Indian kicked USAF a$$

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Savij

Diamond Member
Nov 12, 2001
4,233
0
71
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

Beer, you not only have a stick shoved up your ass, but it's shoved so far up there it's preventing you from reading your copy of Jane's clearly.

-- We HAVE lost planes in combat. Think Vietnam, MANY MANY MANY pilots and planes were lost. Think Gulf War I, you remember those TV images of pilots being held captive by Iraq? The pilots reading statements where were then broadcast all over the world?

-- Missles are great and all but they are not the be all end all of Air Combat. In fact, if you paid any attention to your cousins and uncle at all you would know that the entire reason that the Top Gun school was created is because pilots were losing their ability to dogfight and it was costing them heavily in Vietnam.


now on topic:
Whether or not the planes, the pilots or anything else made a difference...eh, it's not for me to decide. I've got about 10 lines to describe 10 days of flying with very few details.
 

PowerMac4Ever

Banned
Dec 9, 2000
5,246
0
0
Originally posted by: beer
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.
Wow, what a superior rebuttal! Grow up kid
rolleye.gif
 

ClueLis

Platinum Member
Jul 2, 2003
2,269
0
0
Originally posted by: Savij
Originally posted by: beer
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

Beer, you not only have a stick shoved up your ass, but it's shoved so far up there it's preventing you from reading your copy of Jane's clearly.

-- We HAVE lost planes in combat. Think Vietnam, MANY MANY MANY pilots and planes were lost. Think Gulf War I, you remember those TV images of pilots being held captive by Iraq? The pilots reading statements where were then broadcast all over the world?

-- Missles are great and all but they are not the be all end all of Air Combat. In fact, if you paid any attention to your cousins and uncle at all you would know that the entire reason that the Top Gun school was created is because pilots were losing their ability to dogfight and it was costing them heavily in Vietnam.


now on topic:
Whether or not the planes, the pilots or anything else made a difference...eh, it's not for me to decide. I've got about 10 lines to describe 10 days of flying with very few details.

Yes, but none of those planes were F-15s, which was his point.

In terms of your Top Gun comment, it could be argued that the technology gap (if it even existed) was not nearly as wide between the US and the rest of the world as it is now, and the Air Force had not yet really begun to shift from close to BVR combat.
 

Savij

Diamond Member
Nov 12, 2001
4,233
0
71
Originally posted by: ClueLis
Originally posted by: Savij
Originally posted by: beer
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

Beer, you not only have a stick shoved up your ass, but it's shoved so far up there it's preventing you from reading your copy of Jane's clearly.

-- We HAVE lost planes in combat. Think Vietnam, MANY MANY MANY pilots and planes were lost. Think Gulf War I, you remember those TV images of pilots being held captive by Iraq? The pilots reading statements where were then broadcast all over the world?

-- Missles are great and all but they are not the be all end all of Air Combat. In fact, if you paid any attention to your cousins and uncle at all you would know that the entire reason that the Top Gun school was created is because pilots were losing their ability to dogfight and it was costing them heavily in Vietnam.


now on topic:
Whether or not the planes, the pilots or anything else made a difference...eh, it's not for me to decide. I've got about 10 lines to describe 10 days of flying with very few details.

Yes, but none of those planes were F-15s, which was his point.

In terms of your Top Gun comment, it could be argued that the technology gap (if it even existed) was not nearly as wide between the US and the rest of the world as it is now, and the Air Force had not yet really begun to shift from close to BVR combat.

He had a point other than "We are super awesome missle plane fighter plane air force, we rule!"? The planes lost in Gulf War included F14s, F18s, Harriers and A6's.

As far a top gun goes, I believe that the kill ratio for US pilots went back up after the implementation of the program, and US planes were engaged in dogfights during the Gulf War.
 

beer

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

Beer, you not only have a stick shoved up your ass, but it's shoved so far up there it's preventing you from reading your copy of Jane's clearly.

-- We HAVE lost planes in combat. Think Vietnam, MANY MANY MANY pilots and planes were lost. Think Gulf War I, you remember those TV images of pilots being held captive by Iraq? The pilots reading statements where were then broadcast all over the world?

-- Missles are great and all but they are not the be all end all of Air Combat. In fact, if you paid any attention to your cousins and uncle at all you would know that the entire reason that the Top Gun school was created is because pilots were losing their ability to dogfight and it was costing them heavily in Vietnam.


now on topic:
Whether or not the planes, the pilots or anything else made a difference...eh, it's not for me to decide. I've got about 10 lines to describe 10 days of flying with very few details.

Yes, but none of those planes were F-15s, which was his point.

In terms of your Top Gun comment, it could be argued that the technology gap (if it even existed) was not nearly as wide between the US and the rest of the world as it is now, and the Air Force had not yet really begun to shift from close to BVR combat.

He had a point other than "We are super awesome missle plane fighter plane air force, we rule!"? The planes lost in Gulf War included F14s, F18s, Harriers and A6's.

As far a top gun goes, I believe that the kill ratio for US pilots went back up after the implementation of the program, and US planes were engaged in dogfights during the Gulf War.

I know we have lost planes in combat. Just not F-15s. That was my point as pointed out. In fact I think that's the only plane that has a perfect record (besides strategic bombers). I even remember losing an F117 in Kosovo.

And like I have said earlier, the only planes we have lost were due to essentially Russian technology, which is no longer as modern as it used to be. Something about a government collapse maybe?

 

rufruf44

Platinum Member
May 8, 2001
2,002
0
0
I've no doubt that IAF can beat USAAF in any given days on equal ground and vice versa. They clearly have the means to compete in term of manpower.
They just lacking $$$.
 

beer

Lifer
Jun 27, 2000
11,169
1
0
Also keep in mind in the 80s we didn't have the AMRAAM, just the sidewinder and the AIM7 Sparrow, which was a god awful design IIRC. Since the Sparrow was a poorly implemented medium range missle, and the Sidewinder versions of the time were extremely short-ranged, there was a pressing need for dogfighting abilities. I don't think that exists anymore, given that we have phased out the Sparrows, have the Sidewinders into revision M now, and have been focusing on BVR technologies for two decades. Plus our best planes were roughly equal with the best Soviet planes from the 50s through the 80s. Plus, our virtual battlefield is much better understood, with better and longer range radar and communications.

And with regards to the lost planes in Gulf War I:

- The A6 has finally been taken out of service within the last two years (if I recall correctly);
- The AV8's are god awful planes IMO, too slow and too bulky to have been used in that scenerio. Losing F14s and FA18s is tragic, but nonetheless a consequence of war and we have immproved both platforms significantly since then, although they are not invulnerable, which the F22 essentially seems to be now.

 

CanOWorms

Lifer
Jul 3, 2001
12,404
2
0
I think Andorra can destroy all US forces. It's because they have those new GX117 jets with the SWL@@1 missiles which split in mid-air into 20 separate 71-AWL missiles. Take into account their %85% radar technology, they have complete superiority.
 

beer

Lifer
Jun 27, 2000
11,169
1
0
Regarding dogfighting in the gulf war:

http://www.strategypage.com/dls/articles2001/20010611.asp

Of which I quote:
During the 1991 Gulf War the change was clearly underway. There were 39 U.S. air-to-air kills. The Sidewinder got 25 of them, the Sparrow 11. The traditional air-to-air weapon, the machine gun, got none. The A-10 ground attack aircraft nailed two helicopters with its 30mm anti-tank cannon, and one Iraqi aircraft was maneuvered into the ground (a not unusual method over the history of air warfare.) While only 12.6 percent of the Sidewinders fired scored a hit, 28 percent of the Sparrows did.

EDIT: And apperantly we did lose two F15Es to ground fire. That is news to me to be honest.

And another specifically on the F15 in the Gulf War

http://home.att.net/~jbaugher1/f15_12.html
 

brigden

Diamond Member
Dec 22, 2002
8,702
2
81
beer, you seriously need to take your heavy bias out of your arse, mate.
 

kalster

Diamond Member
Jul 23, 2002
7,355
6
81
Originally posted by: beer
Regarding dogfighting in the gulf war:

http://www.strategypage.com/dls/articles2001/20010611.asp

Of which I quote:
During the 1991 Gulf War the change was clearly underway. There were 39 U.S. air-to-air kills. The Sidewinder got 25 of them, the Sparrow 11. The traditional air-to-air weapon, the machine gun, got none. The A-10 ground attack aircraft nailed two helicopters with its 30mm anti-tank cannon, and one Iraqi aircraft was maneuvered into the ground (a not unusual method over the history of air warfare.) While only 12.6 percent of the Sidewinders fired scored a hit, 28 percent of the Sparrows did.

EDIT: And apperantly we did lose two F15Es to ground fire. That is news to me to be honest.

And another specifically on the F15 in the Gulf War

http://home.att.net/~jbaugher1/f15_12.html

damn you are in idiot


my dad is better than your

lets see you post some link and 10 posts about it


no one is claiming IAF > USAF

stop being a moron
 

SweetSweetLeroyBrown

Senior member
Oct 16, 2003
849
0
0
Originally posted by: beer
So what? India is using old technology from the Soviet era and has spent 18 years and failed to build even a basic jet, with comparable armaments and electronics to the mirage 2000 (which is a 70s-era fighter) in-house. We have companies like Lockheed putting the final touches on F-22s. Plus, India lacks anywhere near the battlefield communications or AWACS technology we have. Their missiles are inferior to our AIM120C AMRAAMs in every single way.

And finally, Mirage 2000s and MIG-21s are absolutely, positively no match for the F-15s. The SU-30s MAYBE in a dogfight but not in avionics, and that's what matters. The mig-21s are from the 60s! The Mig-21s and Mirage 2000s are competitors to the F4 Phantom-era planes, and not F-15s, and especially not their replacement, F22s.

If you think for a second any modern air battle involving US forces would be less than 30 miles, you are kidding yourself. Who gives a sh!t about dogfighting abilities when F15s and F22s can fire an AMRAAM (the F22 under complete stealth by the way) and blow you out of the air before you knew you were targeted?

The indian air force is still a joke, regardless of the propoganda you are fed.



hahaha talk about being in denial hahaha lol
 

AndrewR

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
11,157
0
0
Hmm, anyone ever consider that the source of the article might have a little India flag waving to do? The article is fairly scant on details, and there are so many parameters to consider that no one can make an accurate assessment solely from that piece. Any ideas on whether or not the F-15s were using the AIM-9X? Probably not.

Also, for the record, those were F-15Es, not the air superiority F-15Cs. Strike Eagle drivers do not spend all of their time on air-to-air engagements because they are dual-role. Sounds like the IAF is participating in Cope Thunder this summer so it will be interesting to see how they do there.

Originally posted by: Gyrene
Meh. Air Force people are pansies. Should have sent a MAW Aggressor Squadron against the Indians.

Whatever -- tell that to the Marines who get pasted regularly by the local F-15C squadrons here.
rolleye.gif
 

Siddhartha

Lifer
Oct 17, 1999
12,502
1
81
Originally posted by: ITJunkie
Originally posted by: virtueixi
That sucks. How much more do our planes cost anyway?

It's not the planes but the pilots. Personally I think the American Pilots are too arrogant and could use a few more bites of humble pie.

"I think in most cases they were equal to us, superior in some aspects."

Hmmm...let's see. Indian Pilots kicked your ass and the best you can say is "superior in some aspects". Here's an idea let's switch planes and see what happens. My guess is they would probably kick our ass even worse.

Let the flames begin....

Do you know any American pilots?

 

mAdD INDIAN

Diamond Member
Oct 11, 1999
7,804
1
0
funny this showed up.

My great-uncle was the Air-Vice Marshall of the IAF at one point in time, but he was a helicopter pilot (altho he did fly planes occasionally). He even flew Indira Ghandi (P.M. of India at the time).

I do know India had some very small manuverable jets that they used in the war against pakistan back in the 60s-70s. I don't know if they are still used now or what kind of planes they were, but I heard stories where they would act as "flies" buzzing around and dodging enemy aircraft/fire and while taking down planes.

Personally all you ppl geting worked up over this should calm down. It shows your arrogance by saying you feel insulted when the IAF is considered better (not saying it is). The IAF has very old Russian planes that barely run. I do know that the IAF have excellent pilots. They have trained Isreali pilots (one of the reasons why the Middle East is not too friendly with India) among those of other nations.

To dis-respect the IAF beating the USAF in a contest, considering their military budget is miniscule compared to the USAF, is foolish.

You guys have your national pride and I have mine.

EDIT:

Here is pics and some info on the plane I was talking about earlier
 

Gyrene

Banned
Jun 6, 2002
2,841
0
0
Originally posted by: AndrewR

Originally posted by: Gyrene
Meh. Air Force people are pansies. Should have sent a MAW Aggressor Squadron against the Indians.

Whatever -- tell that to the Marines who get pasted regularly by the local F-15C squadrons here.
rolleye.gif

:D So, a particular squadron isn't doing so hot. Air Force is for people who want to learn a technical skill or stay away from the real fighting. They're pansies. Marines are the people who go in head first. Just remember, the rivalry is all in good fun, I still respect my coward brethren. And remember, at least your not Navy. ;)