You're kidding right? Basing an outcome of a large scale war on one limited war game scenario and you are ready to predict the outcome of a war?
That's stupid and I'm not even going to take the time to point out why.
well what everyone seems to be missing is that the OP talked about 1 instance, that is all,
he didn't imply that IAF as a whole is better than USAF (atleast that is how i interpreted it)
if the detroit tigers kicked yankees @ss in 1 game and a fan who loves the tigers posted that the tigers kicked yankee @ss. would that be a wrong statement? , NO
would interpreting it as Tigers ALWAYS being better than Yankees be wrong, HELL YEH
would being an arrogant yankee fan and being in denial about that ONE loss be wrong (hint hint beer) HELL YEH
I'd love to see the radar that has the range of an AWACS, but somehow remains undetected when illuminating a target. Though against the very low RCS of the F-22, it would be interesting to see what its detection range would be. Also, I'm not familiar with a current production 400km range missle, but I'd assume it would have the same failings as the AIM-54, specifically that to have such great range, its manuverability at such great distance would be reduced. Such missiles would only be effective against long-range heavy bombers, not fighters.
You also forgot to mention how the Indian navy OWNZ the US Navy. Those fearsome 16 Harriers will avoid AWACS detection, blast 48 F-18s from the air, penetrate our Aegis screen, and send our carriers to the bottom of the ocean. A wise man would just surrender now to them to avoid defeat.
Though more seriously- this was a specific exercise with a specific purpose. In truth I am impressed that even with those numbers, the IAF won this exercise- so kudos to them. I was looking through the IAF orbat and didn't see any AWACS aircraft listed. I'd hazard a guess that a lack of such aircraft would be a massive disadvantage in a real engagement, especially when combined with the expected heavy support jamming.
In a real fight, the USAF would do everything possible to make the fight as unfair as possible- multiple AWACS aircraft, heavy jamming, cruise missles to take out ground radar, F-22s picking off fighters, etc.
yllus
Elite Member & Lifer
- Aug 20, 2000
- 20,577
- 432
- 126
Actually I was extremely skeptical at the idea that the Su-35 had comparable radar range to an E-3 Sentry, but published figures seem to indicate a max range of 400 km. The E-3 is supposed to have a 320 km radar window. Okay, the rough numbers match. However...the Su-35 could never act in the same role as the E-3. You're telling me a lone Su-35 pilot can take the role of four E-3 crewmen to coordinate an attack? Or that its radar is nearly as adept at tracking large numbers of aircraft in motion?
The SU-35 has the electronics on board to allow other aircraft to use its radar instead of their own. It can track a large number of multiple targets at once. When you have a strick group that can see the situattion on their radar screens co ordinating an attack is fairly easy as you the lead aircraft makes all the decisions and can guide the other aircraft in. It also has the advantage of being able to shoot back that teh E3 doesnt have.
Also, there is a difference on listed range and effective range. Like someone stated, a radar with the power of an AWACS requires multiple, dedicated crew members to effectively monitor and direct.
The SU-35 long-range concept makes sense for strategic defense, i.e. northern russia defense against US strategic bombers crossing the artic, where you're dealing in ranges of hundreds of miles over empty land, but over highly populated regions, it must be terribly difficult.
A radar scanning 400kms means a plane over New Delhi would be scanning across northern india, across nepal, and even into China, picking up literally hundreds if not thousands of targets.
The SU-35 long-range concept makes sense for strategic defense, i.e. northern russia defense against US strategic bombers crossing the artic, where you're dealing in ranges of hundreds of miles over empty land, but over highly populated regions, it must be terribly difficult.
A radar scanning 400kms means a plane over New Delhi would be scanning across northern india, across nepal, and even into China, picking up literally hundreds if not thousands of targets.
Vonkhan
Diamond Member
- Feb 27, 2003
- 8,198
- 0
- 71
Alrite, this has gone far enough - too many people talking outta their a55es ... some details about the excercize:
The excecize's name was COPE INDIA 2004
USAF:
6 x F-15C Eagles (Elmendorf Air Force Base, Alaska)
Originally, the number was 4 + 2 (F-15s) in two stages, but then air-air tanker taking part in the second excerize had to be pulled out due to a small onboard fire and the entire thing was re-organized into one big excercize with all 6 F-15s at the same time.
IAF:
2 x Su-30K (No. 24 Sqd. "Hunting Hawks")
2 x Mirage 2000 (No. 7 Sqd "Battleaxes")
2 x MiG-21Bison (Possibly from No. 3 Sqd. "Cobras")
6 x MiG-27M (Sqd. ?)
At BVR, USAF dominated.
At dogfighting - the ratio was 4:1 in the IAF's favor.
The reasons:
(1) the IAF were on home turf
(2) the Sukhois have thrust vectoring - making them exceptionally agile
(3) the Mirage 2000 is also a better dogfighter than the F-15Cs
(4) the IAF trains exceptionally hard for dogfighting scenarios given the lack of depth + the length of the Indo-Pakistan border
(5) the F-15Cs are exactly state-of-the-art anymore
(6) the IAF pilots were handpicked for the excercize - Squadron Leader & higher ranks
Having said that, 4:1 is a pretty good score against the USAF pilots who put in a lot more hours in training than their IAF counterparts.
US forces have been training in India quite a bit in recent years:
(1) Spec. Ops in Counter Insurgency & Jungle Warfare School (CIJWS) at Vairengte, Mizoram (Eastern India)
(2) Spec. Ops in High-Altitude Warfare School (HAWS) at Tawang, Arunachal Pradesh (Northern India)
(3) joint naval excercizes in the Arbian Sea
(4) Special Forces assigned to SOCPAC in PTS (Paratroopers Training School) at Agra, Uttar Pradesh
There're more, but ... bleh ... if there's more interest in the topic, lemme know
The excecize's name was COPE INDIA 2004
USAF:
6 x F-15C Eagles (Elmendorf Air Force Base, Alaska)
Originally, the number was 4 + 2 (F-15s) in two stages, but then air-air tanker taking part in the second excerize had to be pulled out due to a small onboard fire and the entire thing was re-organized into one big excercize with all 6 F-15s at the same time.
IAF:
2 x Su-30K (No. 24 Sqd. "Hunting Hawks")
2 x Mirage 2000 (No. 7 Sqd "Battleaxes")
2 x MiG-21Bison (Possibly from No. 3 Sqd. "Cobras")
6 x MiG-27M (Sqd. ?)
At BVR, USAF dominated.
At dogfighting - the ratio was 4:1 in the IAF's favor.
The reasons:
(1) the IAF were on home turf
(2) the Sukhois have thrust vectoring - making them exceptionally agile
(3) the Mirage 2000 is also a better dogfighter than the F-15Cs
(4) the IAF trains exceptionally hard for dogfighting scenarios given the lack of depth + the length of the Indo-Pakistan border
(5) the F-15Cs are exactly state-of-the-art anymore
(6) the IAF pilots were handpicked for the excercize - Squadron Leader & higher ranks
Having said that, 4:1 is a pretty good score against the USAF pilots who put in a lot more hours in training than their IAF counterparts.
US forces have been training in India quite a bit in recent years:
(1) Spec. Ops in Counter Insurgency & Jungle Warfare School (CIJWS) at Vairengte, Mizoram (Eastern India)
(2) Spec. Ops in High-Altitude Warfare School (HAWS) at Tawang, Arunachal Pradesh (Northern India)
(3) joint naval excercizes in the Arbian Sea
(4) Special Forces assigned to SOCPAC in PTS (Paratroopers Training School) at Agra, Uttar Pradesh
There're more, but ... bleh ... if there's more interest in the topic, lemme know
Originally posted by: Gyrene
Originally posted by: AndrewR
Whatever -- tell that to the Marines who get pasted regularly by the local F-15C squadrons here.
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.
You can walk around this island without bumping into Marines, and I've always respected them and the service (unless the morons start beating on or stealing from the locals, which happens all too much unfortunately). However, Marine air is focused on ground support, for good reason, and don't have the best aircraft for air-to-air engagements. That's a fact, not an opinion. Sometimes, he who has the best toy wins.
Cowardice? Staying away from flying bullets, earning a useful skill, living in quality facilities, earning the same pay -- I call that intelligence. And everyone knows the reputation of Marines and intelligence...
i agree with kalsters statement: by the OP saying Indian kicked USAF a$$, it isn't saying they are BETTER. just like he said, they won, this one.
in any case, some posters then felt the need to retort "if this was in real life..." why even go there? no relevance to what the OP wrote. but, can't these posters give credit to the fact that in the simulated war, the IAF won?
Lynx made a interesting observation though, the IAF was fighting with fckin Migs. Those things are antique, and they were still doing that well.
to me, that means one of four things: a) the USAF had some really bad luck/bad days b) the Indian pilots were DAMN good c) the USAF LET the Indians beat them for some reason d) the USAF just sucks.
anyways, i'm sure they got respect now (IAF).
now, back to WHY THE HELL ARE THERE SO MANY JOINT MILITARY EXCERCISES GOING ON BETWEEN THE TWO? i'm suspicious again. 4 times in India, once or twice in the U.S. in the past couple years.
in any case, some posters then felt the need to retort "if this was in real life..." why even go there? no relevance to what the OP wrote. but, can't these posters give credit to the fact that in the simulated war, the IAF won?
Lynx made a interesting observation though, the IAF was fighting with fckin Migs. Those things are antique, and they were still doing that well.
to me, that means one of four things: a) the USAF had some really bad luck/bad days b) the Indian pilots were DAMN good c) the USAF LET the Indians beat them for some reason d) the USAF just sucks.
anyways, i'm sure they got respect now (IAF).
now, back to WHY THE HELL ARE THERE SO MANY JOINT MILITARY EXCERCISES GOING ON BETWEEN THE TWO? i'm suspicious again. 4 times in India, once or twice in the U.S. in the past couple years.
I dont think there is anything into it. Although it is good that they are getting closer.
And if something was indeed planned i dont think it would be so obvious for you and me to know.about it
Maybe they just feel the need to learn from Indian Pilots
(dont jump on me beer lol )What I notice the most is how desperatly happy the Indians are that they managed to win in this contrived scenario and are having to much such a big deal out of it including using the term "kicked USAF a$$".
Why?
Why?
because its a big thing to beat the world's most powerful airforce, especially from a third world country with an ageing fleet. It's a compliment to you guys in a sense. Like a hopped up Civic beating an Enzo.
And its a national pride thing.
Originally posted by: Fiveohhh
Shoulda brought the f16s out
The F-16 is a fighter bomber not an air superiority fighter. The F-15 is designed as an air superiority fighter thus the F-15 is what should be used. If they used F-16s they would be mashed.
you can reverse the question and wonder why there is so much "USA is N°1" flagwaving in these forums
This is a U.S. Navy story not an USAF one but probably same type of scenario.
We would let other countries take the lead during Joint Ops, let them respond first, fire first and claim victory over other U.S. Navy ships playing the "other team" when we played simulated war games.
This list includes countries that could not defend themselves like Cananda, Poland and France.
Although India is a powerful country and only getting better as the years pass, and I would like to see them become the Asian SuperPower. I am sure the same type of thing happens, the Americans have to let things pass and other to take the lead. What country wants to do joint exercised with us if we just kick their @sses everytime?
We would let other countries take the lead during Joint Ops, let them respond first, fire first and claim victory over other U.S. Navy ships playing the "other team" when we played simulated war games.
This list includes countries that could not defend themselves like Cananda, Poland and France.
Although India is a powerful country and only getting better as the years pass, and I would like to see them become the Asian SuperPower. I am sure the same type of thing happens, the Americans have to let things pass and other to take the lead. What country wants to do joint exercised with us if we just kick their @sses everytime?
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 24K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter