?
>
> That is the problem; it is too pat. Is congress really that dumb?
>
Based on all available evidence, one would have to yes.
--
Nik Simpson
jim
"Paul J. Adam" <ne...@jrwlynch.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:UJdfmnMP...@jrwlynch.demon.co.uk...
Outstanding post,
I have played in many exercises where the ROE were considerably
politicalized to allow a "fair fight"
However in war the person willing to give a fair fight is an idiot... In
reality (unless grossly overmached) he who has the best Situational
awareness (information) will win 99 times out of 100!
Jim
t_mark
Too pat?
Are you familiar with Occam's Razor?
It's the answer that fits perfectly, and the only - only - answer that
covers every question.
Peter Twydell
<zzbu...@netscape.net> writes
>tuol...@yahoo.com (Tuollaf43) wrote in message news:<aeb0de85.0406280301.12567
>4...@posting.google.com>...
>> zzbu...@netscape.net (ZZBunker) wrote in message news:<e4a0829b.0406271233.70
>028...@posting.google.com>...
>> > tuol...@yahoo.com (Tuollaf43) wrote in message news:<aeb0de85.0406270650.3
>b16...@posting.google.com>...
>> > > zzbu...@netscape.net (ZZBunker) wrote in message news:<e4a0829b.040626220
>6.18a...@posting.google.com>...
>> > > > yeoma...@yahoo.com (Yeoman) wrote in message news:<1c4cedba.0406231224
>.28df...@posting.google.com>...
The English Language - RIP
--
Peter
Ying tong iddle-i po!
Andrew Chaplin
>
> In article <e4a0829b.04062...@posting.google.com>, ZZBunker
> <zzbu...@netscape.net> writes
>
>
> The English Language - RIP
You have replied to the nonsense-bot that posts under the name
"ZZBunker". I am afraid that more than just the English language has
passed beyond the veil for him/her/it, Peter.
--
Andrew Chaplin
SIT MIHI GLADIUS SICUT SANCTO MARTINO
(If you're going to e-mail me, you'll have to get "yourfinger." out.)
Stanley L Lock
DEar Nik,
It is not that the answer is too pat or that congress is too dumb to
know better.
Most people have no idea of the amount of workload of the average
congress person.
THey typically are to represent the interests of over 500,000 to
600,000 U.S. citizens.
The actual number of people, they effect with their legislation is
planet wide.
If you don't believe that a U.S. legislators effect is planet wide,
ask the people of Iraq or Afganistan.
THe number and shear variety of issue's that come into the average
congress person or senator of the the U.S. congress is mind boggling!
How this paperwork is handled and processed for requests for
information is an enormous problem. They typically have a staff of
secretaries and legislative assisstants that do they real work of
running the congress persons office.
Also when the congress person have time to focus on some subject in
sub-committee meetings it is a miracle as much work is accomplished at
all.
Increasingly Congrees as a legislative body is bogged down in
procedural rules
(better known as Red Tape)
So the congress person has really little time to focus on really
important subject with all the nuances and influences that are
necessary to know to make a truly informed decesion.
yours truly,
stanleverlock
Tuollaf43
oh well. Cant really argue with that.
Tuollaf43
> > That is the problem; it is too pat. Is congress really that dumb?
>
> Too pat?
>
> Are you familiar with Occam's Razor?
Well if you mean the principle of parsimony - then the simplest
explanation is to accept waht happened at face value and not to make
unverifiable assertions of secret conspiracies where the USAF
conspired to lose. No?
>
> It's the answer that fits perfectly, and the only - only - answer that
> covers every question.
What fact is not covered by other theories?
Bob Crowley
> What's going on here? Is this for real?
>
> http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20040623/ap_on_re_us/us_air_force
> General: U.S. Dominance of Skies May Wane
>
> 2 hours, 37 minutes ago
>
> By JOHN J. LUMPKIN, Associated Press Writer
>
> WASHINGTON - The success of the Indian air force against American
> fighter planes in a recent exercise suggests other countries may soon
> be able to threaten U.S. military dominance of the skies, a top Air
> Force general said Wednesday.
>
> were," said Gen. Hal M. Hornburg, the chief of Air Combat Command,
> which oversees U.S. fighter and bomber wings.
>
>
> near Gwalior in central, India. It pitted some F-15C Eagle fighters
> from the 3rd Wing at Elmendorf Air Force Base, Alaska, in mock combat
> against Indian MiG, Sukhoi and Mirage fighters.
>
>
> The F-15Cs are the Air Force's primary air superiority aircraft. The
> Indian fighters, of Russian and French design, are the type of planes
> U.S. fighters would most likely face in any overseas conflict.
>
>
> Hornburg, speaking to reporters, called the results of the exercise "a
> wake-up call" in some respects, but he declined to provide details,
> other than to suggest the Indian air force scored several unexpected
> successes against the American planes.
>
>
> For the last 15 years, the U.S. military has enjoyed almost total
> command of the air during conflicts. A few fighters and
> fighter-bombers have gone down, usually victims of surface-to-air
> missile fire, but in general, American planes have been able to target
> enemy ground forces at will.
>
>
> In the most recent invasion of Iraq (news - web sites), Saddam Hussein
> (news - web sites)'s air force stayed grounded.
>
>
> Still, new tactics, better Russian fighters like the Su-30, and a new
> generation of surface-to-air missiles mean that U.S. dominance could
> be ending, said Loren Thompson, who follows military issues for the
> Lexington Institute, a Washington think tank.
>
>
> "The United States has grown accustomed to having global air
> superiority, yet we haven't put much very much money in the last
> generation into maintaining that advantage," he said, noting the F-15
> first flew in the 1970s.
>
>
> "So of course the rest of the world is finally starting to catch up,"
> he said.
>
>
> Hornburg said the exercise shows the need for some new Air Force
> fighters, particularly the F/A-22 Raptor, which is intended to replace
> the F-15C. But critics deride the aircraft as too expensive and built
> to counter a threat that hasn't existed since the Soviet Union
> collapsed.
Against enemies armed with older aircraft and less sophisticated
electronics, the US is likely to enjoy superiority. However for the
US or anybody else to think that one nation can enjoy unlimited
supreriority in all aspects of air warfare is a rather long statement.
Secondly I wonder how much of this is the usual military
breastbeating arguing for ever increasing military expenditure.
Iraq had a large army, but not large, or particularly modern airforce.
In the latest Gulf War it almost did not exist. In addition the US
could fly planes in from a number of airfields in neighbouring or
nearby countries. But were, heaven forbid, the US to find itself in
conflict with a much larger and more modern force eg. India (purely
hypothetical) and limited to carrier launching, the results would be
different.
The only way a nation could enjoy unilateral superiority would be for
it to make itself immune to nuclear attack, so that it could retaliate
at will. This does not auger well for the future of humanity, since
the end result would be nuclear blackmail.
But while nations continue to build up their weaponry, this is going
to be the inevitable end result.
Bob Crowley.
Fred Toner
I got a laugh when they dug up a Mig Foxbat. Ann Coulter was on the news in
Canada and said "what do you mean that there's no WMD's, we just dug up half
the Iraqi Airforce in the Desert"
It was a broken down Mig 25, which requried land based (Iraq had none) radar
to support it.
The Jet was designed the year I was born, 1958.
Ann don't know Jets.
Nele VII
Fred Toner wrote in message <2kneeiF...@uni-berlin.de>...
>
>I got a laugh when they dug up a Mig Foxbat. Ann Coulter was on the news
in
>Canada and said "what do you mean that there's no WMD's, we just dug up
half
>the Iraqi Airforce in the Desert"
>
>It was a broken down Mig 25, which requried land based (Iraq had none)
radar
>to support it.
>
>The Jet was designed the year I was born, 1958.
>
>Ann don't know Jets.
>
>
Well, at ACIG I've seen a digging out of the MiG-25RB (probably the same
thing You saw). It was covered with some plastic sheet and had its wings
removed (a common thing for MiGs 21/25, designed transport requirement, but
probably was not designed for being dug in!). From what I've seen, they
didn't cover engine inlets/exausts which would mean that -at least- the
engines are ruined.
BTW, MiG-25RB (and subvariants) is probably the only MiG-25 version that
doesn't need "surface radar"... it is a recce version with SLAR and
vertical/oblique cameras (and BOMBS, but that is another story).
According to "Wings of Motherland" Nos 2-5 1990 (a series of interviews with
MiG-25 designers and test pilots), some kind of MiG >specification< was
drawn up in 1958-59, first drawings of MiG-25 appeared in 1961 (in order to
counter A-11/SR-71 not XB-70), recce-version mock-up was made in 1962, first
prototype completed in 1963, first flight in 1964, first real series
aircraft in 1972.
To avoid being competely off-topic, India has some RBs in dedicated recce
role and they are still considered a quite secret stuff there. It would be
interesting to know if they still carry "original" recce equipment or they
have undergone some local (custom-made?) modifications.
Nele
NULLA ROSA SINE SPINA
DBurch7672
Reactors, which are the technological equivalent of
Napeleon with a gay German, Israeli, or British tank as it's mistress.
2. Why a *gay* tank? (*How do you tell a gay tank from a hetrosexual one,
anyway? Would a Gay Israeli tank have a concentration camp-style pink triangle
painted on it, or something?)
Why a German, Israeli, or British tank? What is wrong with a French or Italian,
(Corsica became French the year he was born; having previously been Genoan,
i.e. Italian!),
DBurch7672
DBurch7672
English?