Airpower: India threatens US air superiority

Why not include the World Wars as well? That way, you can say they
decisively
won every WWII air war they fought, regardless of who they faced.

Only as a part of the GLOBAL ALLIANCE which included Great
Britain,US,USSR,Canada,Australia,France,India,Pola nd,South Africa,New Zealand
and many others.

Correct?

India would be a tough opponent for US, at least in aerial battles. They
have a lot of experience in previous wars with Pakistan and-unlike the most
of Arab countries-they KNOW how to learn from mistakes. It seems to me that
they are very much like Israelis in the terms of their unfriendly
neighbours. They also have both Western and Russian equipment (i.e.combat
airplanes) and local production, making them almost completely independent.
They are also known as a valuable resource to former USSR (and today,
Russia) for development of new versions of fighters (MiG-21) or even
expanding the envelope (Su-7). Their expertise certainly helped in bringing
the bugs out from the MiG-29 (India being the first country to receive
them).

Unlike other countries USA has faced recently, India wouldn't sit and look a
military buildup; just like Israelis, they would certainly make a preemptive
strike-they are quite capable to do that, and they did it before.

Nele

NULLA ROSA SINE SPINA

Denyav wrote in message ...
Why not include the World Wars as well? That way, you can say they
decisively
won every WWII air war they fought, regardless of who they faced.

Only as a part of the GLOBAL ALLIANCE which included Great
Britain,US,USSR,Canada,Australia,France,India,Pol and,South Africa,New
Zealand
and many others.

Correct?

On Fri, 25 Jun 2004 12:14:17 +0200, "Nele VII"
wrote:

India would be a tough opponent for US, at least in aerial battles. They
have a lot of experience in previous wars with Pakistan and-unlike the most
of Arab countries-they KNOW how to learn from mistakes. It seems to me that
they are very much like Israelis in the terms of their unfriendly
neighbours. They also have both Western and Russian equipment (i.e.combat
airplanes) and local production, making them almost completely independent.
They are also known as a valuable resource to former USSR (and today,
Russia) for development of new versions of fighters (MiG-21) or even
expanding the envelope (Su-7). Their expertise certainly helped in bringing
the bugs out from the MiG-29 (India being the first country to receive
them).

Unlike other countries USA has faced recently, India wouldn't sit and look a
military buildup; just like Israelis, they would certainly make a preemptive
strike-they are quite capable to do that, and they did it before.

Nele

I'm guessing any "air war" with the US vs. India would involve a
pummeling of airfields by Tomahawks before the carriers and Aegis
showed up. The whole "fight smart" thing you know. Trying to slug it
out with "Super" Hornets vs Su-30 would probably end up pretty ugly
unless the US fielded a 100 mile AAM. Or stealth with
JDAM/JSOW/JASSM.

"Scott Ferrin" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 25 Jun 2004 12:14:17 +0200, "Nele VII"
wrote:

India would be a tough opponent for US, at least in aerial battles. They
have a lot of experience in previous wars with Pakistan and-unlike the
most
of Arab countries-they KNOW how to learn from mistakes. It seems to me
that
they are very much like Israelis in the terms of their unfriendly
neighbours. They also have both Western and Russian equipment (i.e.combat
airplanes) and local production, making them almost completely
independent.
They are also known as a valuable resource to former USSR (and today,
Russia) for development of new versions of fighters (MiG-21) or even
expanding the envelope (Su-7). Their expertise certainly helped in
bringing
the bugs out from the MiG-29 (India being the first country to receive
them).

Unlike other countries USA has faced recently, India wouldn't sit and
look a
military buildup; just like Israelis, they would certainly make a
preemptive
strike-they are quite capable to do that, and they did it before.

Nele

I'm guessing any "air war" with the US vs. India would involve a
pummeling of airfields by Tomahawks before the carriers and Aegis
showed up. The whole "fight smart" thing you know. Trying to slug it
out with "Super" Hornets vs Su-30 would probably end up pretty ugly
unless the US fielded a 100 mile AAM. Or stealth with
JDAM/JSOW/JASSM.

Based upon the monthly accident reports published in the press, would air
combat actually be needed? The Indians seem to be bound and determined to
destroy their own force through training related attrition... :-)

Brooks

Unlike other countries USA has faced recently, India wouldn't sit and look
a
military buildup; just like Israelis, they would certainly make a
preemptive
strike-they are quite capable to do that, and they did it before.

Why is it that people like this seem to completely miss the fact that the US
has yet to bring its resources full-bore to a fight like this? India would
be much more of the exact kind of challenge the US military was meant to
dismantle, and many American resources have never had a real application in
a war with Iraq or in Europe in the 90s.

So, Nele, can you explain this to us?

"t_mark" wrote in message
news:0J4Ec.21160$rh.5685@okepread02...
Unlike other countries USA has faced recently, India wouldn't sit and
look
a
military buildup; just like Israelis, they would certainly make a
preemptive
strike-they are quite capable to do that, and they did it before.

Why is it that people like this seem to completely miss the fact that the
US
has yet to bring its resources full-bore to a fight like this? India
would
be much more of the exact kind of challenge the US military was meant to
dismantle, and many American resources have never had a real application
in
a war with Iraq or in Europe in the 90s.

So, Nele, can you explain this to us?

Heck, I am still waiting for him to explain just how in the heck the Indians
would conduct a preemptive strike against the US; "they are quite capable to
do (sic) that"? Even Diego Garcia appears to be a bit beyond their air
striking distance...

Brooks

"t_mark" wrote in message news:0J4Ec.21160$rh.5685@okepread02...
Unlike other countries USA has faced recently, India wouldn't sit and look
a
military buildup; just like Israelis, they would certainly make a
preemptive
strike-they are quite capable to do that, and they did it before.

I cant seem to remember. Could you please tell me when they made a
pre-emptive strike.


Why is it that people like this seem to completely miss the fact that the US
has yet to bring its resources full-bore to a fight like this?
India would
be much more of the exact kind of challenge the US military was meant to
dismantle, and many American resources have never had a real application in
a war with Iraq or in Europe in the 90s.

So, Nele, can you explain this to us?

You Russian can't even beat 1 million Chechens.

As far as I remember "the Global Alliance"was not created to stop Russia (or
Soviet Union),but Soviet Union itself was the part of this "Global Alliance".

Heck,I forgat the name of the small country that faced the Global Alliance.

(Karen Gordon) wrote:

K): Would that be the 'superior U.S. airforce' that has killed thousands
f innocent civilians and allies in its various invasions of other
:countries?
:--
: """""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""" """""""""""""""""
: You don't have to fool all the people all of the time;
: you just have to fool enough to get elected. - G. Barzan
: """""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""" """""""""""""""""

And they've obviously found one fool up in the Frozen North.

Are the overwhelming majority of Canadians really this mentally
challenged, or it is just the ones that post here?

--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn

"Fred J. McCall" wrote in message
...
(Karen Gordon) wrote:

K): Would that be the 'superior U.S. airforce' that has killed thousands
f innocent civilians and allies in its various invasions of other
:countries?
:--
: """""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""" """""""""""""""""
: You don't have to fool all the people all of the time;
: you just have to fool enough to get elected. - G. Barzan
: """""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""" """""""""""""""""

And they've obviously found one fool up in the Frozen North.

Are the overwhelming majority of Canadians really this mentally
challenged, or it is just the ones that post here?

These days it seems to be most of them.

Note that the original poster stated "... has killed thousands of innocent
civilians..." without providing some kind of evidence? Since the
unpleasantness in VietNam, IIRC, the USAF has done an admirable job of
avoiding civilian casualties. The recent exercise in Iraq showed beyond
question how precision munitions could limit civilian casualties. To date,
I've seen no evidence that civilian casualties in Iraq and Afghanistan
number more than a few hundred, if that many. Secondarily, the original
poster mentions "various invasions of other countries" without detailing
which countries he is referencing. If the OP is referring to Afghanistan and
Iraq, he might almost have a good argument. As it is, since we have no real
idea what he's talking about, he's killfile material.