TeerNo, India should have chosen Gripen. Then they should have gotten it in production ASAP, dropping the ill fated LCA in the process. And they should have gotten in the drivers seat for the Naval Gripen with export chances to Brasilia while concentrating development resources on the FGFA/MCA.
And remain dependent forever on Sweden, and in turn all the suppliers who feed into Gripen. As versus developing its own aircraft, laying the foundation for the future and gradually building up its local content.
TeerI heard that only 40 MKIs were to undergo airframe modification/strengthening to carry BrahMos on the centreline. Haven’t heard anything for or against future ‘Super 30s’ being able to do so.
To be honest, air-launched BrahMos and integration on Su-30 seems more of an experience-gathering exercise than a real combat capability.
214 of the pretty expensive Brahmos ALCM would be more than experience gathering and a fair combat capability. Those are what are on order from the IAF.
(added source)
TeerMalaysia, Indonesia and Turkey are all relatively successful predominantly Islamic countries which survive without external aid and which are realtveily successful economically.
And bare in mind, mighty India and China are still in the top 20 of foreign aid receipients on the planet
Huh. India asked for several foreign aid programs to be stopped. In contrast, the nations in question asked for them to continue as the money ends up going to high profile programs which the respective govts can then tout..
because these countries prefer to spend money on military toys than looking after poorer elements of their socieities (and in India, extreme poverty is what the vast majority of the people live in).
What bullsh!t, extreme poverty is what the vast majority live in it seems, and the Govt is doing nothing about it…when in fact, India runs one of the largest poverty alleviation programs in the world and is even risking economic growth in the process..
http://planningcommission.nic.in/plans/planrel/fiveyr/10th/volume2/v2_ch3_2.pdf
http://planningcommission.nic.in/plans/annualplan/ap2021pdf/ap2021ch4-1.pdf
http://nrega.nic.in/netnrega/home.aspx
Just by posting a bunch of pics of the worst areas, in many cases the exceptions to the rule, you try to swing your claims and then mock those less privileged than you in the process, pathetic.
Your shallow racist bile is just more and more loathful.. what do you know of India or China. Attitudes like yours are what define the worst stereotypes of Australia when it comes to their attitude re: other cultures and nations and you are living well up to them.
TeerNot hammered – in fact containment of insurgents was generally more successful than Vietnam. As you said ROEs.
Do you think USA would keep gloves off if North Korea sent tanks into South Korea or China went loony and invaded Taiwan?
What would you know or any containment, insurgents or otherwise? Have you ever even met a war veteran that you speak so much in cliches?
One could say the same about India (see other thread about poverty reduction).
Yes, I saw the glee with which you posted rubbish about a country you have no clue of. Speaks volumes about the kind of person you are.
Western NATO doesn’t have a slightly hostile bordering superpower that requires this kind of thing.
Who cares? It shows that your western NATO is nowhere near funding this sort of capability increase and is actually drawing down its capabilities.
Countries such as Britain and Netherlands have been creating expeditionary forces in the last few years to take into account modern requirements.
Peanuts in comparison.
Those Tornado GR4 are more advanced than most things in the Indian and Chinese inventories.
Proved my point. When the GR4s are being chucked out, the ASTORs are under threat, just shows the level to which the military is being hammered.
And by 2020 they’re mostly gone and by 2025, they’re completely gone (last Italian ones out). How many older M2000, MiG-29s ad Jaguars will India have in 2025.
Indian inventory at that time is speculative, depends on airframe hours.
The way Tejas and MRCA are going, you’ll probably still have MiG-21s and MiG-27s in service then.
LOL, judging by your comments, you have no clue of what may and may not happen. If anything, India will double down on both programs and induction will proceed faster than planned. Go look up the Flanker-H program.
I don’t think it should be. For the most part it’s still a poor country.
In which case, stop your ridiculous notions of deciding what other nations should or should not do.
But it’s politicians and admirals make claims to global powerdom or at least becoming the leading Indian Ocean power (that covers Africa, Middle East and Australia by the way).
Its politicians and admirals don’t care what you think they should do either. Your dreams of what India should be or shouldnt be has no bearing on their thoughts.
Which puts strain on your logistics.
Their choice to make, not yours.
Good thing stupid Americans aren’t investing in any new tech unlike China, India and Russia.
Oh wait, USA is number 1 world leader in military technology!
Jeez, are you getting some kind of satisfaction going on and on about what the US does… putting them up in turn as some sort of bogey whom everyone else should defeat..
Nobody else is bothered..
And besides which not even the US can control everything across the world.. miltech or no miltech..
To be fair we don’t even know what latest state of the art work the Americans have got going. Remember both the B-2 and F-117 and how long it took for them to come out in public.
Who cares? The point is that technology development is proceeding across the world and even as the US is investing in tech so is the rest of the world.
Point is Indian citizens slaughtering other Indian citizens cause in reality they sooner regard themselves as Hindu or Muslim than Indians.
They regard themselves as Indians alright. Try asking the same folks what they think of any country which attacks India.
That doesnt mean that their personal differences wont come to the fore from time to time.
That you don’t even understand something so straightforward makes me wonder how limited your life experiences are..
So ok for Indian Hindus to kill Indian Muslims but Uncle Sam is bad guy?
LOL, just pointing out that if Muslims kill Hindus, vice versa can happen as well. In contrast, pointing out that your slavish devotion to the US, and admiration apart, Uncle Sam has been busy killing more Muslims in a year than Hindus killed in the entire past few decades… ergo, you would have noticed the hypocrisy and venom in your talk when you refer to other countries and cultures when you dont have the slightest clue of the context… as versus the blind faith that you show in the US and the manner in which you sing their praises..
None of that means Western Europe is facing a massive capability reduction to Indian levels.
And how do you know? A decade back, the current reduction would have been unthinkable.
And how does some bad US policy take away from US military and diplomatic dominance?!?
Wake up… even if you are led to the water, you dont understand when its time to drink. What use is that military and diplomatic dominance when the US cant make Pak do sh!t? It just shows that the so called dominance is a facade.
And meanwhile the Chinese work on irritating everyone.
They can irritate everyone. But the manner in which the US MIC is bankrupting the US nation and the manner in which the US is plunging into wars it cannot afford is the best news China can ever have.
And it was completely absorbable. US economic problems are due to bad regulation of property and finance markets.
Completely absorbable it seems.. are you even in the real world? Do you even understand how much the US has lost for no tangible benefit in both wars… plus add the human cost of shattered lives both in the region and in the US itself, as veterans return.
Your shallow, glib pronouncements are so weird..
Says someone from a country that pumps billions into weapons that don’t work (e.g. Tejas), nuclear submarines yet most of it’s people are starving and live in some of the most wretched conditions in the world.
The Tejas is under development for the specific reason so as to get India out of the grips of mercenary arms cartels. The nuclear submarines are to preserve Indian sovereignty as versus India becoming prey to yet another genocidal foreign regime. Neither of which has consumed even a hundredth of the amounts the US has written off in the bunch of failed projects it has and the cumulative amount it has overspent in its MIC.
As regards your glee at other folks misery, and your attempt to use it for points, it speaks volumes about your lack of upbringing. But then again, given how you slagged off your own parents, thats pretty much a given.
You said you could control Malacca Strait.
Rubbish.. you are the one bringing in Malacca strait… I merely mentioned the IN has enough to do what it needs to..
You boys want to control Malacca Straight you’ll need to take out Singaporeans, Malaysians, Thais and Indonesians and then take out USN and it’s Australian poodle.
Yeah sure..
In case you haven’t noticed Australia doesn’t have land borders with anyone. If it came down to it, RAAF and RAN could neutralise TNI with relative ease.
LOL, nice evasion of the point. So basically, your “first rate Army and Navy” can take on the Indonesians and thats it. Like I said, talk is cheap.
No wonder you are talking up the Americans or Western NATO .. you seek a big bad military whom you can idolize… since your locals are nowhere near where your imagination wants them to be.
Some of those alliances are 40+ years older than India
They barely lasted one economic challenge, who knows what would happen if a shooting war would erupt on their own turf.
And the Americans and Europeans don’t? These are the guys who have smacked about conventional forces Middle East and Balkans with ease.
Again, with the America and Europe hero worship…
The insurgencies are different and not many are ever won.
LOL, Malaya and several others elsewhere would differ..
And you guys haven’t sorted out Kashmir for how many decades now?
We’ve pretty much sorted out Kashmir for a long time now, and can easily tolerate a handful of pinpricks there initiated by the Paks as they attempt cross border infils.. as compared to the daily intense firefights and IEDs which were de jure for the Americans in Afghanistan. Bottomline, we are there, and its not going anywhere… nowhere near what the US ran away from in Afghanistan (with your guys in tow)…
Comparing conventional war and insurgencies is two different things.
Yeah, and the US sucks at the latter and is not even willing to stay the course.. so much for your hero worship then..
That’s my point. You claimed IAF completely indepedent from 1940s. It was basically a British style force governed by British culture and tactics and had either British people or British trained guys in charge through the 1950s.
LOL, as if the Brits taught magic cooking to last the IAF some 60 odd years thereafter… the IAF has been run by Indians operating off of their own thinking and local/multi-national influence for many years now.. the Brit era is long past..tokenism apart..
Happier than Indians slaughtering each other because they believe in different imaginary people.
As versus some Australians assaulting Indians and other colored people visiting Australia, must be people like you brought up on notions of their own superiority…get a life..
And your point?
That you dont have a clue about what drove Europe to the point where it is today. You speak in vacuous cliches of integration and what not, and are bereft of any standard of knowledge and reality.
Cry me a river.
No, why dont you? After all, you are the expert who has glib comments about other nations and is busy patronizing everyone left right and center..
That’s why the Chinese haven’t invaded Taiwan by now and only get irritated if Taiwan starts muttering about independence.
Yes, its mere irritation which drives them to invest billions in war making infrastructure.
These countries are dysfunctional artificial constructs.
Kinda like India in some ways – remember how many countries you guys had prior to Honourable East India Company and then the Raj taking you over.
Go look up bharat varsh or the Maurya Empire or the Moghul empire under Akbar. If you werent so ignorant you would know that every empire in India after centralizing power would expand to the areas where Indian culture and religion had common threads. But then again, I am not surprised..
And many of you still don’t like each other – Sikhs v Hindus v Muslims, Mizo uprising in 1960s, Kashmiris, Naxalites Maoistsetc.
LOL, as if you know anything of these issues apart from five minutes on google. Talk is cheap..
Point is India’s political integration and stability is fragile at best and a complete artificial construct..
India’s political integration and stability is more grounded in reality and cultural commonality in many respects than an artificial nation like Australia…built on the backs of displacing aboriginals and a land grab in the process..
Whole conversation has involved Western Europe and not the Balkans.
Your cherrypicked examples are pointless.
Older US jets are generally as advanced as most countries state of the art ones.
Yeah right, more generalities. As if that obviates their structural issues and the challenges in maintaining a disparate fleet made of differing avionics and airframes.
These aircraft are getting old.
D’uh.
And what about those MiG-21M/Bis squadrons you keep forgetting?!?
LOL, let them remain where they are, still doesnt obviate the fact that India has amongst the largest 4Gen fleets even so..
Cause Indians as well as CHinese, Russians, Sudanese, Syrians, Pakistanis etc etc are all far better than those stupid rich Westerners with their SUVs, soy lattes and expensive military toys.
No, they are as good or as bad as the rest, but they are willing to put up with more hardship and fight with what they have as versus thinking technology is the be-all and end-all, an attitude teenagers like you demonstrate.
How many worthless threads have you created by the way in your versus this, that, this..
Get off your high horse. The world is bigger than you think and your stupid notions of western superiority matter not a whit. The Chinese, the Russians have all demonstrated their national will in the pursuit of national objectives many times over, and unlike you they are actually doing something with their free time, instead of posting nationalist oh i am so superior and from the west, bile on the internet.
TeerThobbes the Russian army did NOT have numerical superiority in Georgia.
You putting down its performance while making much out of NATO AFs token contributions is rich indeed.Quite frankly in that scenario 90% of your top tier AFs wouldn’t have done squat, let alone gone into action from hour 1.
But But …they have combat experience since they sent 2 aircraft to war against Podunkistan… so automatically, Belgian AF>>> RusAF.
TeerToken?
Your commanding officers and chunks of your officer corp were British to 1954.
Your initial cadres of indigenous officers and troops were trained by the British using British military doctrine and under a British military culture.
Of course token..all those guys are dead and long gone. The original Brits werent around to develop the IAF as it grew in the 60s, 70s or even today.. the Brit trained guys still drew on far more local resources to do what they did, rather than rely on hoary Brit traditions to build the IAF
Except the Dutch and Belgians go to war with Uncle Sam, France, UK and whatever other guys want to tag along.
You don’t seem to have any idea how NATO works or how integrated command structures etc are. And this isn’t a new thing – remember NATO was created in 1949 and spent 40 years developing integrated structures, standards etc to allow all partner states to function as one force against the Soviets.
LOL, look who’s talking… boss, i have a pretty good idea of how NATO works etc. Your issue is you have no idea how the rest of the world works. NATO is not some magical sauce to make everything hunky dory.. those Dutch and Belgians would be thrilled at you inflating them so, but don’t expect them to turn up alone if a war breaks out. 😀
In case you haven’t noticed, the Europeans have a thing called the European Union which is not about military affairs.
Yeah, and it was fun watching how the EU handled the minor detail of financial issues re: some of their member states…so much for being a big happy family..
Europeans embraced alliances and economic integration to make Europe more peaceful.
LOL, after a few minor world wars..
Europe is far more happy family than many of the disparate ethnicities living in India or Russia.
Yeah, sure. A high standard of living and peaceful economic conditions (often borne on the back of centuries of colonialism) tends to do that…of course, its when they are asked to share between the haves and have nots, that the problem starts..
Economic integration works better at keeping peace than something as abstract as political integration.
Yeah, right.
Hence you have insurgencies in India and Russia. And hence the Chinese don’t rock the boat with Taiwan too much because both rely on each other for mutual economic benefit.
ROTFLMAO. It gets funnier and funnier…
This is why the Chinese keep building up their cross straits capabilities I guess…
But then India has struggled to create anything resembling economic integration within its own borders.
Yeah sure..must go and tell all my fellow Indians that, since they are not economically integrated.. lol
In most case political integration is name only- most African and Middle Eastern countries have “political integration” but are completely dysfunctional with lots of separatist movements, religious strife etc.
They have economic integration too.. what happened to your wunderbar theory then?
And given how you occassionally get massed slaughter in India between ethnic/religious groups I would hardly call it a successful political integration.
Oh clearly, that has to do with their lack of “economic integration” and nothing to do with historical issues or even current events…oh sir, no!
Last time I checked Balkans are not part of Western Europe.
They are in Europe…you know, the actual continent, as versus artificial hodge podges of western eastern central whatever?
It’s not an inconvenience to business who get slugged with more costs and more bureaucratic delays.
But then Indian government doesn’t care much for notions of capitalism.
Oh they do care…they care for those capitalists who are on their side. They get preferential treatment. Much like the US.
Neither do Western European members of EU. Hence there’s 700,000 – 1 million Brits living in Spain!
Good for spain.
How many squadrons are equipped with MiG-21, MiG-27 and unupgraded Jaguars? As well as 1 little squadron equipped with Sea Harrier FRS 51.
As many as need be, to keep the numbers up as the Su’s and other airframes come in… same reason the USAF still flies its older jets.. even as the rest of the world buys new jets..
Also in the West, aircraft such as Mirage 2000, MiG-29, F-16A/B and F/A-18 are in the twilight years of their career.
More to do with the fact that if these aircraft were upgraded, the rationale for newer Rafales, Typhoons and F-35s would vanish..
I wouldn’t call a MiG-21/J-7 as particularly useful in anything but third world wars.
Both have proven to be death traps in wars against modern opponents.
Thats what the US thought till they exercised against the Bisons…then they went away puzzled..
Sure IAF’s going to grow.
But it’s unlikely it will ever attain capability of Western NATO, let alone USA.
LOL, it has already attained the capability of most of its peers in several areas… your peculiar anglocentric notions of superiority apart..an attitude luckily (for NATO/USAF), the professionals don’t have, as versus armchair marshals drooling over their fave militaries.
So you’d suffer more casualties (well suffer casualties in first place, NATO lost no jets to enemy fire). You’d have poorer ability to identify targets and do critical BDAs. Civilian casualties would higher due to lack of C3I and PGMs.
And we’d still win the conflict, whereas your fancy toys would idle on the ground as officers drank soy lattes and murmured about who did it best..
Instantly the NATO guys have performed better.
By not taking off when there were no AWACS…brilliant..
And India hasn’t had experience in war against capable conventional adversaries since 1971.
NATO/Europeans took on AD systems in 1991, 1994-95, 1999, 2003 and 2011. Yes it was in conjunction with US and yes the systems were obsolete.
But it’s far more valuable experience than nothing at all and it allows for real world data that can be incorporated to improve both training, tactics and technology.
LOL, India is in a quasi war situation and ends up training against a wide variety of dissimilar threats. And unlike NATO/USAF does not practise against dumbed down aggressors..
Something the USAF picked up against the IAF and is now replicating in the US..
TeerPoint was they screwed up the logistics big time and it came as a shock to them.
Hey and Australia does that too.
Even the UK messed up logistics, the US has as well on several occasions… so what. Thats the nature of things..
I’ve read about Indian ops in Sri Lanka in 1980s and it was a very well run affair.
Getting to the fight is one thing…fighting against an entirely different opponent (COIN) with restrictive ROEs…another…which is why India would tend to avoid the kind of stuff the US/UK et al, enthusiastically rushed into…and then got hammered..
The politics are irrelevant.
War is an extension of politics by other means..
Though it does help to use your stick every now then to keep smaller players in line.
Not by wasting more treasure and making a joke out of your international credibility in the process… (“there are WMDS in Iraq”)
Western task forces are built up for specific ops. This goes back to WWII where the Americans and Germans became very proficient at even small, flexible batallion/regimental task forces (American Combat Commands and German kampfgruppes).
And you think this is unique to the west? Look up “Cold Start”
Why wouldn’t they be? Why do you assume NATO without all it’s capabilities but assume China, India and Russia have all of theirs?
Because there is significant replication of capabilities in NATO, which would be downsized if integrated into one coherent unit, and NATO member countries, lacking a coherent threat have been reducing their forces. In contrast, India, China and Russia, all for different reasons are recapitalizing their forces and increasing/upgrading them..
This is recent news from India btw.
http://newindianexpress.com/nation/Mountain-strike-corps-will-bridge-gaps-in-Indias-defence-capabilites/2013/07/19/article1691311.ece
Care to point out if a similar quantum of increase has occurred in any European or NATO nation recently? Context.
Especially as NATO has more of everything and generally doesn’t rely on old stuff to bolster it’s forces.
If NATO has more of everything, it will replace some of it. And it has enough old stuff, whereas in other areas it has new stuff, and its member nations are busy chucking that out to rationalize…eg the GR4s..
As stated even without say US AWACS, Europe has access to 27 E-3 AWACS and that doesn’t include Swedish, Greek and Turkish ones.
Long in the tooth airframes and how long will they be around… lets see what replaces those and how many numbers are eventually ordered..
I’m sure your MiG-27S could be able to fly sorties to Persian Gulf if needed to bolster Indian interests.
No, but they will be replaced by Su-30 MKIs who can do a show of force as needed.. not stupid enough to go fly sorties there.. we leave that to the US (and its reluctant allies).
Oh that’s right, in a global world Indian AF is Indian focused only.
Why should the Indian AF be global focused? So that it can fulfill all your flights of fancy?
MTBO for things like MiG-21s and their engines are well known.
Yeah sure, and they cant be overcome surely by keeping more spares at hand..
And how is this relevant when US/Europe controls the seas?
Good luck controlling the seas with the number of anti access platforms in development, deployment.. ..
And Europe as a whole operates more advanced fighters than China does.
And China’s air force has lots of local defence commitments to ensure deterrence against India, Vietnam, Taiwan and Japan/Korea.
Europe and USA on the other hand can deploy their air fleets at will because they don’t have hostile neighbours to worry about.[/quote]
Not bothered about China..
Very nice for defending your internal territory.
Also USA has stealth bombers, is planning more stealth bombers, is heading towards a near 100% VLO fleet by 2030 and has an awful lot of very effective cruise missile lobbers.
And India is developing bistatic AWACS (bye bye VLO), has already developed radars that can detect VLO targets and is deploying them for its BMD systems, is developing a range of SAMS that can take out CMs..
ROW will be doing something similar…if anything, the tech gap between the US and ROW is shrinking..
Neither does the USA or NATO. Hence absolute overkill against Iraqis, Libyans and Serbs.
And how is that different to Russia who generally interferes with small neighbours or beats up renegade provinces?
Territorial integrity..if Texas were to declare independence, the Feds would be there before you could say “wut”..as versus Russia sending armies to beat up developing countries for sh!ts and giggles.. to their credit, they dont do that.
And it’s still more than China or India who huff their chests. India talks about being an Indian Ocean and global power but it’s all just talk.
LOL, when did India talk about being a power and all? Too funny, in contrast to your statements.. India is busy adding all the nice little tools to its toolbox, stuff like long range missiles, SSBNs, carriers etc all in the name of “defence”, which may incidentally be also used offensively..dual use and all..
I’m sure India bleeds in Kashmir too.
Kashmir is Indian territory, unlike Iraq where US forces went in for no good reason, and ended up leaving the country a bigger mess than what it was.., with an “oops my bad”..
Or in Gujarat when Hindus randomly decide to go on murderous rampages against Muslims,.
Just goes to show how ignorant you are I suppose…Hindus rioted after Muslims burnt a train full of Hindu pilgrims (including women and children)…and Muslims have done far far worse to Hindus and all other faiths in Asia..
Besides which, a bit hypocritical of any self proclaimed westerner to talk of “murderous rampages against Muslims” after bombing the crap out of Muslim country after Muslim country (in the name of democracy), leaving them in shambles and brutalizing more human beings in recent years that any “evil empire” would be proud of..
I agree with this.
It doesn’t detract from the fact that US and Western Europe have immense military capability that dwarfs most other powers and that they’ve got proven combat experience unlike most other powers.
If western europe gets tired of colonial interventions, then they stop funding these toys, what then.. thats whats happening in the UK.. too broke after Iraq and the Ghan, and also tired of their politicians using their toys unwisely.
Except the Indian Air Force is sub continent bound because it’s too busy deterring Pakistan and India.
The IAF is deterring India? Wow..
And how many Pakistani F-16s are there, especially compared to J-7s and Mirage IIIs.
60 odd… as those older planes retire, something else will be purchased.. or donated..
And how does the US manage to just get Pakistan to do whatever it pleases unlike India who spends most of their time fearing Pakistan?
LOL, India kills Pakistani infiltrators by the bushel, despite having a week kneed born in Pakistan, peacenik as its PM.
That generation is on its way out..
Meanwhile..
They even got the ***** to smack about their Taliban puppets.
The US gives $30Bn to Pakistan, gets shot at by them in Afghanistan, bleeds itself dry by Pak trained Taliban…and what does it get in return..
Yes, yes, the silly Pakistanis give US the right to drone a few Taliban puppets.
With brains like these, no wonder the Chinese are laughing their guts off at the US running itself into the ground more than they could ever do..
That’s right, US is super power. India is a regional power and still doesn’t have any real voice.
India is happy being a regional power, as versus being the “power” which did such powerful things like Iraq…how many trillions lost there exactly
Quality of human capital is more important. Do you really think PLAAF’s human capital is on par with USA or India?
Even if they don’t have that, they can explore other methods to keep worrying the US, and have it spend itself to oblivion..
JSF, Crusader, etc boondoggles..the US’s worst enemy is its imperial hubris and its out of control MIC..
Incorrect. I’ve already discussed all of this above.
Says you..:P
Amazing all this talk of India and China and Russia surpassing the USA.
Who has operational stealth bombers, 5th generation fighters, 20 flat tops, etc etc etc etc?
Who’s bothered about surpassing the US? Only you..since you claim its some benchmark to meet..
The Navy can do what is necessary for Malacca, and the AF is getting the tools to support them as well. [/quote]
Really? So you can neutralise all the local Air forces and Navies? You can neutralise the US forces in the Pacific and Indian Ocean?[/quote]
Why would we want to neutralize the US? More likely the USN would be having popcorn and watching if its a spat with somebody else…or be joining India if it can take down China a peg or two..
If you want to control oil and trade, you want your finger in that pie.
The finger is there to the extent necessary..
It’s proportionate contributions.
LOL
Third world border wars against a third world opponent.
The same third world wars which a first world australia could never wage, even if it were to be supported by the US. And the same wars which the US itself has given up on and has now gone back from saying bye bye (Iraq) and is busy running away from elsewhere (Afghanistan).
Talk is cheap, staying power is what counts.
They don’t need to fight on their own. As stated Europe has always fought with system of alliances. Hell alliance system was partially responsible for WWI.
And after WWII the alliance system expanded to include all of Western Europe. And by 2013 most of Eastern Europe.
And unlike Warpac or SEATO, Western European alliances are extremely solid especially as some of them date over 100 years.
Yeah, sure. Lets see how long those alliances last… heck they couldnt even bail each other out without massive cribbing..
And India does?
It’s only ability is against Pakistan and border wars with China.
LOL. Air Forces like the IAF train for outcomes, and acquire capabilities. Those tools can be used against any adversary.
In fact in 2013 the only country capable of full scale global warfare on its own is the USA.
Seems to spend a lot of time getting itself into trouble globally, and then running back… heck, they couldnt even handle Afghanistan or Iraq.
TeerYou were stating that IAF has been independent since 1940s. It’s British influence lasted at least to the 1960s when the 1940s trained guys would’ve started retiring.
Boss, the British influence was token after the 1940s…this is what I mean by saying you need to research more… it started declining rapidly after independence, and the attitude displayed by several Brit officers in 1947-48…more like reporting to Whitehall than Govt of India..
My larger point was that what the IAF is today, is thanks to Indians who led it post independence and served in it, as versus a few token RAF officers, and the limited training/interaction thereafter.. the IAF/RAF may be similar on surface but would be very different in many other ways..
Point is MiG-21 and MiiG-27 are a huge component of IAF. They are perfectly adequate for fighting against other third world old tech junk that makes up a huge component of Pakistani and Chinese militaries.
And they will make a huge component of IAF up to at least 2020 (provided they can get Tejas and MRCA delivered on time).
And the IAF will have an even huger non MiG-21 and MiG-27 component that can be used for expeditionary warfare, expeditiously..since it has enough MiG-21s and MiG-27s, per you, which can handle the Pak/Chinese militaries…far better than what Netherlands and Belgium can put up..chocolates or brownies apart..:P (where India cannot compete)..
In case you haven’t noticed, but Europeans nearly always fight in alliances – it’s the nature of small, crowded continent. And those alliances have grown in importance over the last century.
The Europeans are more integrated economically than what India is with it’s tariffs and intra-province border controls!
Now you are just making stuff up..Europeans fight in alliances (by nature apparently)…and not because they want to win wars against rival states..as if thats something unique to Europe..
Bottomline…if all of Europe were one happy family…(and it isn’t)…the forces would be far more rationalized…instead of UK/France/Germany/Italy/Sweden maintaining similar capabilities..
Next, that stuff about economic integration is hilarious…as if economic integration is more important than political integration!
From a defence perspective, Western Europe does a lot to integrate – e.g. shared C3I facilities, shared E-3, shared C-17, joint brigades etc. They have joint naval taskforces and operate shared aircrew training facilities (e.g. NATO flying training in Canada).
That’s just peanuts in comparison to the replicated capabilities that remain.
And while India is one country it’s one country with insurgencies and internal strife in some parts.
Specious claims.. India may have insurgencies and strife in remote interiors, its peanuts compared to havign entire wars eg those in the Balkans…
And as stated there are border controls between some states (the equivalent of needing to stop at a border check point and pay a toll for going from South Dakota to North Dakota).
Same as before… all this stuff is merely a minor inconvenience for most Indians…as versus being subject to different laws and regulations when moving country to country..
Indian’s dont require visa’s to move between cities or some pan country visa..
An airforce that is still largely equipped with fighters that were obsolete in 1970s, an airforce that has less AWACS and tankers than UK!
Yes, Flanker-H’s were obsolete in the 1970s, ditto for Mirage 2000s and MiG-29s…
Heres a bit of force capitalization for you, the way most professional forces calculate it…its called the 30-30-30% rule.. roughly split between state of the art, current gen, and what is considered behind current tech but still useful..
The IAF has enough frontline aircraft of the latest tech and is busy adding more.. meanwhile, you’d only selectively look at the oldest parts of its fleet, which exist to retain numbers (and they do matter)..
And as regards tankers and AWACS in the UK, heres an idea for you…take a look at the relative trends of both AF’s inventory and do the calculations yourself as to who is going where..
The IAF currently has 3 AWACS in service, 3 more on order, and 2 indented for with Israel.. cant be bothered to check whether the CCS cleared it, if it has, then thats 8 right there.
Further, with AWACS (India) program cleared, there are some 5-10 more AWACS intended..and thats apart from follow on orders for the Embraer based ones which are likely as well..
And this despite having 2 Aerostat based radars in service, 2 more on order, each of which has a footprint of around 400 odd km and serves the IAF pretty much as well as an AWACS with only a fraction of the operating costs ..
Ditto for tankers..the IAF will continue to grow, its a given…irrespective of whether you claim x is required for expeditionary warfare or not..
I seriously doubt the Indians would be able to pull off a Libyan style operation and wouild probably require way more US assistance than what the Europeans did.
Yeah, I doubt the Indians would require more US assistance than the Europeans…because, if the IAF were ever in that situation, it would just go ahead and get the job done, as it has done before, not wait for a big brother to step up with fancy gizmos, all the latest munitions and then provide its bit. Thats the difference between being dependent on an alliance and being an autonomous AF.
There is a difference between war fighting against capable adversaries, and doing the colonial intervention bit against poorly equipped natives as well…something the Europeans, for all their talk of progress, seem to not have tired of.
TeerSo in other words, if Luxemburg bought a dozen F-16s, and tacked on to US training, and sent a token couple of fighters to every US/NATO operation, they are more capable than India.
Hell, they would be able to get like 300 hours per pilot.Reality is different.
And more combat capable than the Russian AF, because you see, per the west, the Georgians “ran away” and that war doesn’t count. And the Chechnyan War doesn’t count either, because the Russians were “incompetent”, not that the Chechens were tough/competent, and so forth..
Talk about bias..
TeerUp to 1954, Indian Air Force was commanded by British people – Thomas Elmhirst, Ronald Ivelaw-Chapman, Gerald Gibbs.
All were RAF guys too.
Early Indian officers such as Subroto Mukerjee and Arjan Singhwere British trained.
Just a reminder…its 2013 last I checked.
Not all – there is still a large number of unmodified MiG-21M/MF and Bis in service with a number of squadrons:
15 Sqn – MiG-21bis (converting to Su-30MKI)
26 Sqn -MiG-21bis
45 Sqn – MiG-21bis (scheduled to convert to Tejas)17 Sqn – MiG-21M
35 Sqn – MiG-21M (possibly disbanded)
37 Sqn – MiG-21M
101 Sqn – MiG-21M
108 Sqn – MiG-21M
And what exactly is their role, and you do realize that they are being replaced by Su-30 and other aircraft, right? India is currently producing the Flanker-H, FYI..
My point exactly
Err..what?
This is irrelevant. NATO is linked to USA.
Without USA, Western Europe is more than capable of defending itself and has far more force projection than India or China or Russia:
– 5 carriers/combat aircraft capable LHD
– several other LHD
– numerous cruise missile delivery systems
– 27 large AWACS
– large tactical transport fleet
– growing strategic transport fleet (A400M in addition to British C-17)
– 40-50 air refuelling tankers
– 50 Tornado ECR electronic warfare aircraft (ala E/A-6B).
– 13 SSN attack subs as well as numerous SSKs including advanced German boats.
– Combat aircraft fleet is virtually 100% 4th generation with hundreds of 4.5th generation in service. By 2025 there’ll be 200-300 5th generation jets in service (F-35).– Nuclear deterrent includes airborne weapons but more importantly 8 SSBN.
And all that is not ONE country or ONE nation.. and as a result, putting it all together looks good on paper, but there is not a single AF which has all that..
And if it WERE to be one nation, judging by what we have seen, there’d be further cuts to that number as well..
Whereas, the AFs that do exist, linked to individual nations are dismissed by you on whimsy..
y the way I’m excluding the like of Eastern Europe, Turkey and Greece as well as neutral Western types ala Sweden, Switzerland, Austria and Finland.
Oh goody!
More complicated than you think.
Just bunk.. the IA can deploy combat forces to Africa, the IAF combat choppers, the IN can operate pretty much off Africa…and expeditionary warfare is some unattainable art…yeah, right.
TeerExercises are different to deploying to a conflict zone.
And to be fair even the Australians struggled with this in East Timor and East Timor was a glorified police action with virutally no combat.
Well the RAAF is a minor AF in the big scheme of things. When is the last time it was in a shooting war or even went to war in any serious fashion without the US or some other big player doing the heavy lifting? Its not even in the same league as most of the larger AF.. heck, an Indian Army Corps has more combat power than the Australian Army..
Obviously the experience resulted in massive changes and Australia did well with Afghanistan and Iraq in terms of force sustainment
In the big scheme of things, a force which has seen combat on its own, and handled it well – like the IAF, is far more capable to handle the exigencies of deployment and even plan it out well! The IAF did not do exercises outside India, but when it chose to, it deployed a bunch of airlifters, transports and went halfway across the world to the US. Go ahead and look up how much training the “Mighty Mars” Il-78 squadron did when the IAF received air lifters.
Bottomline – a professional combat force can ramp up very quickly with several new capabilities, especially if it as a rule, plans for sustained combat ops and trains hard. Your stuff about deploying elsewhere is no big deal.
In India, an entire Strike Corp was created out of an “expeditionary force” which was sent to Sri Lanka. Retasked, rebuilt, its now the core of offensive capabilities against the PA. That single intervention btw, convinced India that such ops without a clear mandate are a mess- something the west is yet to learn. And unlike the west, which routinely builds up and then draws down combat forces, those units were amalgamated into a new formation and retained.
For UN peacekeeping missions, the IA/IAF/IN routinely plan and execute large deployments of substantial complexity.
Net, don’t make a mountain out of a molehill. Expeditionary deployments will have learning for sure, but are not a deal breaker.
That’s the NATO model and it works.
As long as Uncle Sam is around to do a lot of the heavy lifting. What happens when the AWACS are not available, when all the fancy doodads are not there?
Guess what, thats exactly what happened at Cope Thunder, at Alaska. Your western AF sat out, because AWACS was not there, and the IAF crews despite having flown their Jags there, went ahead and completed the mission. Getting them the mission commander status for the next round, but more importantly, driving home the lesson to the others (and as in Cope India, the USAF would have taken note) that overreliance on technology has its limitations and that training for combat against peer adversaries means that in an intense conflict, opportunities cant be lost because some gizmo isn’t there.
And how does that change the following:
1. Short range
Irrelevant, because India operates a string of tactical AFB across all its borders.
2. Lack of aerial refuelling capability
See above. Why would aircraft designed to operate in the TBA need IFR?
3. Poor MTBO etc which means aircraft have short combat lives before needing overhauls.
This is just pure and simple speculation on your part because it ignores the fact that the IAF operates its MiGs pretty intensively, and has enough resources to sustain them. For merely a look at the IAF side of things, let alone the HAL/DPSU infrastructure:
http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/IAF/Today/Unit-Articles/336-11BRD.html
In contrast, most of your European/NATO AF, rely on vendors on the other side of the world for most of their LRUs and aggregates, with local manufacture having been restricted to assembly and not mass indigenization.
Both are fine against Pakistan or China who all operate equal or more amounts of ancient garbage (J-7, J-8, Mirage III/V).
China alone has Flanker numbers which dwarf the entire fleet strength of many NATO AFs. It has SAM systems which are only in service in Russia and exceed what most of NATO fields. The IAF’s MiGs and Jaguars train for these combat situations. Unlike you, professionals don’t merely dismiss opfor inventory because its not the fanciest or shiniest.
Yes, Pakistan’s Mirages are ancient and maintaining them is increasingly a challenge. But some have been upgraded by Sagem and remain useful.
NATO’s model is what it is and it generally works and allows NATO dominance of global affairs.
NATO’s model works as long as NATO doesn’t have groups willing to push back or a suitable threat. Given the fracas that was Iraq and the bleeding that western forces took there, it will be a long time before any ground forces are committed to any other conflict. Similarly, all it will take is one protracted bloody war where even the relatively “easy” air option takes a hammering, and then we’ll see how long NATO member nations will commit to such acts of folly..
As can be seen in the manner in which the UK public has turned against all this rubbish post Iraq and then Afghanistan.
Which is great for defence of India and doesn’t help one bit for force projection.
Yeah, the massive numbers of Flankers in the IAF, and the fact that pretty much all its Mirage 2000s and MiG29s come with IFR, its increasing assets in ISR/sustainment, all don’t count.
Meanwhile, Belgium and Netherlands, with their what, 2-3 squadron AF’s are “Tier1”, per your logic, over and above the Russian AF, the Chinese, and now the Indians.
Must be the waffles and the hash brownies which give them an edge..:P
And it’s all based in India’s primary need: which is defence of India and defence against opponents which are generally equipped with third rate equipment (Pakistan) or have just come awoken from hibernating since 1953 (China).
Yeah, Pakistan has ONLY third rate equipment…I guess those F16s with AMRAAMs, the SPADA2000s, the fact that they have AEW&C capability, a US integrated ADGEs, and that they have nukes all doesn’t count.
Nor does the minor detail that the Chinese woke up, what a decade and a half back, and have several hundred Flankers in service, the latest advanced S-3XX SAMs ..
Which world do you live in exactly? If any force planner was as blase or as full of incorrect assumptions as you are, his force would be in deep trouble..
Most of the discussions here have been about force projection.
No, that’s the idea that you are cherry picking..
Anybody else would look at a more sensible way to catalog airforces, including a balanced assessment of the OUTCOMES they can effect, which in turn flow from their training, equipment and doctrine. In these, most of your NATO AF would stumble very badly, because their force structure is heavily skewed towards only certain basic capabilities and completely missing in other areas which requires US help..
You want to be an international player, you have to be able to project force.
On your own…by which standards most of your NATO AF would be nowhere..in contrast, if several nations choose, they can ramp up to project force far faster..
It’s always been like that since human history began.
And even today force projection is important. The US and co can control critical shipping lanes and oil supply simply due to their force projection power.
In fact as demand for oil and other energy resources, force projection becomes even more important.
So India and China can putter along knowing they’re safe from invasion, but meanwhile it’s Uncle Sam and the Euro club who control energy flows with massive military including naval supremacy.[/quote]
Gawsh, your statements are a single and most important case of “decide the answer, fit the facts to follow”… do you even understand how rapid the Chinese and Indian forces have developed within the past few years? India went from being a predominantly tactical AF, to one which can now range fighter platforms 1500 km away, more with IFR. China is busy working on long range bombers and has already outfitted older platforms with long range CMs. India is following suite with its own designs, with an order for 200 odd Brahmos, and a 1000 km Nirbhay is in trials..
All this, at a fraction of the spend the US has done, blowing up its treasure on foolhardy ventures like the Iraq war (what a terrible waste)…
Both India & China have far better things to do, than go around preparing for force projection, when their need (esp. India’s) is to focus inwards and put in place all the drivers that enable economic and social growth…at the same time, the military will advance apace, as it has… but without a huge fanfare of global projection etc.
Indian Naval ships have been ranging far, IAF has been exercising across the world, IA routinely deploys worldwide for UN peacekeeping ops using the bulk of its own resources.. all the building blocks are there in terms of training & operations to project power or whatever – the choice remains political – which means a commitment in terms of costs. Also a valid reason to do so.
Right now, India is ensuring that its national security gets the required finishing touches – SSBNs, recapitalization of its conventional forces, long range BMs/CMs, a BMD system… why should it waste money on developing a capability which is not the #1 priority, and for which it already has a lot of experience.
All good for defence of India. All kind of sucky if you want to protect your claim in Malacca Strait or Arabian peninsula.
The Navy can do what is necessary for Malacca, and the AF is getting the tools to support them as well. Arabian – who wants to put a hand in that mess, without a complete international consensus.
Do they have a need to? No.
That doesn’t mean they’re not quality airforces. In fact they’re combat proven forces.
LOL at combat proven. Sending a half dozen aircraft to a theater with 99% of the work done by the US, to make a show of support for some intervention = combat proven, and which makes them something awesome..
Is Indian or China combat proven? Not really for India and not at all for China.
Amusing, this latest claim. India has fought WARS on its own. In 1947, 1965, 1971 and 1999 where its pilots flew operational missions under far harder ROE, with less gizmos and relying on skill, mission planning and not just technology. Several times over the last decade, the IAF has been mobilized. And unlike most of the NATO AFs of today, the IAF continues to prepare to operate under a total war scenario – which means against a nuke capable opponent. It routinely exercises across the world, and within India, has mobilized several hundred aircraft for integrated exercises..
If anything, its your NATO AF, except the Brit/French/Italians who are not really combat proven.. they completely lack the resources to engage in a significant conflict on their own.
They lack the doctrine, the skills, the resources and hence the ability to even influence a war in any significant manner.. hardly a speedbump in any conflict, let alone Tier 1 or Tier whatever.
TeerI have no doubt that Indian Air Force is a professional organisation.
Indian and Pakistani Air Forces were set up using English military cultural values and those still remain in place, albeit indigenised and turned into something of their own.
Sorry but this is again another example of your Anglocentric bias coming through. Other cultures have their own martial heritage and they do have brains and can do things on their own. The IAF has been independent since the the 40’s, a sprinkling of RAF Heritage apart, it has done its heavy lifting on its own, whether it be training test pilots or running combat schools. It has developed its own way of doing things, because of its own competence and good leadership, not merely because it was set up by the Brits etc.
Only reason I rank them lower is:
1. The dominance of MiG-21 and MiG-27 squadrons in the AF (still over half). Their pilots, wing commanders and ground crew may be excellent, but the airframes are obsolete, manpower intensive and in a proper shooting war struggle to generate sorties. MiG-21 is also extremely short range. They’re also undeployable due to obsolescence and extreme lack of utility.
In an average Western AF, all squadrons are combat deployable.
The Jaguars in IAF service are upgraded, have a substantial local pipeline of spares – unlike most of your NATO AF who are limited to what LM etc can provide them on an urgent basis if a shooting war comes up. The Jags that are not upgraded are being brought to the latest standard which is in flight tests, and matches whatever is expected of new gen strike aircraft.
The MiG-27s have 2 upgraded squadrons. Another 2 will be retired as Su’s and MMRCA come in.
The MiG21s in service are the upgraded Bisons. They are perfect for the task vis a vis point defence and strikes against near targets, i.e. Pak.
The MiG-21 BTW is well on its way out. It has just a handful of squadrons left and they are ok for the limited roles envisaged.
2. India does not have much in the way of force multipliers – Western NATO has access to US (and generally Western NATO operates under US leadership).
Net, take the US away, and “western NATO” will be left struggling. So much for independence. India as mentioned in the previous post, is rationalizing its investments instead of putting them into a handful of goldplated force multipliers. That means SPJs for its fleet, escort jamming capability etc as versus dedicated EW aircraft alone. That means investment in LLTRs, MPRs, HPRs, Aerostat Radars instead of AWACS alone..
3. India does not have experience in sustained long range international combat deployments. Though it did perform well in Kargil albeit with a couple of losses. But Kargil was a border area.
Long range international deployments are not rocket science… the IAF (and many other AF) have this capability. Its that they choose not to engage in such deployments. In the past, IAF has operationalized AFB within days & restarted them after severe damage…they prepare for austere ops in wartime as well. Net, net, something the IAF could do if it wished to. It doesn’t need to since it doesn’t have the mandate for it. In the meanwhile, its happily flying around Il’s with spares and IFR capability plus Jaguars, Sukhois, Mirages halfway across the world each time it needs to exercise, performing and coming back.
TeerActually note the parameters I included – they’re not about numbers or types of aircraft (e.g. long range bombers).
Tier 1 includes “capable of long range combat deployments”.
Something that say Belgium or Netherlands has done repeatedly but Japan, South Korea and Singapore never have.
Your posts get more and more bizarre each time around. So you pick some arbitrary yardstick – “expeditionary deployments” and make it the be-all and end-all, assuming it is something only NATO AF can do? The IAF has deployed aircraft to Red Flag, to Cope Thunder, to exercises in the UK, France and South Africa and integrated them into local procedures… something other AF like SoKo and RSAF have done too. Your premise is completely dodgy.
Expeditionary warfare is complicated and the Western NATO partners have extensive experience in it.
Lol. Sending a handful of aircraft to operate as part of a wider US led engagement with the US doing most of the heavy lifting is what makes all the NATO AF, superior? You seriously need to come up with more serious stuff. This is funny stuff right here.
As for India being at the same level as Thailand and Egypt – India does not have a world class airforce. A big chunk of it’s force is obsolescent (MiG-21 and MiG-27 and to some degree Jaguar and Sea Harrier). Something like a MiG-21 or MiG-27 generally has poor readiness at best simply due to poor servicability of these types (e.g. very low MTBO). Even MiG-29 is a poor performer here.
And here, you jump the shark, completely and totally. First off, it becomes apparent that you have no detailed insight of either the topic or conversing with folks who track these sort of issues seriously.
MiG-21 and MiG-27 in IAF service are both upgraded platforms! The Bison for instance confers both ARH/PGM capability and the MiG-27s have both an EW role and a PGM delivery capability. Heck, several years back, the IAF was using the MiG-27s to lob LGBs which were being guided in by UAVs. Do Belgium et al have that capability?
India’s AF trains for complete autonomy, unlike the hub and spoke model of NATO which depends heavily on the US and select NATO nations for critical capability.
Second, India has built up a huge local infrastructure to maintain & service its MiGs, and make sure availability is not compromised.
Regular upgrades add to that. The MiG-29s for instance are now going through a SMT level upgrade, and part of the deal is to have a local depot for services/spares for the consolidated MiG-29 and MiG-29K fleet.
Indian MiG pilots fly around 300 sorties per year for the MiG-21s, and the MiG-29 req is 180hrs/pilot which actually is just the baseline.
Coming to the Jaguars, DARIN-2 Jaguars, several squadrons of which are in service, can carry a variety of PGMs and also have EW capability. The remaining fleet is getting upgraded now to a new local std. which includes a local FCR for all weather attack capability, and the entire fleet is getting reengined as well.
Your earlier claims on C3 and logistics were also off base. The IAF has a purposed built logistics system designed for its specific needs. It went into service in 2006. Here’s a 2011 case study. http://www.tcs.com/SiteCollectionDocuments/Case%20Studies/Government_CaseStudy_Indian_Air_Force_resource_planning_efficiency_05_2011.pdf
In terms of C3, the IAF has an entire architecture purpose designed for it called the IACCS, with nodes for the entire country. Around half are already operational for the key areas, with the remaining getting into service after having been cleared a couple of years back. In parallel, the IAF has also operationalized its high bandwidth, fiber optic based AFNET to link all its assets together, and also has a pilot deployment of its own data link, the ODL underway. Meanwhile, the Su’s all come with their own data links as do the MiG-29s.
In the meanwhile, the IAF is busy recapitalizing most of its radar, SAM and other holdings, in many cases with technology that is still being hawked to European air arms, but not adopted because of the lack of perceived need in those low combat risk nations.
Simply put you have very little idea of either the IAF or its priorities.
Secondly India’s ability to make “long range combat deployments” is limited due to its own massive defence needs, small numbers of force multipliers etc.
Again, missing the point by a mile and a quarter.
India’s ability to make long range deployments is far superior to several of those NATO nations you mentioned as it has more airframes and a larger pool of resources! The simple and biggest reason why India does not need to or want to make “long range combat deployments” is political. Why the heck would it engage in such actions such as the Iraq War or the proposed tomfoolery that is suggested for Syria? Such political interventionism has become much the favor in the west, which seems to be seeking excuses to intervene in conflicts where its intervention only makes things worse. India’s leaders, for all their warts, have so far at least, not engaged in such behaviour.
Second, India seeks a layered defence concept instead of splurging on merely a limited number of force multipliers. This means a huge ADGES with the latest radars, SAMs, aerostat radars with a large footprint (obviating the need for significant investments in only AWACs), EW aids and max multimission capability on as many airframes as possible, judicious use of airframe life via upgrades (as versus purchases for the heck of them).. all of these translate into far more punch than just a handful of gold plated aids.
Do Belgium and Netherlands plan for a shooting war with heavily armed neighbours, in some cases with the latest tech -e,g Flankers, S3XX level platforms? Do they or can they complete dedicated SEAD and DEAD missions on their own, without NATO/USAF coming to their aid? Do they have their own EW/Top Gun style academies and exercises (google for TACDE and when it was formed)? Do they have a country wide ADGEs? Do they have access to their own ballistic missile systems, or truck launched AR drones? Do they have access to or are they operating their own mil sats?
Your claims are so dodgy and so full of holes, that I wonder how poorly researched the rest of your opinions are. Sorry, but your tiering structure is a complete joke.
TeerBTW Combat Aircraft mentions Russian fighter aircrew are pulling up to 120 hrs/year, not too far off from the std 180 hrs figure (which refers to combat training btw and not just getting to the exercise area and back, included)..and with simulator hours and an optimized regimen, can be pretty effective. Heck, IAF MiG-21s were limited to 30-45 min sorties, and they pulled 300 sorties per year in the 90s, translating to 150 hrs avg but were more proficient than 200-250 hr pilots elsewhere, when they compared regimens.
If pure combat power is concerned, number of airframes, power projection – long range platforms, ability to field munitions etc – only two AF count, the USAF and probably the RusAF (once its reorg/retrainign is complete).. the PLAAF and the rest of the world are still quite a bit away from the B2, B1 and Tu-22/Tu160 style capability ..
TeerThis is just silly. The US of course is entitled to a tier of its own, but the remainder of classification is almost arbitrary. ‘Most Western NATO’ airforces ahead of Singapore, Japan and South Korea? India at par with Thailand and Egypt?
I’m afraid you’re going by your gut rather than facts here.
The above list is just BS I am afraid… just playing to bias about superior west, inferior rest etc.
The USAF and several of the ballyhooed western NATO AF have been busy canvassing India for the past several years to hold more international exercises, as the quality of DACT they get in India is worth it. Its the IAF which has been pushing back so as to not disrupt its ongoing operations/yearly regime etc. IAF instructor pilots are posted abroad and have won plaudits as well.
As to the quality of what the IAF was capable of several years back itself:
2004, Cope India -1, the tactics and trainings part
AWST
These same U.S. participants say the Indian pilots showed innovation and flexibility in their tactics. They also admit that they came into the exercise underrating the training and tactics of the pilots they faced. Instead of typical Cold War-style, ground-controlled interceptions, the Indians varied aircraft mixes, altitudes and formations. Indian air force planners never reinforced failure or repeated tactics that the U.S. easily repelled. Moreover, the IAF’s airborne commanders changed tactics as opportunities arose. Nor did U.S. pilots believe they faced only India’s top guns. Instead, they said that at least in some units they faced a mix of experienced and relatively new Indian fighter and strike pilots.
Maj. Mark A. Snowden, the 3rd Wing’s chief of air-to-air tactics and a participant in Cope India, spoke for the 13 U.S. pilots who attended the exercise. They flew six F-15Cs, each equipped with a fighter data link for rapid exchange of target information, AIM-9Xs and a Joint Helmet-Mounted Cueing System, he says. The aircraft had been to Singapore for another exercise and for the long, six-week jaunt it was decided not to bring along the additional maintenance package needed to support AESA-equipped F-15Cs.
“The outcome of the exercise boils down to [the fact that] they ran tactics that were more advanced than we expected,” Snowden says. “India had developed its own air tactics somewhat in a vacuum. They had done some training with the French that we knew about, but we did not expect them to be a very well-trained air force. That was silly.
“They could come up with a game plan, but if it wasn’t working they would call an audible and change [tactics in flight],” he says. “They made good decisions about when to bring their strikers in. The MiG-21s would be embedded with a Flogger for integral protection. There was a data link between the Flankers that was used to pass information. [Using all their assets,] they built a very good [radar] picture of what we were doing and were able to make good decisions about when to roll [their aircraft] in and out.”
“When we saw that they were a more professional air force, we realized that within the constraints of the exercise we were going to have a very difficult time,” Snowden says. “In general, it looked like they ran a broad spectrum of tactics and they were adaptive. They would analyze what we were doing and then try something else. They weren’t afraid to bring the strikers in high or low. They would move them around so that we could never anticipate from day to day what we were going to see.”
Changes in training thanks to the USAF picking up IAF methods, Inside the AF
Officials from the 3rd Wing at Elmendorf did not provide specifics about how their aircraft fared, but said the experience is causing the service to reevaluate the way it trains its pilots for air-to-air operations.
“What happened to us was it looks like our red air training might not be as good because the adversaries are better than we thought,” Snodgrass said. “And in the case of the Indian Air Force both their training and some of their equipment was better than we anticipated.”
“Red air” refers to the way the Air Force simulates enemy capability in air combat training. Because the service has assumed for years that its fighters are more capable than enemy aircraft, the U.S. pilots that simulate the enemy, known as “red” forces, in air combat training are required to operate under rules that constrain their combat capability.
“We have always believed that our technology was superior to everyone else’s technology, that we would fight a somewhat inferior adversary, so we have had to supply a simulated adversary from our own resources; we call that ‘red air,’” Snodgrass said.
As a result, Air Force pilots are used to flying against an enemy whose combat capability is deliberately limited.
“There are manoeuvering limits as well as weapons employment limits, what we believe enemy aircraft may be able to do with their weapons systems, so we try to simulate that in our own airplane with our own weapons,” Snodgrass explained. “It becomes very complex because instead of using the airplane the way it was designed, you now have to come up with rules of thumb that limit what you do and cause you to not perform . . . the way we really would want to in combat.”
“What we faced were superior numbers, and an IAF pilot who was very proficient in his aircraft and smart on tactics. That combination was tough for us to overcome,” Neubeck said.
One reason the Indian pilots proved so formidable is that their training regimen does not include a concept of “red air.” Instead, “they fly pretty much blue-on-blue . . . [a] full-up airplane with no restrictions against somebody else’s airplane with no restrictions, and that leads to more proficiency with your aircraft,” Neubeck said.
“I believe what this demonstrates is that the capacity exists out there for any nation with the appropriate resources and the will to acquire technology and to train their aircrews to be very, very capable,” said Col. Russ Handy, commander of the 3rd Operations Group. “In the long term this could occur in nations outside of the Indian Air Force.”
Cope Thunder – the IAF won mission commander status after their Jags got through the defensive screen, and even went ahead with missions despite lack of AWACs support – a no go for the “Advanced NATO AF”… so much for their superiority under all conditions..
2006, Cope India 2 – USAF pilots/Moose/Ragin@F-16.net
We had “Within Visual Range” fighting with all of the aircraft types but it was based on notional weapons, as Ragin pointed out. The Mig-21 Bisons pilots will tell you that they don’t fly the Mig-21, they fly Bisons. 🙂
[…]
Ok I will try and answer all these questions to the best of my ability…Lets start with the Bison in WVR and BVR…thse are all on the unclass side of course. There were never any true 1v1 BFM against Bisons because, lets face it, it’s an old airframe and can in no way turn with the Viper. There were, however, some TI to ACM with Fulcrums and Bisons together. Now keep in mind that we were fighting with fictitious weapons, and the Bison felt it had the best advantage to blow through a WVR engagement and “light the candle”. On the LFE side, they did openly (because I was in an integrated “package” with them) stick with the floggers as strikers. I thought the fact that they would also do TI and 1v1 ACM with Fulcrums was interesting too.
Now the Fulcrum, I thought, has the most powerful engines as a ratio of aircraft size. Everytime one would take off it would do a slow climb at high AOA and then power out of it, a few times it looked as if it was going to stall at any moment…it was truely impressive to watch. The guys who had incentive rides in the fulcrum were impressived with it’s power and maneuverability. It is a large aircraft and was not too difficult to spot in the air unless they were using haze or the sun to their advantage. Their engines tended to smoke significantly. As for BFM, we were all impressed with how the Fulcrum performed…very close to the viper.
[…]
The Mirages are great in BFM because they are hard to see. Their delta wings give them a good instant turn capabililty too. I would say that in a BVR arena it is essential to have the aircraft on your radar if you want to do anything…In the dogfight arena…..if you don’t have visual on the aircraft then you have already lost.
I don’t think I can get into details about radars but the Mirage seemed like a pretty nice jet in all arenas.
As for the AWACS, it did get airborne and was able to control the IAF from the air. After they IAF got used to the radio comm and working with the E-3. they were doing awesome. I was in a couple of LFEs with them and they seemed to adapt really well in preformance. They are, of course, planning on buying AWACs in 2007…that was in the Indian Newspapers.
The Su-30 can perform very well, especially with an experienced pilot who knows his airplane. Their squadron commander was an outstanding pilot whom we all respect deeply. If the Su-30 ever gets into WVR without being spotted (you can see the guy a looong way off), then you are going to have your hands full.
[…]
Lastly, we were not there to show of the Viper so that they would buy it…again, there were mutual rules enforced based on notional weapons for both sides.. We flew against the IAF and with them against the USAF. We did our best in BFM and in everything else…I am sure that they are impressed with the USAF F-16s but whether or not we were there to sell them Vipers is way above my pay-grade. As for the MKIs, they only did BFM for a few days and then split. The MKI is the pride of their fleet and the SU-30ks are eventually going away. There were only a couple of pilots that flew against them and from what I am told it handled nicely. I am not sure of what I can talk about in that area.
[…]
As for flying hours, one of the Flanker pilots told me openly that he gets about 200 hours a year in the front seat…Their higher ranking dudes fly in the back seat and act as Mission Commanders.
Having flow in mixed formations now with all of their jets i would say that they are very capable and probably the best air force in Asia. Some of their planes are old but the skill of the IAF pilots make them hold their own. I do think that the Viper holds up very well with most of them, however, because we are downright hard to see and our maneuverability is awesome. Getting slow with some of these jets is not advised.
So much for the reality ..
As matter of fact, the IAF trains hard despite challenges and has regularly inducted technology…right now, its amongst the most radical overhauls of any force worldwide.. only considering the signed deals/in induction.
As regards C3 logistics, he has no idea…buzzwords apart…of what the IAF fields and is operationalizing as well.
Sign In
