Respect for India- And other developing militaries

[Bort]

This Article> http://abcnews.go.com/International/CSM/story?id=1350240 about the USAF's apparent less than spectacular performance against the Indian Air Force in recent exercises has me concerned about the fact that the United States is too focused on preparing for conflicts against nations that can't really fight back on a similar level. I think that it is about time the U.S. and other developed countries sat up and took notice of nations like India with suprisingly well trained and equipped forces that could be in future conflicts. What if we have to fight someone that has better technology than AK-47's and RPG's? :hmm:

[bradclark1]

I think America's forte is "beyond visual range". They make maximum use of long range sensors and weapons.
Honestly if I can zap someone at long range you will play hell getting me within visual range.
Lets hope the USAF doesn't blow off lessons learned shall we.

[Kapitan]

us-indo exercises for the last 3 years india has whipped americas arse clean and this is not a joke.

india simulated losses in 2003 were 16 america 31
india simulated losses in 2004 were 12 america 24

big diffrence just because america has 15 aircraft carriers it dont make one iota of diffrence.

one well trained gun boat or missile boat crew could come in close and fast attack and be out before you have any time to realise WTF is going on.

the electron is a good example how did an inferior ship out run the cream of the norwiegen navy?

the skipper and his crew were well trained but did you know elektrons skipper was a commander of a russian missile boat during the cold war and early 90's

[Excalibur Bane]

That's the problem with wars these days. It's all a bunch of button pushing. Call me old fashioned, but I like the days of WW2 when you could "see the white of their eyes" sorta thing.

I mean, where's the fun in killing the enemy if they don't even have a chance to fight back? No, no. That's all wrong in my opinion. No honor left in fighting anymore. But, I suppose that's the point. It's not about honor, it's just about beating them to a bloody smear as quickly as possible. Very ungentlemenly like if you ask me. :shifty:

I'd rather have a trusty M-16 with a bayonet attached, so I can watch the life run out of my foe's eyes after I skewer him with it! :up:

Then again, I suppose I am rather sadisitic sometimes. :oops:

[Bort]

I don't think that the U.S. has that much, if any, Beyond Visual Range advantage over nations equipped with Russian fighters anymore, especially Flankers. Lots of Russian jets these have radars that are near to U.S. radars in terms of range and capability. Also the R-77 or AA-12 Adder missile the Sukhoi's carry is probably comparable to the AMRAAM western jets use, so I think that pilot skill and training in the Air-to-Air environment is extremely important, and it seems the Indians had the edge on those forlorn F-16 jocks. I think that we may be living in an age of ever increasing global military parity.

big diffrence just because america has 15 aircraft carriers it dont make one iota of diffrence.

The U.S. only has 12 true carriers, which will go down to just 11 if Bush gets his way and retires the Kennedy. Plus a certain amount of those are undergoing maintenance at any given time and therefore undeployable.

[Kapitan]

i have a nose bleed so i keep this short

the F16 is out of its depth if it was to fight the Mig 29

the Mig 29 is more comparable to planes like the F18 and the Su37 is more like the F15

[XabbaRus]

OH I think I might disagree just a tad. like the 29 as I do. A Nice even match I think.

[Kapitan]

im matching using the older F16 but the newer ones would eb even

[TLAM Strike]

* Bort]big diffrence just because america has 15 aircraft carriers it dont make one iota of diffrence.

The U.S. only has 12 true carriers, which will go down to just 11 if Bush gets his way and retires the Kennedy. Plus a certain amount of those are undergoing maintenance at any given time and therefore undeployable.Yea but our dozen or so Harrier (and soon JSF) capable 'gator freighters are about equal or superior to a lot of nations aircraft carriers.


Anyways the F-16 really doesn’t impress me and if it’s the main jet we were using over there its not surprising we lost. I remember reading that an old RAF Lighting interceptor out maneuvered an F-16 once. We should have kept the F-14 and its Phoenix missiles; those things have a range two or three times greater as whatever the IAF has on its MiGs and Sus. You can just sit back and pick off whatever comes out to play and if they get too close just turn tail at mach 2 and let the F/A-18 clear your six.

Oh plus we all know wargames are rigged. :roll: In a real war between the US and India we would be shooting hundreds of cruise missiles at their military infrastructure and hitting their command centers with Stealth jets- they would simply be overwhelmed. :yep:

[Torpedo Fodder]

Oh plus we all know wargames are rigged.

The Indian Air Force vs. USAF ones certainly were, considering the following items of those exercises:

-The matches usually consisted of 3-4 Eagles vs. 10-12 Indian aircraft
-The Indians got simulated AWACs while the USAF did not
-For BVR combat, the Indians got simulated R-77 missiles with the full range of capability, while the USAF's simulated AMRAAMs were artifically limited to a range of 30km
-The F-15s were not allowed to engage multiple targets at once at BVR.

Then theres the exercise where the US Navy took on the Israeli Air Force and got it's ass handed to it 200 to 40. Of course that score becomes less amazing when the rampant cheating on the part of the Israelis was revealed :nope:.

[bradclark1]

Oh plus we all know wargames are rigged.

The Indian Air Force vs. USAF ones certainly were, considering the following items of those exercises:

-The matches usually consisted of 3-4 Eagles vs. 10-12 Indian aircraft
-The Indians got simulated AWACs while the USAF did not
-For BVR combat, the Indians got simulated R-77 missiles with the full range of capability, while the USAF's simulated AMRAAMs were artifically limited to a range of 30km
-The F-15s were not allowed to engage multiple targets at once at BVR.

Then theres the exercise where the US Navy took on the Israeli Air Force and got it's ass handed to it 200 to 40. Of course that score becomes less amazing when the rampant cheating on the part of the Israelis was revealed :nope:.

Oh, I didn't know that.
:D :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:
Do you have a comeback Kapitan?


one well trained gun boat or missile boat crew could come in close and fast attack and be out before you have any time to realise huh? is going on.

the electron is a good example how did an inferior ship out run the cream of the norwiegen navy?

Riiight. A gunboat against a carrier group.

[TLAM Strike]

one well trained gun boat or missile boat crew could come in close and fast attack and be out before you have any time to realise huh? is going on.

the electron is a good example how did an inferior ship out run the cream of the norwiegen navy?

Riiight. A gunboat against a carrier group. Does the Gunboat have Steve McQueen on it? Then it might stand a chance! :lol:

Does any navy even have gunboats anymore?

[Onkel Neal]

Bah, wait till the real fighting starts and the US unveils our global-wide particle beam satellites, all controlled by one crusty geek in a trailer on Idaho. We'll vaporize all our enemies in half an hour. Who cares about F-16s :|\

[Oberon]

Bah, wait till the real fighting starts and the US unveils our global-wide particle beam satellites, all controlled by one crusty geek in a trailer on Idaho. We'll vaporize all our enemies in half an hour. Who cares about F-16s :|\

:rotfl:
Neal, I think you've been playing too much Command and Conquer ;)

[Kapitan]

isreal and US have identical types of air craft and should be evenly matched.


as for the carrier v gun / missile boat i was meaning a lone carrier not one in the battle group.

russian oscar class SSGN trailed a nimitz class carrier USS John C Stennis back in 1999 and also her partner a landing ship without being detected it was only when the submarine was spotted by alert canadians that they were discoverd.

but by then it was to late the submarine was already heading home.

a nanchuka or tranutul or even Osa in littoral waters are very powerful you think because the carrier is 90,000 tonnes its indestructable?

think not so

during the egypt isreal war back in 1971 the elait a big powerful frigate was sunk by a missile boat now by rights and technology the frigate could have spotted engauged and destroyed that missile boat way before it even got into range.

so just because some thing small takes on something big doesnt always mean the big is going to win.

[retired1212]

Bah, wait till the real fighting starts and the US unveils our global-wide particle beam satellites, all controlled by one crusty geek in a trailer on Idaho. We'll vaporize all our enemies in half an hour. Who cares about F-16s :|\

:rotfl:
Neal, I think you've been playing too much Command and Conquer ;)

young and beautiful Tanya you mean? :D

[Torpedo Fodder]

as for the carrier v gun / missile boat i was meaning a lone carrier not one in the battle group.

The problem with this is that carriers never travel alone.

a nanchuka or tranutul or even Osa in littoral waters are very powerful you think because the carrier is 90,000 tonnes its indestructable?

neither of these is has enough firepower to actually sink a carrier. USN aircraft carriers, while by no means invincible, are by virtue of their size and construction immensly tough. This is why the Russians built such massive ASMs as the P-700 Granit, which no craft the size of a Tarantul could possibly carry. It would take at least several hits from even these to actually sink a carrier, though a single well-placed hit may be enough for a "mission kill".

during the egypt isreal war back in 1971 the elait a big powerful frigate was sunk by a missile boat now by rights and technology the frigate could have spotted engauged and destroyed that missile boat way before it even got into range.

On the contrary, that result was quite predictable, considering the Eilat was actually an old French destroyer built in 1944; It lacked modern anti-aircraft armament or any offensive surface-to-surface weapon with the same "reach" as the SS-N-2s the Egyptian boat used to sink it.

[Kapitan]

intresting i didnt know that i though elait was a modern frigate o well lol

a P700 could damage a carrier to an extent where it cant use its aircraft but id say three P700 could sink a nimitz but bear in mind one 65-76 nuclear torpedo could smash it to bits

[Kapitan]

and that was quoted by Captain Nikolai Shumkov when he said

even the most modern carriers such as nimitz could not survive a hit (quote from TV interview about cuban missile crisis and the four foxtrot submarines


4 captains involved in the foxtrrot episode of the cuban missile crisis;

Nikolai Shumkon
Alexey Dubivko
Ryurk Ketov
Valeri Karetanov

[Terrax]

The multi role F-16 probably was outclassed by the air superiority SU37. Then I read how the deck was stacked against the USAF. I don't understand why the USAF would let the Indians flaunt this propaganda victory. I find it hard to believe that the Indians have better dogfighting training than the US. If they were superior, they would want a fair fight to prove it. Then they could flaunt it. Until then... :down: :nope:

[Kapitan]

could be an excuse dont forget indians train with west and east russia china on the east and britain and america on the west

[PeriscopeDepth]

The multi role F-16 probably was outclassed by the air superiority SU37. Then I read how the deck was stacked against the USAF. I don't understand why the USAF would let the Indians flaunt this propaganda victory. I find it hard to believe that the Indians have better dogfighting training than the US. If they were superior, they would want a fair fight to prove it. Then they could flaunt it. Until then... :down: :nope:

Because they want Congress to fund the F-22 and F-35 as fully as possible. And they can't very well go to Congress for money saying, "Yep, the stuff we have STILL kicks ass."

PD

[Terrax]

Taking a dive! What you say makes sense. If that's the case, it's gotta be hard for the jet jockey's to take one for the team, then look the Indians in the eye as they laugh about their victory. :hmm:

[Kapitan]

well i want help with the india and chinease navy so see my new post

[Konovalov]

No one here has mentioned the Indian Airforces safety and aircraft maintenance record. The IAF has had a pretty poor air safety record. Indeed there was an article in Janes Defence weekly a while back highlighting an internal IAF report which concluded that well over half of all IAF crashed could be attributed to pilot error. In fact I think the figure was 70% of crashes were due to pilot error. The remainder of the crashes were mostly mechanical failure. Janes Defence weekly highlighted the fact that maintenance programs on IAF aircraft were substandard and that many of the IAF's aircarft were ageing relics of the Cold War such as the Mig-21 and Mig-23.

So I would say that the quality of Indian pilots on the whole is not great. And if not to further highlight that the main blame is on Indian pilots and thier training there were seven crashes involving the Jaguar which is a good aircraft still. So in summary I think the Indian training program has much to answer for. For the IAF to simply blame the problem on an increased OPTEMPO (operational tempo) is just an attempt to dodge and shirk away from the issue which is pilot training.

For the record between 1991 and 2001 there were 221 IAF aircraft crashes in which 100 pilots or servicemen died.

[Kapitan]

that is bad they can afford to train thier forces they can afford to update to newish systems but yet they choose not to.

if you must know india places more emphasis on its navy than the army or air force the air force comes second in the ranking and army third

india is the sole super power shall we say of the entire indian ocean hence why its got a large navy but realy i dont think it needs such a big force

[Torpedo Fodder]

a P700 could damage a carrier to an extent where it cant use its aircraft

That's what I meant by "mission kill", which given the flight profile of the P-700 (lofting upward and diving on it's target's deck durng terminal phase) one hit could easily accomplish this against a Nimitz. However the reason it would take multiple hits missiles to actually sink a carrier is because these missiles strike their target well above the waterline.

[Onkel Neal]

The sound it makes when the particle beam hits you is "bbzzap!", I think.

[retired1212]

Indians call MIG-21 as "flying coffins"

[Iceman]

India's Air Force....Ya right...Keep on trucking. :up:

http://www.cyberallies.com/indiaair.jpg

[Oberon]

http://www.geocities.com/sasa_25/images/ts/gdi-ioncanready.gif