Respect for India- And other developing militaries

[Bort]

This Article> http://abcnews.go.com/International/...ory?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.

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!

Then again, I suppose I am rather sadisitic sometimes.

[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]

Originally Posted by *[FOX

* Bort]

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. 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.

[Torpedo Fodder]

Originally Posted by TLAM Strike

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 .

[bradclark1]

Originally Posted by Torpedo Fodder

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 .

Oh, I didn't know that.
: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]

Originally Posted by bradclark1

Riiight. A gunboat against a carrier group.

Does the Gunboat have Steve McQueen on it? Then it might stand a chance!

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]

Originally Posted by Neal Stevens

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.