Posted on 06/21/2004 5:45:30 AM PDT by CarrotAndStick
WASHINGTON: Did the Indian Air Force really outperform American pilots and planes during recent India-US air combat exercises or is the USAF using the encounter to pitch for new generation fighter jets?
That's the question buzzing around in strategic circles after a recent article in a limited access US Air Force magazine detailing the "surprising sophistication of Indian fighter aircraft and skill of Indian pilots" demonstrated at the Cope India air combat exercise at Gwalior in February this year.
The exercise, in which US F-15Cs were said to have been defeated more than 90 per cent of the time in direct combat exercises against the IAF, "is causing US Air Force officials to re-evaluate the way the service trains its fighter pilots while bolstering the case for buying the F/A-22 as a way to ensure continued air dominance for the United States," a June 2 article in the magazine Inside the Air Force reported.
The magazine quoted US officials who participated in the exercise as saying it should "provide a reality check for those who had assumed unquestioned US air superiority."
On the face of it, the performance of the IAF, with its oft-reported air crashes in an aging, non-American fleet, might seem surprising. But US officials told the magazine that the Indians were much better than they had bargained for.
"What happened to us was it looks like our red air training might not be as good because the adversaries are better than we thought," the article quoted Col. Mike Snodgrass, commander of the 3rd Wing at Elmendorf Air Force Base, as saying. "And in the case of the Indian Air Force both their training and some of their equipment was better than we anticipated."
"Red air" refers to the way the US Air Force simulates enemy capability in air combat training. US officials emphasised that such simulation deliberately handicap US planes and pilots against the enemy because the service has assumed for years that its fighters are more capable than enemy aircraft.
In Cope Thunder, four F-15Cs were pitted against 10 or 12 of same model Indian fighters such as the Mirage 2000, MIG-27 and MIG-29s in offensive and defensive counter air scenarios. 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 Sukhoi SU-30K Flanker, US officials said.
"What we faced were superior numbers, and an IAF pilot who was very proficient in his aircraft and smart on tactics. That combination was tough for us to overcome," the magazine quoted a US airman who took part in the exercise as saying.
While acknowledging the performance of their Indian colleagues, who they will meet again in another air combat exercise in Alaska next month, the US airmen also made a major pitch for the F/A-22 aircraft that the US government has been slow to embrace because of its cost and lack of a perceived threat.
"The major takeaway for the Air Force is that our prediction of needing to replace the F-15 with the F/A-22 is proving out as we get smarter and smarter about other [countries'] capabilities around the world and what technology is limited to in the F-15 airframe," Col. Snodgrass said. "We've taken [the F-15] about as far as we can and it's now time to move to the next generation."
This is an article I thought may be interesting. But it may be bullsh!t too.
Diplomacy.
???
AT least now I understand how the IAF did so well.
Sort of like when you let you kid always beat you at Candyland.
well, at least it was a fair fight...
Major BS alert - Whenever American planes battle Russian planes the outcome is always lopsided toward American Technology (see Syria/Israeli, NVA/US, Korea/US, Iraq/US air battles).
I think you hit the nail on the bullsh!it part I was referring to.
There's no way that the IAF could defeat the USAF in real-world conditions. This exercise was deliberately constructed to give the IAF the maximum chance to 'win'.
It is good to hear that they've got a few good pilots, though.
India simply has a far larger number of "short" males than the U.S.
Hence, their "top level" for a limited number of pilots will naturally be much more selective.
I'm guessing that the pool of eligibles in India is at least 10 times the size of the US pool ~ and it could be as great as 100 times ours simply because of the limited number of occupational opportunities such men would have in India as compared to the US.
This disturbs me, but, is it just barely possible, that the USAF is using this "defeat" as a pitch for more toys and a better budget?
Also notice that the Eagles were outnumbered 3-1.
What the heck are you talking about?
>
This disturbs me, but, is it just barely possible, that the USAF is using this "defeat" as a pitch for more toys and a better budget?
>
Be even more disturbed that the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs is Army and chose to occupy Iraq with troops on the ground (establishing Army relevance in the 21st century) rather than enforce edicts from the air.
Also, the article doesn't mention the most critical item. That is the air-to-air missiles (simulated)in use in the exercise. The US AMRAAM was thought to have a range advantage vs the adversary missile. It no longer does. That is the most important thing of all. Dogfighting is essentially a thing of the past. Engagements are now at ranges often exceeding 10 miles.
With no range advantage, we cannot achieve > 1:1 kill ratios. Only a stealth capable fighter can return that advantage to us by neutralizing the enemy missiles. That stealth capability is not present in any close-to-production development other than the F-22 and we clearly need it right now. JSF is many years from production. F-22 need not be. No other US fighter has stealth.
You know, I was thinking the same thing too.
The Air Force brass has been really big on the production of the F-22 Raptor.
I wouldn't be terribly surprised to see that this exercise was weighted in favor of the IAF.
But then again, even if this exercise was weighted in favor of the IAF, it seems to me that our pilots are still well-trained enough that at worst, they should have broke even against the IAF.
Well then, maybe we don't need the F-22, but an upgraded F-86 instead. :^)
More seriously, this all seems to be a USAF setup for an F-22 sales pitch to Congress.
BTW, did anybody watch the History Channel's show about the F-14 this weekend? They constantly showed video of F-5's when referring to the F-15. Twice! Once when talking about Red Flag exercises, and then when talking about the F-14/F-15 flyoff's for the Shah of Iran.
Absolutely inexcusable. I suppose the producers of that show are the types of morons that make movies or documentaries that show scenes of a single particular aircraft as alternatively an Avenger, Dauntless, Wildcat, Buffalo or Jug. Two wings and a tail - bingo - gud enuff! I expect better from the History Channel.
This sounds like equal parts diplomacy and training.
The most realistic way to have the IAF win was to match their planes 3:1 against the USAF. Our guys get to fly against not only good pilots, but great numbers of them, which sounds like good training to me; the Indians get to say they kicked the USAF's ass. Hey OK, fine.
I think that it also was a bit of false intelligence, in that the Indian military MUST have agents from Pakistan, China, etc within it and observing these things. Why give them the best stuff to look at?
It sounds like a time at the CMTC, Hohenfels, when Spanish units were operating in the maneuver box. The OPFOR really had to fight one-handed to have the Spaniards win anything, ie achieve any but the most minor of objectives.
Disinformation is part of the US military strategy.
I do agree with the notion this may be more diplomacy than reality. It does help cash tight nations justify flying "older" aircraft.
Do these poorer nations have more practice time in the air perhaps?
This is very bad if a nation like china launches hundreds of less advanced aircraft to fight our tens of fighers.
Remember operation Red Flag? The AF training center. The side portraying the USSR usually won.
There is not dogfighting anymore, true, now it's lock ons as if you were going to fire a missile. If the IDF cpilots can avoid lock ons that does make them signifigant.
Let us fire our air force, and outsource the work to India!
Of course, if the pilots had a "oh, it's just the Indians and we could kick their butts in our sleep" attitude, it could explain part of the results.
USAF staging a "defeat" for better toys? Perish the thought!
It's not plausible that the F-15C is completely outclassed by an upgraded MIG-21. I do NOT believe that the MIG-21 is a better air supremacy fighter than the F-15. That's just nuts!
And I hope they get it.
sorta reminds me of the media talking about firearms!
Before I even opened the thread I knew it was F-15s. The Air Force has been releasing these "F-15s get smoked" stories for quite some time now. They want their F-22s and F-15s will keep getting smoked in every exercise until they are officially retired. In other news, the Americans are throwing themselves against the walls of Baghdad. (I miss Baghdad Bob!)
Firing from a range of more than ten miles, it is time now to stop thinking of piloted planes. Pilots get shot down. They are captured. They are a propaganda negative. Enough of the hot-dog, top-gun bs; its time to embrace the 21st century air war.
I have a young friend who flies F-15C's and through him have met a few other's. No one in the world has better than we have.
I read this when it first came out and wondered what had happened. After reading this I believe you have hit the nail on the head. The Air Force wants the next generation and this may well be their way of getting some attention.
It will be interesting to see what happens in the Alaska games as that is where the most advanced F-15C's are stationed.
1) The Chairman is Air Force not Army.
2) After Bosnia where the Air Force claimed 750+ kills of heavy armor and trucks from the air, but could come up with only 50+ wrecks when the ground troops arrived, perhaps they are rethinking enforcing edicts from the air.
Do your really think the IAF can out fly the USAF?
He's talking about the limitations to human size imposed by cockpit dimensions. Tall people don't fit into cockpits. Also, for some reason (according to Bill Gunston and Mike Spick), the "room" in a (American) cockpit gives more space, proportionately, to the legs, and less to the torso, than is the normal ratio for most people....so, a lot of people, who might otherwise be good pilots, can't be.
Pretty sound to train the pilots to cope without such assets, I suppose. Last year there was a French-Indian air exercise, too, since we use the same warplanes (the Mirage 2000).
You are correct. Myers is now Chairman. My bad. I guess I was thinking of Franks and Abizaid.
The point being that when one's advantage is in the air, one should not emphasize ground troops.
IAF = Israeli Air Force?...."Oops, my bad," says the USAF PR flack...
Twenty years the Texas Air National Guard with, pilots in their mid thirties and older, flying pre and early Vietnam era F-4s used to rack up a 3-4 to kill ratios over Air Force pilots in their mid twenties flying (then) brand new F-16s. The Air Force pilots had better reaction times and superior aricraft, so on paper the result should have been the other way around. Technology counts for a lot in combat, but it is not everything. Experience and competence go a long way too.
That being said, I'm still a bit sceptical about these results.
It already exists.
-ccm
Make that 3-4 to 1 kill ratios.
To be truthful, I get pissed when I hear of a GI who isn't being paid enough to support a family. while he's overseas at another base.
When one of our planes or choppers goes down. $10, $20, $30 million is burning on the ground and a one sentence reply as to what happened as if the cost of the plane isn't even a factor.
It doesn't cost $20 million bucks to train a pilot. Sure he's one of our guys and it is important that he walks away from the wreck. By the time you add in all the support gear for one of these planes the cost is almost in space.
When I hear of planes sitting on the ground because the mechanics are too busy to get to it, the back up load is too high for them, I get really ticked. Leave one of the new planes at Grumman and train another 100 mechanics.
Decades ago, I asked an Air Force general what the hours of service would be for every hour of flight time was for one of the planes they were on their knees to Congress about and you would have thought I had kicked him between the legs. The guy turned white and almost fainted.
He had seen me talking with a Congressman previously and I had asked for a number that could be tracked back to cost per hour. The man was petrified that such a question might just be asked in commitee or worse on the floor. When planes are not built with all costs in mind there is something wrong!
How many flight training hours will it take for a pilot to become 120% proficient in the aircraft is another one that scares them.
We as taxpayers never get the full honest to God cost of anything that the military buys, not even a tent. I have seen more money wasted trying to unload the supply stocks before June than I want to think about especially when the ose same supplies were "unavailable" to the mne in December.
There is a reason why the Pentagon cannot account for a trillion dollars every year and it has nothing to do with black projects. It is quite simply the fact that a million dollars isn't considered a lot of money to O-8's and above so there is no reason to adequately keep track of where it went. Get down to O-5's and they can tell you exactly what $1,000,000 buys for their unit.
We've got the best military forces in the world and they cost us taxpayers way too much money, our money! There shouldn't be squabling and begging to get the new aircraft we need to protect America.
Just explain the benefits over the other one, show us where improvements have been made in flight time vs service time, expected life of the bird, in other words the full cost so we can budget for it and you have it on the flight line ASAP.
Until the F/A-22 is in full production, the Air Force would let me beat the Eagle in a Cessna 150 and a shotgun.
"Only a stealth capable fighter can return that advantage to us by neutralizing the enemy missiles. "
Maybe/partially correct. The F-22 is not stealthy in the optical/IR domain. Even in the radar domain it does not *appear* have all-aspect stealth, hence, would be more vulnerable to integrated air defenses than presumed - it is only reasonable to assume that enemy air defenses will be more, not less integrated.
The F-22, in my opinion, would not be much more effective (especially for the cost) in a visual-range 1:3 combat scenario than the F-15. The real benefit of the F-22 is in taking out elements of an IAD, then, in conjunction with other aircraft/systems taking out airfields, aerial refuling capacity, and bases of operations.
This is how air supremacy is really achieved.
And just what should the best forces in the world cost you, smart boy?
You are entitled to your opinion, but you are dead wrong.
When those MiG-21s have the Archer, yeah.
The F/A-22 has probably just been saved from the budget ax. It's a good thing for our pilots, even if the fact that they are "clubbing baby seals" will shoot down their chances with Paris Hilton...
The problem with the JSF is that we're sharing the plane with about 10 European nations.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
