Airpower: India threatens US air superiority

"Kevin Brooks" wrote in message ...
"Tuollaf43" wrote in message
om...
"Kevin Brooks" wrote in message

Let's get some facts, please. Mig-21 is probably the most
docile
supersonic
fighter that has been in use since 1961 in some 50
countries. It
is
known
for it straightfowardness and superb handling, only drawback
known
to me
is
inertia roll coupling when doing extremely high-rate
unloaded
rolls
(the
same thing it shares with F-15). It is in Indian service
since
1963
in
almost all versions. Suddenly, they need a Hawk training?
Come
on!

Not suddenly - they have been begging for the hawk for the
past
two
decades.

But why have they been "begging" for it if, as you just tried to
assert
in
another message, there is really no problem with existing IAF
training
and
accidents?

Which message would that be dear where I have asserted that IAF
has no
problems with training and accidents? Could you quote it?

So you are not saying that? Odd. It appeared to me that you took
exception
with my noting the IAF was having a particular problem with
accidents...but
if you now agree that is the case, OK!


What I wanted to know was if you really had an insight into the
question at all or were merely returgating sensational accounts from
the newspapers. From your other posts on this thread the answer is
clear.

Apparently not. I was not aware of the domestic newspaper accounts
regarding
this subject until you piped up with your 'it ain't so!' bleating

OK once again - post the 'it aint so' part of my post - chapter and
verse.

OK, then you are asaying you were asking an honest question instead? If so,
the answer is that the IAF has failed to provide the detailed kind of
accident statistics (like those routinely released by the RAF, USAF, etc.)
that would be required to support the assertion that their accident rate is
no worse than any other large air force's rate, especially in the specific
case of the Mig-21. Given the frequent reporting of IAF accidents in the
aviation press, and the lack of opposing data from the IAF, and the domestic
press accounts in India, it does indeed appear that the IAF is having an
accident problem. There is you answer--if you want to refute it, come back
with some accident-per-100K flight hours, by aircraft type, as provided by
the IAF; otherwise you are blowing hot air, as usual.

So you will ignore any statistics with which you are not familiar
despite their relevance? That's your problem, not mine.



And bleating eh? Good, that probably means I'll inherit the world
then.

and I did
a little bit of websearching.

I am impressed - the fact that you are doing elementary research
indicates progress from the last time we had a tete-a-tete. Atta-boy!

Why, have you actually increased your basic military knowledge since that
time? It was none too impressive, as I recall...

Indeed you were not impressed. Pray permit me to flatter myself that
it is just another case of pearls before swine...


My impression that the Indians do indeed have
a significant problem with training losses comes from watching the
accidents/write-off reports over the past few years as published in some
of
the military journals,

Nobody cares for your impressions -

In the absence of any usable factual data from the IAF, those impressions
stand.

If you insist I am sure that they will also dance for you in addition
to standing. Unexplained is why we should give it any credence.


I certainly dont after your
repeated idiotic remarks about mountain warfare which you evidently
still stick too.

Still whining about that, eh?

Whining? I am not complaining about your ignorance. While it is a bit
irritating I must admit it is also a fair bit entertaining. So whining
would be entirely inaccurate; disdain is more like it. I am merely
noting that your track record of making _demonstrably_ _false_
_assertions_ isnt helpful when you come and ask us to give credence to
your "impressions". And your tendency to snip uncomfortable parts or
to just run away when cornered isnt so credibility inspiring either.
Is it?

And still convinced that the Chinese are
plotting to sweep down from the Tibetian heights and overrun India as soon
as they can, right?

Surely they are far more clever than that. And THATs exactly why India
needs more infantry.

And still can't point out just what about any of that
oxygen-deprived stratospheric terrain is actaully worth fighting over in the
first place, right?

I did post "China contests the Indian State of Arunachal Pradesh.
83,000 sq km
with plenty of tea, coffee, rubber, oil and coal. And it is not rocky
mountscape - it is covered with luxuriant forests. I suppose some
americans will consider all things non-american as worthless, but the
one million people who call that area home probably love it and think
it beautiful."

But true to form you ignored it, changed tack mid-sentence and went of
racing for a tangential topic. And you expect credibility???

And lastly, still wedded to your 'mass is king' theory
of Lanchesterian attrition warfare? Figures...

nope. I cant be 'still' wedded to 'attrition warfare' if I wasnt ever
wedded to it in the first place can I?

Do you have any factual data to back up your
"impressions"? Obviously not. Absolute number of accidents is
meaningless unless you can measure it against sorties or as some
prefer flight hours.

Which despite being harangued about the number of accidents, the IAF has not
provided. Curious, huh?

Curious no, pragmatic yes. I already told you a quite plausible reason
for the reticence for making public readiness data. Had this
information been routinely available and had this information been
suddenly supressed after MiG-21 crashes became an public issue, then
your contention of hiding data would have had some merit.


and seeing some of the cringing on the part of the
IAF leadership in regards to getting their hands on relatively modern
LIFT-type platforms.

Which airforce doesnt want the newest, shiniest toy they can afford
(and sometimes cant afford)? What is unique about that? If the brass
wants new aircraft all it means is that they want new aircraft. Note
that so far there have been no suggestions that the IAF is trying to
con or fraud the parliament into funding upgrades as USAF is repeated
claimed to be doing.

Uhmmm..be careful. What is the progress on that lil' ol' investigation in
the Indian armed forces I read something about recently? You know, the one
where it appears some combat "incidents" in Kashmir were staged to make a
couple of higher ranking officers look good...?

The company commander was court martialed and found guilty. His
Battalion commander and the adjutant were found guilty of
administrative lapses. Informally heads have rolled right upto the
Corps Commander level for letting such incidents take place in their
command.

I know that the US army is growing quite small but surely company
commanders are not considered high ranking there, are they?

Now THAT is a pretty blatant
piece of "con artistry"...while the USAF has been at worst accused of
setting the exercise ROE up such that *maybe* it was disadvantageous to the
visiting team... while the IAF remains unwilling to release detailed
accident statistics to support its own assertions that the accident problem
ain't a problem?

The first case is criminal activity at the individual level while the
other is criminal activity at the institutional level. I know which is
worse.

You ever heard the one about folks living in glass houses?

Indeed I have. So if you quite making oblique assertions that only
what the USAF/NATO does is professional... maybe I'll keep the stones
to myself.


And your use of 'cringe' is interesting. You must be mighty perceptive
if you could tell that from military journals. What gave the distinct
impression of cringing? Are you sure that is the word you meant or
just wanted to use a new word you heard your dad say? The dictionary
tells me cringe is draw back with fear or pain or show submission or
fear.

And if the IAF is indeed afraid of its masters, the elected
representatives, then surely that is prefable to what you claim the
USAF is up to with the congress now and has done so in the past -
swindle.

You are jumping to conclusions that were not intended. Maybe my fault for
using the strictly improper wording. Insert "wincing" instead, if it will
keep you from getting your panties all tangled up. The IAF leadership has
IIRC made it quite clear over the years that they were quite anxious to get
new trainers into service..add all of those reported accidents to the mix,
and what do you come up with? Sounds like they already knew they had a
problem on their hands--even if they were loathe to come out and admit it.

Loath to admit it? The IAF is screaming and wailing about a problem in
their hands for past two decades - lack of suitable advanced jet
trainers. I dont believe that they have denied it as there is a
article in the papers every week by retired IAF officers about it and
the price the pilots are paying.

What they object to is shifting the blame on the MiG-21 - it does what
it is supposed to do quite well. When you put it to uses that it isnt
suited, you (or more properly a callow, young cadet who girls wont
marry) pays the ultimate price.

What they are object to is silly public statements that the entire
fishbed fleet be withdrawn from service pronto, without any
replacement in hand.


The two taken together point to a real problem in the
IAF. Further compounded by the IAF's reticence to list annual accident
statistics in a form that allows direct comparison with the air forces
that
largely set the standards for professionalism.

Oh yes. The same airforce in which your pop was the terror flieger?
And which now bombs sewage facilities and water plants. If that is
what professionalism entails then I supppose the rest of the unwashed
would rather not be professional.

Ah, I see you still possess your usual grace and charm.

My apologies - I retract my statement about your father being a terror
flieger if his criminal activities were solely limited to the Pacific
theater. It was you not I who who claimed be dropped incendiaries on
cities wasnt it.

BTW, Did the Japs have a equivalent of 'terror flieger' nomenclature
for the war criminals who fire bombed cities?

Apparently you have
about as much of those qualities as you possess of modern military
affairs--i.e., not much (Oooh! Now its time for you to intimate how
important you supposedly are, and how you *really* have some serious inside
knowledge of military affairs, right? --Save it, Mr. Anonymous; Walter Mitty
already stole your thunder).

Ad hominem. My importance or not is irrelevant. You have my arguments
and that is what is relevant. Contest that if you can, rather than my
importance or lack of. Regarding importance; I suspect that my idea of
what constitues importance is decidedly different from yours.


Now either you agree they
have a problem, or you don't--kind of hard to figure which is the case
when
you post in *both* modes.

This is merely indicative of a defect in your mentality and attitude
towards life. Unlike you I dont choose a 'side' of the argument and
pile up evidence for it and belittle anything and anyone that oppposes
it. To understand complex issues I am willing to keep my mind open; I
will post both data that supports as well as that which conflicts with
my opinions if that is available - point is to learn something; not
just grind idealogical axes.

So, which is it--does the IAF have an apparent problem with its accident
rates (in particular with the Mig-21), or not? Stop dancing around the issue
and come down on one side or the other for a change.

"Come down on a side"? There are no "sides" or havent you read what I
said! And what will you do if I indeed came down on one side -
promptly argue for the other side I suspect?

Very well then.

There are four sources of attrition
[1] Routine wastage. Which all air forces suffer from. Equipment
failures, human errors, negligence, hand of god etc. If these were all
the accidents the IAF was suffering from then there would be no "high
attrition rate" issue or debate. The contributors to more than average
attrition are the following.
[2] Inappropiate Training Material. Lack of AJT and proper supersonic
transition aircraft. Bulk of the losses involve fishbeds and occur at
MOFTUs and involve disproportionate number of mongols. If a proper AJT
is available (like Hawk or MiG AT) and people went to MOFTUs after
finishing Hawk school then a large fraction of these accidents can be
eliminated.
[3] Unsuitable Equipment. The bulk of the IAF fleet is still made up
of Fishbeds which are pressed into roles that they are not really
suited for - CAS, NOE flying etc. A fair share of accidents can be
attributed to this. i.e. If those missions were undertaken by a more
suitable aircraft (say Jaguars) or Fishbeds were limited to the roles
they are suitable for (interceptions) then these accidents probably
would not have occured. Looking at fiscal realities this aspect of the
problem cannot be solved in less than a decade.
[4] Extremely high readiness states and corresponding high intensity
training for the last few years contributing more accidents. This one
is out of the IAF's hands and it cant be fixed until the geopolitical
situation changes.

Keeping these points in mind, almost all generalizations and
conclusions made regarding the IAF and the Fishbed in the media (and
to an extent here) are either beside the point or plainly wrong.

Brooks

snip

Ed Rasimus wrote in message . ..
On 30 Jun 2004 23:21:24 -0700, (Tuollaf43) wrote:

Ed Rasimus wrote in message . ..

You guys must be marketing wrong. The danger is what makes fighter
pilots so damned attractive.

umm, I thought it was the large heads and child like personality


Big watches and small watchamacallits.

LOL! You are all right Ramisus. (For a fighter puke).


You don't need to propagandize, simply
issue a large life insurance policy to each aviator.

scratchs head How does that help? In India the tendency is to mate
for life. Being a widow with a large chunk of cash is not an
attractive option.

Being a widow with a large chunk of cash is quite attractive in some
cultures. In fact, it even makes the widow a lot more
attractive--witness Theresa Heinz-Kerry.

With that kind of cash it would be attractive in _any_ culture. But
kinda hard to russle up that kind of policy for Joe Airman.

BTW, Have you perused the Kalam Committee Report on Air Safety for
instance? 1836875 hours for the whole airfleet in seven years with 194
accidents and 154 writeoffs.

Interesting that you say that and then below you discount that sort of
stat as being inappropriately skewed toward long duration heavies.

I do believe that they are inappropriately skewed. But I quoted them
to show that some statistics in hours are available - if you look for
them. I dont see the dichotomy.

Statistics in hours, even when available, if they d on't demonstrate
something relevant aren't meaningful. Add airlift, tanker, trainer and
bomber hours to fighter stats in the USAF and you'll get some
remarkable safety stats. But worthless.

The fact is that the relevant stats are accidents/100k flight hours
and they must be tied to aircraft type.

Tied to aircraft type is obvious. But why necessarily measured in
fight hours? Why are per sortie figures irrelevant?

Because sortie length varies. In most fighter units an ACM/BFM sortie
can run 0.9 hours. An A/G range sortie can be 1.5 and a X-country or
deployment sortie may be 4, 5 or more hours long.

OK. Similarly for 100 hours flown you can have a variable number of
sorties flown - 200 half hour ones or 25 four hour ones and those in
between.

I genuinely fail to understand why one metric is indisputably superior
to the other.

When we deal with fighter types, however, if your accidents are taking
place during takeoff and landing, you really need to address your
training progams--initial training, not operational. (Maybe that
relates to the Hawk program?)

Yes again. A disproportionately large number of accidents involve
Mongols and the MOFTUs; not the line squadrons or during primary
training on subsonic jets.

And I am sure that I dont need to tell you the kind of training any
Air Force does in "peace time" and the kind it does when hostilities
are "imminent" and how that difference impacts on safety.

Whoa. Bad assumption there. If an AF's peace time training isn't done
in consideration of hostilities ALWAYS being imminent, it is wasted
jet fuel. Train like you fight. "Everything else is rubbish." (Sorry
Baron, couldn't resist.)

I am making no assumptions. Just mentioning a real world fact. The
theory is that you work as hard in peace time as when you are when the
**** is about to hit the fan. In practise this rarely happens. For
instance safety concerns are relaxed in latter cases and you tend to
get, uh, more 'realistic' training.

The USAF/USN learned that lesson well. The introduction of Red Flag,
DACT/ACMI, realistic EW training and instrumented ranges has been a
giant step in achieving preparedness. If you aren't training for war,
you aren't training.

Since the USAF is involved in real shooting wars nearly all the time
the distinction between peace time training and under warlike
conditions might be moot for them. For most other air forces that
distinction is real, with real impact on training.


Operational aircraft tend to be lost in the high performance portions
of the mission---mid-airs in A/A; ground strikes in low-level nav;
ordnance delivery issues such as release failures, weapon malfunctions
and frag hits; departures from controlled flight; and structural
failure due to exceeding operating limitations.

Or bird ingestion when you fly from heavily populated areas with low
public sanitation. Or using a thoroughbred mach two interceptor for
CAS with rocket pods or worse NOE flying with CBUs.

You're talking to the wrong guy about "thoroughbred mach two" types
flying CAS with rockets, or LL with CBU's and iron. Been there done
that in F-105s and F-4Es. Both M-2 high altitude systems, both down in
the mud delivering the mail.

On the contrary if you have done that then I think that I am talking
to the right guy. You would know how it is.

Or are you suggesting that using them makes no difference from a
safety point of view?


If your force is regularly doing one mission with an inappropriate
platform, it's time to reshape the force or the mission.

The mission _has_ to be done. And you cant replace half your fleet
overnight (purely fiscal reasons). That is the crux of the problem
facing the IAF.

Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
Smithsonian Institution Press
ISBN #1-58834-103-8