Reasons to be sad

[camberiu]

Ok. I was being nice, but you asked for it!

Slick.

Still does not explain the 9:1 kill ratio that the IAF had over the USAF on two different occasions, the Cope India And Cope Thunder events.

 

[GS_Dirtboy]

Two easy explanations:
1. It was the Air Force
2. I wasn't flying in either one of those events

Ok, I've put my beer down. You'd need to show me the stats somewhere and a full-debrief. That would help.

 

[GS_Dirtboy]

On a side note: Navy pilots don't spend too much time talking kill ratios. We boast about landing grades back on the ship.

 

[mrporoto]

Roger that sir...hehe....nice one mr dirtbox,sorry dirtboy....was watching bill maher,one of
your better comedians,taking the piss out of the wars on terror,drugs to.Funny.Try it instead of the warmongering.

 

[ElQueso]

I think one must digest the sense of Mr Poroto's words with a bit of Bean-O to avoid the resulting methane that follows the digestion of such...

 

[Ceviche]

@ el queso,

what you think about the rumor of annulling of the argentine passports.

 

[camberiu]

Two easy explanations:
1. It was the Air Force
2. I wasn't flying in either one of those events

Ok, I've put my beer down. You'd need to show me the stats somewhere and a full-debrief. That would help.

They should have brought in the Navy (and you) for this indeed cause the USAF flyboys dropped the ball.


http://goo.gl/s3zaQ

America's Eagle is brought down to earth with a bump

By Peter Spiegel

Published: August 6 2004 04:00 | Last updated: August 6 2004 04:00

It started as one of the dozens of military exercises the Pentagon conducts with friendly governments each year - operations that are as much about bilateral diplomacy as about testing military capabilities.

But the exercise carried out in February, involving mock combat between the US and Indian air forces over the skies of Madhya Pradesh in central India, has taken on a life of its own. The reason? The US lost.

Not only did the US aircraft lose, but they lost repeatedly. According to one member of Congress briefed on the exercise, the US air force's top fighter, the F-15 Eagle, was defeated more than 90 per cent of the time in simulated dogfights with Indian pilots.

As a result, reports on the exercise have not only reached the highest levels of the Pentagon and Capitol Hill but have travelled around the world to military procurement agencies in Singapore and South Korea. As details have gradually leaked out, the exercise has become one of the prime topics of gossip at global air shows and arms fairs. It has also opened a rare window on to the overlapping loyalties and increasingly cut-throat competition that mark military procurement in an age of shrinking defence budgets.

The exercise, known as Cope India, was conceived almost two years ago as part of thawing relations between New Delhi and Washington. Some Pentagon officials saw improved diplomatic ties with democratic India as a way to balance the growing strength of communist China. It was the first combat training exercise between the two air forces in more than 40 years.

But Pentagon planners also had an important military goal: US air force pilots had never had the chance to go up against the Su-30 Flanker, the latest Russian-built fighter designed by Sukhoi, which India began acquiring in 1997.

Many of the details of Cope India remain classified. Accounts conflict: some say the F-15s lacked the US air force's most sophisticated radar; others that the Indians used special helmet-mounted targeting systems unavailable to US pilots; and others that the Americans were outnumbered at least two to one.

Whatever the reasons, the US Air Force might normally be expected to keep such a defeat under wraps. But in recent weeks, senior officers have begun leaking information about the exercise, freely admitting their technical inferiority. "We may not be as far ahead of the rest of the world as we once thought we were," says General Hal Hornburg, head of the US's air combat command.

The reason for the sudden candour has little to do with the F-15, and much more to do with another high-performance aircraft: the $72bn F/A-22 Raptor, a new stealthy combat jet that the US Air Force is desperate to save from Congressional and Pentagon budget-cutters. The craft has come under fire from those who say the

US no longer needs a fighter originally designed to fight the next generation of Soviet MiGs. So senior officers have decided that the risks of revealing the inadequacies of the F-15 are outweighed by the opportunity to convince the government to keep buying the higher-priced fighter.

"Something like Cope India, when we find that some of our advantages aren't as great as we thought they might be, leads me to remind people that we need to modernise our air-to-air capability," says Gen Hornburg.

Lockheed Martin, the prime contractor on the F/A-22, has been more than happy to play along. In recent briefings, senior executives have made thinly veiled references to Cope India.

"The bottom line is, the US no longer has a technological combat advantage, based on aircraft versus aircraft," says Ralph Heath, the Lockheed executive overseeing F/A-22.

It would seem only natural that the F/A-22's largest subcontractor, Boeing, would play along too - except for one problem: Boeing makes the F-15. The company recently won a competition to produce F-15s for South Korea and is engaged in a heated contest to build 20 for the Singapore air force. "We were concerned," says George Muellner, head of Boeing's air force business.

In an effort to save the F-15 from the Pentagon's self-inflicted wounds, General John Jumper, the air force chief of staff, recently briefed Singaporean officials on the Indian exercise. Singapore, which is also looking at the Eurofighter and the French Rafale, has reason to be worried: China has bought the Su-30, as have Malaysia and Indonesia.

Caught in between is Sukhoi itself, which does not seem to know what to make of the mixed American messages. "We feel part of a game," protests Alexander Klementiev, Sukhoi's deputy director general. "But we are not participants in that game."

 

[ElQueso]

@ el queso,

what you think about the rumor of annulling of the argentine passports.

I think it is a big reason to be sad if it's really being considered and not just a rumor.

I can only assume that the intent on this would be to make it that much more difficult for people with money outside of the country to access their money on trips and such. If you have to have everything in the white to even get your passport/permission to leave the country renewed, it's going to cause a lot of problems for people.

Particularly the way that even if you ARE in the white and can prove source of funds, the banks STILL are not giving out dollars to people with any kind of utility.

I mentioned a few months ago that I felt like the restriction on buying plane tickets and converting currencies was an effective means to limit many Argentinos from leaving the country, whether or not that was actually the intention.

I was reading a story yesterday (I think someone in a thread posted the link, if I remember correctly) where people had left the country, went to Chile and were only allowed to buy a pittance of Chilean currency (don't remember the amount). They did everything legally as far as proving taxes paid, et al. They thought they could use their debit card in Chile, but it was blocked while they were away due to the government implementing the foreign restrictions. They couldn't find anyone to buy the few pesos they had on them in order to return, for awhile, and were quite worried about being stranded in a foreign country without funds.

This government does so many things off-the-cuff, without thinking through, or caring about, the consequences, that it wouldn't surprise me one bit to hear that they are stepping up the oppression.

I don't know how all of this would affect foreigners with residency. The passport thing certainly shouldn't affect us directly, but who knows if that does come to pass what may happen next with foreign residents and the restrictions they may place on leaving...I wouldn't expect it, but I don't think many of the decisions this government is making are based in well thought out logic.

Watch out for the government here!

 

[GS_Dirtboy]

That's a bit dated, though. My resources are from the last 2 years. Even so, if the IAF had a kill ratio of 9:1 that would wake some people up in the Pentagon. We don't know the details, whether it was 1v1, 1v2, 1vMultiple. Also don't know what gear the Eagle's were carrying. Don't get me wrong, I think the Su-30 is a great fighter and the Super Sukhoi is going to be interesting, but I doubt that it dominates the battlefield. The modern battlefield is too integrated to have that happen.

My sources tell me that the IAF Su-30's had a bunch of kills on friendlies as well recently. They don't have an integrated battlefield overview like we do (I could see the entire battlefield). The IAF can see what their radar sees. It's like playing football while wearing binoculars.

Just looking at the specs, and knowing how the Su-27 flew (pretty sure the Su-30 is on the same frame but bigger, like the F/A-18 to Super Hornet) you can tell that given similar gear and pilots they will be evenly matched. Though I don't think anyone has the kind of kill power that we have with the AIM-9X. The game-changer will be the F-16 Block 60. I think I remember that it is "much" bigger than the Block 50, with something like 30% more fuel and speed - again similar to the improvement in the Super Hornet. If we are comparing the Su-30MKI to a Block 60 Viper I'll take the Viper.

 

[camberiu]

That's a bit dated, though. My resources are from the last 2 years. Even so, if the IAF had a kill ratio of 9:1 that would wake some people up in the Pentagon. We don't know the details, whether it was 1v1, 1v2, 1vMultiple. Also don't know what gear the Eagle's were carrying. Don't get me wrong, I think the Su-30 is a great fighter and the Super Sukhoi is going to be interesting, but I doubt that it dominates the battlefield. The modern battlefield is too integrated to have that happen.

I don't disagree with you. War is much more complex that simply pitting fighter X vs fighter Y. There are many variables like logistics, intelligence, geo-political constrains, military readiness, command&control, military skills and competence, popular support etc....
I am just saying that on a machine vs. machine comparison, the Flanker seems to be a much superior aircraft. What effect that technical superiority would have in a real conflict, when all the other variables come into play is a different story.

Though I don't think anyone has the kind of kill power that we have with the AIM-9X.

I've read many discussions about the AIM-9X vs the Russia Vympel R-77. They are very closed matched. The Vympel has better aerodynamics and can pull higher Gs. The AIM-9X has a better seeker and longer range. Which one is best. I think it would depend on the tactical situation.

The game-changer will be the F-16 Block 60. I think I remember that it is "much" bigger than the Block 50, with something like 30% more fuel and speed - again similar to the improvement in the Super Hornet. If we are comparing the Su-30MKI to a Block 60 Viper I'll take the Viper.

I think it would depend on the circumstances. The Viper is an incredible aircraft indeed. How much better is it compared with the Su-30MKI? Hard to say. And to be honest, those are questions that I hope are only answered in a virtual arena and NEVER in real life. As ironic is it may sound, I love talking about warplanes and stats, but I absolutely abhor war and violence. Planes should fire in anger only inside computer games.