Airpower: India threatens US air superiority

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?

(Regnirps) wrote in message ...
India has ordered Italian Savannahs, and with the big engine. We are in trouble
now!

-- Charlie Springer

Hah! India is in the process of inducting the BPO Class of multirole
combatants. They are equipped with four quad Brahmos launchers,
Aster.15's and a 250 seat call center. Now you can quake in your
boots.

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

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.

"Kevin Brooks" wrote in message
...

"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


Heh,heh, kinda like the Russian submarine threat...

T3

"Kevin Brooks" wrote in message ...
"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

Is the IAF attrition rate any worse than say USAF or the RAF? If so by
what metric and by how much? Do you have any hard numbers or even
reasonable estimates? How does the IAF attrition rate per 100K hours
or sorties compare with say USAF, RAF, PLAAF or PAF?

Is the IAF attrition rate any worse than say USAF or the RAF? If so by
what metric and by how much? Do you have any hard numbers or even
reasonable estimates? How does the IAF attrition rate per 100K hours
or sorties compare with say USAF, RAF, PLAAF or PAF?

The Indian attrition rate in the Mig-21 has been horrible and they call it the
"flying coffin". They are going to start sending new pilots to the UK for
about a hundred hours of advanced training in the Hawk, so pilots will have a
big more experience, since new pilots have typically been getting the Mig-21,
probably the most demanding of the planes they fly.


Ron
PA-31T Cheyenne II
Maharashtra Weather Modification Program
Pune, India

"Ron" wrote in message
...
Is the IAF attrition rate any worse than say USAF or the RAF? If so by
what metric and by how much? Do you have any hard numbers or even
reasonable estimates? How does the IAF attrition rate per 100K hours
or sorties compare with say USAF, RAF, PLAAF or PAF?

The Indian attrition rate in the Mig-21 has been horrible and they call it
the
"flying coffin". They are going to start sending new pilots to the UK
for
about a hundred hours of advanced training in the Hawk, so pilots will
have a
big more experience, since new pilots have typically been getting the
Mig-21,
probably the most demanding of the planes they fly.

One of the Indian newspapers ran an article by a former Indian AF pilot
defending the Mig-21; rather tenuous defense, IMO, and one that lost a lot
of credibility when it tried to paint the FC-1/JF-17 as a development of the
Mig-21/F-7 line! Worse, the writer claims that other aircraft (i.e.,
Mig-23/27) actually had a *worse* accident rate during some recent
years--ouch!

www.indian-express.com/ie20020331/week3.html

Curiously, the IAF, while it has repeatedly claimed that its accident rate
is no worse than other large air forces, does not seem to have released its
actual accident rate figures for the past few years (unlike the US military,
which provides an annual synopsis of the accident rate in each service).

Brooks



Ron
PA-31T Cheyenne II
Maharashtra Weather Modification Program
Pune, India

(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