Indian kicked USAF a$$

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

beer

Lifer
Jun 27, 2000
11,169
1
0
Originally posted by: MindStorm
Originally posted by: beer

I have two cousins, one a combat pilot, and an uncle in the USAF. To compare the USAF and the IAF is insulting to them. Not to mention the contractors who build these planes.

Then I guess it's more insulting when not only the IAF was compared to the USAF, but owned them. Ouch. Really, take thereds advice and calm the hell down.

Right, the F-15s suck so much that we have never lost a single plane in combat, including Gulf War 1 against the most advanced Russian SAMs in the world
rolleye.gif
 

QueHuong

Platinum Member
Nov 21, 2001
2,098
0
0
Originally posted by: beer
Originally posted by: MindStorm
Originally posted by: beer

I have two cousins, one a combat pilot, and an uncle in the USAF. To compare the USAF and the IAF is insulting to them. Not to mention the contractors who build these planes.

Then I guess it's more insulting when not only the IAF was compared to the USAF, but owned them. Ouch. Really, take thereds advice and calm the hell down.

Right, the F-15s suck so much that we have never lost a single plane in combat, including Gulf War 1 against the most advanced Russian SAMs in the world
rolleye.gif

Who says the planes suck? I was comparing pilots. Maybe in the next few years USAF jobs will outsource to India ;)
 

K1052

Elite Member
Aug 21, 2003
46,356
33,746
136
Good for the IAF. They seem to have good close range skills.

I do think the F16 should have been used instead of the 15.

Once you go beoynd visual range the advanced U.S. missiles will basically own you, as Beer said.

 

halik

Lifer
Oct 10, 2000
25,696
1
0
ummm you all fail to notice this line:
dogfight in which the four F-15s were "defenders" and IAF's Russian-built Sukhoi-30s and French Mirage-2000 were the attackers.

which makes any statements about whos better void... It only means that the indians shot em all down, which is not too surprising since f15 is not the most maneuverable plane there is. Im sure this was just a great excercise to practice evasion maneuvers

If you had the results of indians being defenders and USAF attacking, only then you can draw some kind of conclusion...


 

beer

Lifer
Jun 27, 2000
11,169
1
0
Originally posted by: maddogchen
Can you post a link? i want to read the article.

Forget pilots, just use drones and arm them with AMRAAMs and Phoenixes and then train the guy who grew up on video games to point, click, and shoot! No dogfights. No pilots to train.

The Phoenix has been discontinued. The only goal of the Phoenix was long-range targeting of strategic bombers by F-14s. The F-14s are no longer needed (notice how no planes these days go >mach 1.6) and the Phoenix platform has been replaced by the AEGIS systems on warships. The aegis system is the final solution and the Phoenix was an intermediate solution, a solution which is no longer needed considering Aegis-equipped Ticonderoga cruisers with VLS can target, track, and engage thirty or more airborne and seafaring targets, at once, from a single cruiser.

Our planes these days are not built to dogfight. Navy and air force doctrines have placed range, avionics and heavy armaments ahead of manueverability. The F-15 and the F-22 are airframes too big and not manuevarable enough for such a task. If dogfighting and maneuverability were the goals of our air force, we'd still be using F-5 Tigers (which were what were used to simulate Mig-28s in Top Gun, if you need a mental picture).
 

beer

Lifer
Jun 27, 2000
11,169
1
0
Originally posted by: PowerMac4Ever
Wow, this thread was a civilized discussion until beer entered.

Yea, because we all know how upstanding of an ATOTer you are with all your recent trollings in military and gun threads.
rolleye.gif


Fsck you to.
 

Bootprint

Diamond Member
Jan 11, 2002
9,847
0
0
Problem is we don't know what the point of the exercise was, or the Rules of Engagement.
 

PowerMac4Ever

Banned
Dec 9, 2000
5,246
0
0
Originally posted by: beer
Originally posted by: PowerMac4Ever
Wow, this thread was a civilized discussion until beer entered.

Yea, because we all know how upstanding of an ATOTer you are with all your recent trollings in military and gun threads.
rolleye.gif


Fsck you to.
What military threads???? And I only trolled one gun thread to test a hypothesis. Oh, and my hypothesis was correct in case you wanted to know.
 

Gyrene

Banned
Jun 6, 2002
2,841
0
0
Originally posted by: beer...we'd still be using F-5 Tigers (which were what were used to simulate Mig-28s in Top Gun, if you need a mental picture).

Which is why I said that we should have sent in an MAW Aggressor Squad, which uses the F-5. Plus the MAW as whole is comprised of more talented pilots. :D
 

SONYFX

Senior member
May 14, 2003
403
0
0
Originally posted by: beer
Originally posted by: miniMUNCH
Not to take away from the Indian pilots but the F-15 is a pretty old aircraft design and not too well suited for dog fighting. I believe all three of those IAF aircraft are more maneuverable than the F-15.

Consider an F-16 or a F-18 and you have an entirely different ball game...I wouldn't be fair. But I think that was the point of excercise...match F-15 pilots against more manneuverable opponents and the IAF wanted to gauge their long range ATA capability vs. F-15's.

It would never be a dogfight. The planes we are building now and have been for 20 years are not dogfighters, they target 40 miles away and obliterate targets under complete stealth.

NOTHING else in the world comes close. Even the Mig-29s and SU-37s are more mauevarable but once again, it doesn't matter when an AMRAAM is shoved up your ass.


Su-30 HAS AMRAAM.


 

SONYFX

Senior member
May 14, 2003
403
0
0

Yossarian

Lifer
Dec 26, 2000
18,010
1
81
I wasn't even gonna enter this thread, but I was sucked in from the gravitational attaction of the massive chip on beer's shoulder ;)
 

SONYFX

Senior member
May 14, 2003
403
0
0
Originally posted by: Shlong
Link I found on Google. Beer seems to be taking this personally? Anyways, isn't Anand the owner of this site indian?


Uh...does that mean French can kick USAF's butt too?

:D:D

Testing tactics

This is more than just joint training. For both these air forces, it is an opportunity to test their tactics and flying skills against another country and to decide whether any changes need to be made.

The Indians had already made their changes after being beaten by the French Air Force last year.

And when these pilots go to Alaska later this year for another joint exercise, the Americans will have to prepare well for India's special brand of low technology.
 

beer

Lifer
Jun 27, 2000
11,169
1
0
Originally posted by: SONYFX
Originally posted by: beer
Originally posted by: miniMUNCH
Not to take away from the Indian pilots but the F-15 is a pretty old aircraft design and not too well suited for dog fighting. I believe all three of those IAF aircraft are more maneuverable than the F-15.

Consider an F-16 or a F-18 and you have an entirely different ball game...I wouldn't be fair. But I think that was the point of excercise...match F-15 pilots against more manneuverable opponents and the IAF wanted to gauge their long range ATA capability vs. F-15's.

It would never be a dogfight. The planes we are building now and have been for 20 years are not dogfighters, they target 40 miles away and obliterate targets under complete stealth.

NOTHING else in the world comes close. Even the Mig-29s and SU-37s are more mauevarable but once again, it doesn't matter when an AMRAAM is shoved up your ass.


Su-30 HAS AMRAAM.

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/row/su-30.htm

# 1 GSh-30-1 30mm cannon with 150 rounds
# R-27/R-73 AAMs
# Kh-29T/Kh-31P/Kh-59M ASMs
# bombs, rockets, drop tanks
# ECM pods
carried on twelve external points

Su-37
# 1 x 30 mm gun: GSh-301 (150 rnds)
# 14 x Air-to-Air missiles: AA-10, AA-11, AA-12
Cost approximately $35 million
 

PowerMac4Ever

Banned
Dec 9, 2000
5,246
0
0
Originally posted by: Shlong
Link I found on Google. Beer seems to be taking this personally? Anyways, isn't Anand the owner of this site indian?
Obviously beer is a 16 year old kid that subcribes to Jane's Defence Weekly and is merely repeating the facts about the USAF and their planes. I guess it's fun having anonymity as an ally. There's no other reason why he has to act like Mr. Arrogant Badass.
 

Spoooon

Lifer
Mar 3, 2000
11,565
203
106
Originally posted by: miniMUNCH
Not to take away from the Indian pilots but the F-15 is a pretty old aircraft design and not too well suited for dog fighting. I believe all three of those IAF aircraft are more maneuverable than the F-15.

Consider an F-16 or a F-18 and you have an entirely different ball game...I wouldn't be fair. But I think that was the point of excercise...match F-15 pilots against more manneuverable opponents and the IAF wanted to gauge their long range ATA capability vs. F-15's.

I think miniMUNCH is the only person that has made a reasonable comment. Everyone else seems bent on goading Beer or taking the results of one exercise and saying USAF sucks.

edit: link
More balanced article.

"At the first ever exercise, IAF frontline aircraft crossed swords in mock exercise with the USAF fighters near the Gwalior base and the honours were evenly shared."
 

ClueLis

Platinum Member
Jul 2, 2003
2,269
0
0
This is where the difference in aircraft styles comes into play. The Russian planes, which (along with the Mirages) were what the Indians were flying in, have been developed to be the dogfight kings and thus are excellent at high-g truns, short range weaponry, and are ruggedly built (and can also take off in less ideal conditions as a result).

The American jets, on the other hand are designed to never come to that. They are high-speed the newer planes are stealthy, they have powerful radar systems, and are equipped with a wide range of BVR (beyond visual range) missiles.

It's a difference in philosophy. The American style works better, as long as they have absolute dominance on the missle and stealth technology fronts, which they at the moment do. If that stealth ability were neutralized, or another nation developed it, the balence could shift in the other direction.
 

ElFenix

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Mar 20, 2000
102,418
8,370
126
just the AF trying to build support for the F22, nothing to see here
 

tnitsuj

Diamond Member
May 22, 2003
5,446
0
76
We still dominate in deploability, air to air refueling, command and control, overall technology, and training..training...more training...oh and more training.
 

beer

Lifer
Jun 27, 2000
11,169
1
0
Originally posted by: ElFenix
just the AF trying to build support for the F22, nothing to see here

That is actually the first reasonable conclusion that I have seen in this thread. Not surprised that ElFenix thought of it though!

"Yea the F-15 got it's ass-kicked by late-50s Mig 21s. Need more funding for F22" - Next Congressional budget hearing
 

beer

Lifer
Jun 27, 2000
11,169
1
0
Originally posted by: PowerMac4Ever
Originally posted by: Shlong
Link I found on Google. Beer seems to be taking this personally? Anyways, isn't Anand the owner of this site indian?
Obviously beer is a 16 year old kid that subcribes to Jane's Defence Weekly and is merely repeating the facts about the USAF and their planes. I guess it's fun having anonymity as an ally. There's no other reason why he has to act like Mr. Arrogant Badass.

I'm not the one saying that the SU30 has AMRAAMs, nor insinuating that 40 year old designs 'owned' the USAF.