Airpower: India threatens US air superiority

"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.

In article jbnDc.186536$Ly.72@attbi_s01,
"Aardvark J. Bandersnatch, MP" wrote:

"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?

That's her normal mode of operation: drive-by poster.

No follow-up responses.

"hobo" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Eunometic" wrote:

Many parts of the US are deindustrializing. Engineering,
manufacturing and hi-tech jobs are disappearing and being replaced
with services jobs. (most in low paid domestic services: the job
led
recovery is a bit of a sham)

It's the reverse. With the decline in the dollar manufacturing is
returning to the US. What is being outsourced are service jobs.

Plenty of evidence to the contrary.

http://www.vdare.com/roberts/college_graduates.htm
http://www.vdare.com/roberts/jobs_front.htm
http://www.vdare.com/francis/outsourcing.htm
http://www.vdare.com/rubenstein/income.htm


You can't outsource most services jobs very effectively. Unless you
count Hispanics who have effectively replaced (outsource) teenagers
and low income Whites and will eventually outsource most Whites
completely in the US completely on current trends.

Can't they outsource Bush, the Neocons and Democrats? Surely some
Indian could produce the same drivel they do at 1/10th the price.

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!

Nele

NULLA ROSA SINE SPINA



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.


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

"Aardvark J. Bandersnatch, MP" wrote in message news:jbnDc.186536$Ly.72@attbi_s01...
"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.

You must have not been looking then. The death toll has easily crossed
10,000. Western media reported Iraqi civilian casualties alone crossed
thousand dead in the first month of the invasion itself. The US
authority has been careful not to officially keep a count of civilian
casualties in Iraq - unless ofcourse they are "contractors".

Just google 'iraq civilian casualties'. But why bother? They were just
wogs.

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.

E. Barry Bruyea wrote in message ...
On Thu, 24 Jun 2004 07:58:07 -0600, Bryan Heit
wrote:

E. Barry Bruyea wrote:

Notwithstanding the fact that operating in a non-hostile environment
is a hell of a lot different that in a 'real' war; something Indian
pilots have little or no experience. In every actual air war in which
the U.S. has been involved, they have always come out on top.



You pay much attention to thw world? India has a lot of experience with
war, be it the three "formal" wars with Pakistan, their ongoing conflict
within Kashmir, or their ongoing conflict with China over their northern
boarder. Indian pilots probably have as near, if not as much, combat
experience as their US counterparts.

Bryan

Those wars were primarily ground wars; neither side committed much
airpower to the conflicts.


Really? Go to www.bharat-rakshak.com/IAF/index.html .

Nele

NULLA ROSA SINE SPINA

E. Barry Bruyea wrote in message ...
On Thu, 24 Jun 2004 18:39:54 -0400, Tim
wrote:

E. Barry Bruyea wrote:

On Thu, 24 Jun 2004 07:37:18 GMT, "L'acrobat"
wrote:



"Yeoman" wrote in message
le.com...



Hornburg said the exercise shows the need for some new Air Force
fighters, particularly the F/A-22 Raptor, which is intended to replace
the F-15C. But critics deride the aircraft as too expensive and built
to counter a threat that hasn't existed since the Soviet Union
collapsed.


A cynic would suggest that the entire point of the exercise (for the
USAF)
was to make sure that the F-15s did not win convincingly, allowing the
USAF
to push the F-22.



Notwithstanding the fact that operating in a non-hostile environment
is a hell of a lot different that in a 'real' war; something Indian
pilots have little or no experience. In every actual air war in which
the U.S. has been involved, they have always come out on top.


Who have they actually fought with since W.W.II?


Well, they kicked hell out of Russian, Chinese and N. Korean pilots in
Korea with a kill rate of about 8 to 1 and had roughly the same kill
rate against Russian & Chinese pilots in Vietnam. Saddam wouldn't
even commit his Air Force in the first Gulf War.


Oh, Lord! Have You ever heard about "Honchos"? Go to www.acig.org , select
"journals" then "honchos". If You want objective point of view of Russians
in Korea, of course.

Top Gun is a nice movie, but it is only that-the movie.

Nele

NULLA ROSA SINE SPINA

"T3" wrote in message
...


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

I am not sure this is that straight forward -

US fielded about 100 submarines - lost 2 Thresher & a Skipjack class (I
forget the name)
USSR fielded about 450 submarines and lost well over 4 (I do not know how
many exactly)

Conclusion??

David

On Sun, 27 Jun 2004 17:58:24 +0200, "David Nicholls"
wrote:


"T3" wrote in message
m...


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

I am not sure this is that straight forward -

US fielded about 100 submarines - lost 2 Thresher & a Skipjack class (I
forget the name)


I'm pretty sure only the Thresher was lost. The Skipjack class member
lost was the Scorpion.




Skipjack 6
Thresher 14
Sturgeon 37
LA 62
Polaris 41 (Ethan Allen, George Wash., Ben Franklin,
Layfayette)

Ohio 18

Plus several one-offs brings it to over 180.







USSR fielded about 450 submarines and lost well over 4 (I do not know how
many exactly)

I thought it was more like eight or so.

Oscar II (Kursk)
Mike
Yankee I (K-219)
Charlie (K-429)
November (K-8)


Looks like it was five that acutally sank. There were quite a few
additional subs that had to be towed back to port and several of them
never made it back into service.

http://www.lostsubs.com/Soviet.htm





(Actually the whole site is interesting. I'd like to know more about
the LA/Sierra collision if anybody knows. Apparently both made it
back to port under their own power but neither made it back to
service.

http://www.lostsubs.com/ )







Conclusion??

David

Oscar II (Kursk)
Mike
Yankee I (K-219)
Charlie (K-429)
November (K-8)

Why not include that other nuke boat that "sank" while being towed?

That list includes only nuclear-powered boats; the Soviets had twice as many
conventionally powered boats and maintained a substantial fleet of them right
up to their collapse - if you can find a list that includes a several lost
Quebecs, and a Romeo or Foxtrot, then you'll have a better picture of Soviet
undersea safety records. I don't suggest we include subs from the pre-WWII
days, but at least get all of the Cold War losses into the list.

v/r
Gordon
====(A+C====
USN SAR

Its always better to lose -an- engine, not -the- engine.