USAF: Indian Exercises Showed Need For F/A-22, Changes In Training

Originally posted by Dima
oh and american mad man, india isn't a close ally of america, their much more closer to russia than they are to you, u said u had knowledge in geopolitical issues

Did I say we were better allies of India then Russia? No - I didn't.

I said we were close allies. We are, otherwise we wouldn't have let a bunch of our frontline fighters in your country

Engineer:

Lots of speculation here, the Mig 21's didn't fight the Eagles, they flew escort for the Mig-27's which were designated as the strike AC. Anyway,here is the unclassified summary on Cope India. Draw your own conclusions:

USAF:
4 x F-15 (APG-63(v)1 [not AESA])
semi-active radar missiles with much less range than AIM-7M/P Sparrows (apparently a sort of simulated AA-10a or AIM-7F)

IAF:
Certainly at least 4, probably 6 or 8 Su-30MK1 and M2000
AA-12 and MICA active radar missiles
GCI (pretending to be an AWACS)

October 6, 2004: More details have come out about the "losing" performance of U.S. F-15Cs (from the Alaska-based 3rd Wing) against India's air force in the Cope India air-to-air combat exercise earlier this year. The Air Force and some members of Congress have used the "failure" to justify the need for new F/A-22 and F-35 fighters. Some are calling the results a demonstrated weakening of American air combat capabilities

Two factors have been cited as major reasons why the 3rd Wing took a drubbing. None of the participating American aircraft had the latest long-range AESA radars, although some of the F-15Cs of the Wing had this equipment. A decision had been made beforehand not to send the AESA equipped planes to India due to the additional maintenance package required to support them. A total of six F-15Cs were sent to India, each equipped with a fighter data link, short-range AIM-9X heat-seeking air-to-air missiles, and the U.S.'s helmet-mounted cueing system.

Secondly, at India's request, the U.S. agreed to mock combat at 3-to-1 odds and without the full range of capabilities of simulated long-range radar-guided AIM-120 AMRAAM missiles. U.S. fighters could not use the active on-board radar capability of the AMRAAM, and the missile was limited to around 32 kilometers range and required the use of the F-15C's onboard radar to target Indian aircraft. In standard use, AMRAAM has a range of over 100 kilometers and is a fire-and-forget missile that doesn't require additional guidance from the F-15. Practiced tactics by the F-15 crews mix two AESA-equipped F-15Cs with two stock aircraft. The AESA aircraft take long-range missile shots to thin out and disrupt the formation of a numerically superior force before the two sides close up for closer fighting.

The F-15s flew in groups of 4 against packages of 12 Indian Air Force aircraft consisting of a mix of Mirage 2000, Su-30, Mig-21, and Mig-27 aircraft. The Mirage and Su-30 aircraft were used in the air-to-air role, while the Mig-27 was used as the strike aircraft with the Mig-21 providing escort to the Mig-27s. The Indians also had a simulated AWACS platform and the use of simulated active radar missiles such as the AA-12 and the French Mica, unlike the F-15Cs. This gave the Indian Air Force a fire-and-forget air-to-air missile capability that the U.S. fighters didn't have, a heavily unrealistic assumption in actual hostilities.

However, the U.S. pilots admitted that they did have problems with the simulated active missile threat and don't normally train against launch-and-leave threats. They also admit they underestimated the training and tactics of the Indian pilots. Indian air force planners never repeated failed tactics and were able to change tactics as opportunities became available, mixing things up and never providing the same tactical "look." Some of the Indian aircraft radars had different characteristics than U.S. pilots had seen on stock versions of the aircraft, including some of the Mirage 2000s.

There,that says it all.

[edit on 23/11/04 by W4rl0rD]

I find the above quoted report to be extremely shoddy. Wonder who sourced it..

It doesn't even clarify the no. IAF jets in the exercise, "maybe 4 or 6"...
And IMHO a genuine report should at least get the no. of jets on either side correctly. That's not classified...It publicised!!


I wonder how the report was so in-depth on the technicalities of the 'imbalance factors' and yet couldn't confirm how many jets the IAF flew...
Also it says that the USAF fielded inferior tech "at the request of the IAF"....meaning in the absence of that request the F-15s would have been armed appropriately??

Anda again why would ANY exercise be carried out under "unrealistic scenarios"..??

Something very fishy....

Originally posted by Daedalus3
I find the above quoted report to be extremely shoddy. Wonder who sourced it..

It doesn't even clarify the no. IAF jets in the exercise, "maybe 4 or 6"...

And IMHO a genuine report should at least get the no. of jets on either side correctly. That's not classified...It publicised!!

I wonder how the report was so in-depth on the technicalities of the 'imbalance factors' and yet couldn't confirm how many jets the IAF flew...

It said that they didn't know how many of each type of plane was used. The numbers are known to THE WHOLE WORLD. Read that report, or any other if you want. It's 3-1, in favor of India.

Also it says that the USAF fielded inferior tech "at the request of the IAF"....meaning in the absence of that request the F-15s would have been armed appropriately??

In a word, YES.

Anda again why would ANY exercise be carried out under "unrealistic scenarios"..??

Something very fishy....

The only thing fishy here is your inability to comprehend why the US lost. The deck was stacked against them, and they lost. It's that simple. There is no conspiracy here. There is no false data, or untrue reporting.

Let it go.

[edit on 23-11-2004 by American Mad Man]

Originally posted by American Mad Man
The only thing fishy here is your inability to comprehend why the US lost. The deck was stacked against them, and they lost. It's that simple. There is no conspiracy here. There is no false data, or untrue reporting.

Let it go.

We already know the deck was stacked against the USAF, we know the ratio, 3:1. We know that's why they lost. Along with the American's obvious assumption that the Indians would not be as ggod as they were.
See: "They never repeated failed tactics." That would suggest the speaker had expected them too (Yes, I'm reaching and inferring a hell of a long way). That's not fishy.

The fishy bit comes in after the exercise. Why could the report not number the individual types?

Why are you convinced that it was done to sell Congress a bill of goods? Why would the Yanks want to boost IAF's opinion of itself?

Exercise parameters are designed to test specific things and the USAF found out that it wasn't as good in a particular situation as it thought it might be.

^^aah now you'r seeing it my way...definitely something fishy...

The F-15s flew in groups of 4 against packages of 12 Indian Air Force aircraft consisting of a mix of Mirage 2000, Su-30, Mig-21, and Mig-27 aircraft. The Mirage and Su-30 aircraft were used in the air-to-air role, while the Mig-27 was used as the strike aircraft with the Mig-21 providing escort to the Mig-27s.

This means,there were only a few fighters combined with a few strike aircraft,meaning it was not a 3:1 ratio,more like maybe 2:1 ratio,the strike aircraft didn't really engage in air to air combat.Please read my post.

Originally posted by W4rl0rD


This means,there were only a few fighters combined with a few strike aircraft,meaning it was not a 3:1 ratio,more like maybe 2:1 ratio,the strike aircraft didn't really engage in air to air combat.Please read my post.

Yeah..but I didn't get your point...

My point is that it wasn't a unfair fight (3:1 ratio),it was more of a fair fight,the Indians had more aircraft but a lot of them were strike aircraft,so the ratio would even out to be like 6 Mirages and Su-30s vs 4 F-15s instead of 12 Aircraft vs 4 F-15s,which is what everyone thinks.

Mote than that it always takes 2 to 3 times the defensive force for a offensive party to come out victorious. Esp in ground warfare. It takes 2 or 3 battalions to dislodge a single one defending territory..

Lordy Lordy! The same misinformation and whines are being again repeated ad nauseum

Rather than write it up again, lemmie just quote my post verbatim from the other thread


====================

Hi fellows,

Sorry for dragging what looked to be a rather acrimonious discussion from a couple months ago, but holy crud, there's a lot of misinformation about this exercise some of you have, and I feel compelled to reply!


America accepted the rules of the excercise themselves; and they admitted they did so with the presumption that the Indian Air Force is incompetant or stuck in rigid, predictable tactics, be they Western or Soviet. However, as they themselves admitted after the exercises, they completely underestimated the IAF's skill and tactics.

Before I go any further, here's probably the most authoritative article on the COPE India Ex, based on interviews and quotes from the USAF pilots themselves. There are some incorrect statements that the reporter threw in (ex: IAF Mirages are not armed with the Mica), but the quotes from the aviators are most relevant.

3rd Wing Explains 'Cope India' Exercise

Aviation Week & Space Technology 10/04/2004, page 50
David A. Fulghum Elmendorf AFB, Alaska

3rd Wing explains what happened when U.S. pilots faced innovative Indian air force tactics
Indian 'Scare'

The losing performance of F-15Cs in simulated air-to-air combat against the Indian air force this year is being perceived by some, both in the U.S. and overseas, as a weakening of American capabilities, and it is generating taunts from within the competitive U.S. fighter community.

The Cope India exercise also seemingly shocked some in Congress and the Pentagon who used the event to renew the call for modernizing the U.S. fighter force with stealthy F/A-22s and F-35 Joint Strike Fighters.

The reasons for the drubbing have gone largely unexplained and been misunderstood, according to those based here with the 3rd Wing who participated. Two major factors stand out: None of the six 3rd Wing F-15Cs was equipped with the newest long-range, active electronically scanned array (AESA) radars. These Raytheon APG-63(V)2 radars were designed to find small and stealthy targets. At India's request, the U.S. agreed to mock combat at 3-to-1 odds and without the use of simulated long-range, radar-guided AIM-120 Amraams that even the odds with beyond-visual-range kills.

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.

Cope India was held Feb. 15-28 at Gwalior, about 150 mi. south of Delhi, where the Indian air force has its Tactics Air Combat Development Establishment, which operates late-model MiG-21 Fishbeds as fighter escorts and MiG-27 Floggers as strike aircraft. Aerospace officials who have heard the classified brief on the exercise say the MiG-21s were equipped with a "gray-market" Bison radar and avionics upgrade.

Mica-armed Dassault Mirages 2000s are also stationed there. Brought in for the exercise were Sukhoi Su-30s (but not the newest Su-30 MKIs) carrying simulated AA-11s and AA-12 Adders. There also were five MiG-29 Flankers involved in a peripheral role and an Antonov An-32 Cline as a simulated AWACS.

"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."

Aerospace industry officials say there's some indication that the MiG-21s also may have been getting a data feed from other airborne radars that gave them improved situational awareness of the airborne picture.

Generally the combat scenario was to have four F-15s flying at any time against about 12 Indian aircraft. While the U.S. pilots normally train to four versus 12, that takes into account at least two of the U.S. aircraft having AESA radar and being able to make the first, beyond-visual-range shots. For the exercise, both sides restricted long-range shots.

"That's what the Indians wanted to do," Snowden says. "That [handicap] really benefits a numerically superior force because you can't whittle away some of their force at long range. They were simulating active missiles [including] AA-12s." This means the missile has its own radar transmitter and doesn't depend on the launch aircraft's radar after launch. With the older AA-10 Alamo, the launching fighter has to keep its target illuminated with radar so the U.S. pilots would know when they were being targeted. But with the AA-12, they didn't know if they had been targeted. The Mirage 2000s carried the active Mica missile. Aerospace industry officials said that some of the radars the U.S. pilots encountered, including that of the Mirage 2000s, exhibited different characteristics than those on standard versions of the aircraft.


Indian planners combined the use of top-line fighters like this Su-30 with older types and impressive, innovative tactics.
Credit: USAF TSGT. KEITH BROWN


The U.S. pilots used no active missiles, and the AIM-120 Amraam capability was limited to a 20-naut.-mi. range while keeping the target illuminated when attacking and 18 naut. mi. when defending, as were all the missiles in the exercise.

"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."

By comparison, the U.S. pilots don't think they offered the Indians any surprises. The initial tactic is to run a wall with all four F-15s up front. That plays well when the long-range missiles and AESA radar are in play.

"You know we're there and we're not hiding," Snowden says. "But we didn't have the beyond-visual-range shot or the numerical advantage. Eventually we were just worn down by the numbers. They were very smart about it. Their goal was to get to a target area, engage the target and then withdraw without prolonging the fight. If there were a couple of Eagles still alive away from the target area, they would keep them pinned in, get done with the target and then egress with all their forces.

"All their aircraft seemed to be capable of breaking out [targets] and shooting at the ranges the exercise allowed," he says. "We generally don't train to an active missile threat [like the Mirage's Mica or the AA-12 for the Russian-built aircraft], and that was one of the things that caused us some problems."

USAF planners here see Cope India as the first step in an annual series of exchange exercises.

The IAF exhibited incredible flexability and skill in the mission planning and flying. The tactics they used, to the great surprise of the Americans were uniquely Indian, as, to quote a USAF pilot, Indian tactics "were developed in a vaccum"; i.e. Indian tactics were neither Soviet or Western style. Beacuse they expected the IAF to be strictly conformal to Soviet doctrine and not at all innovative, the excercise came as a very rude shock to the Americans.

The IAF's first ever tangle with the Armee de l'Air a couple years ago pitted IAF M2Ks versus French, which were BVR armed. The exercises showed the Indians that, though they beat the French in WVR dogfighting, the French could pick IAF a/c off at BVR. The IAF then went all out in developing BVR-heavy a/c (Su-30MKI, LCA), upgrading its current fighter fleet to BVR capabilities (including down to the BVR MiG-21 Bison upgrade of its MiG-21 fleet, which proved itself more than worthy in COPE India), porcuring and developing BVR weapons, and developing tactics in BVR combat from the French and internal DACT exercises.]

That plus the fact that the Indians flew as many, and in the case of the Jags, M2Ks and Sukhois, more hours than their American counterparts. The capabilities of the plain vanilla Su-30 (IAF didn't field their Su-30MKI 'supercars'; the IAF Su-30s will in the next couple years will be upgraded to MKI standard) also came as a shock to the Americans.


The biggest lesson that America took away from these exercises was that a well-trained airforce can best an American force of equal footing without American force-multipliers the dissipation of the groupthink belief that inherantly assumes American combat superiority in the post-cold war world. Hence, this was a major reason the USAF gave in pushing for the F-22, which in terms of capabilities, is far ahead of any current aircraft. The USAF also learned about the capabilities firsthand of the vanilla IAF Su-30 which are comparable to PLAAF Su-27s and Su-30s.

The IAF's lesson was one of the need for force multipliers (like the AWACS, which prompted India to restart its indegenous AWACS program, which is designed to complement the Phalcon, and increased the order of Su-30MKI a/c; and the exercises refined IAF's combat tactics versus Western fighters.

The latter they did as well in the recent exercises with South African Mirages and, even more significantly, with RSAF F-16 blk 50s, which are a generation and a half superior to the Pakistani F-16s. Unlike COPE India, these exercises were very hush-hush and, according to IAF pilots in news reports, the exerciseses gave them significant information on how to develop F-16-specific combat tactics. Singapore was so impressed with India that the majority of their training will now be done in and with India, so this will obviously give the IAF much more familiarity with the capabilities of the F-16, and similarly the RSAF will get familiarity with the Sukhois, which Malaysia and potentially Indonesia operates.


===============


OK, now to address some of the misconceptions that some members here raised:


Firstly, many here suggest that the Americans were 'outnumbered' in the entire exercise. In a way, you are correct, as there were more IAF planes that participated in COPE India.

But your implication that the USAF were solely outnumbered by the Indians throughout the missions, is incorrect. The exercise consisted of offensive and defensive counter-air exercises, with 12 attacking aircraft (8 ground attack and 4 escorts) conducting a simulated raid on Gwalior AFB, versus 4 defending aircraft scrambling to intercept.

Both the Indian and the American fighters took turns being attacking and defending a/c, mixing the formations between MiG-21 Bis, Su-30K, M2K, and F-15. The numbers of a/c used in the missions was applied the same to aircraft both sides! In other words, if you were to say the American (defenders) were mugged by the Indians, then you should say the Indian (defenders) were equally mugged by the Indians!

It wasn't a case where 12 Indian fighters mugged the Americans due to numbers! The the exercise was to judge the performance of the pilots in theses scenarios. And even then, it wasn't always 12v.4, as 10v.4 and 6v.4 missions were documented.

Even so, the declassified version of the report that was sent to Congress noted that the USAF defenders lost 90% of the time, which was apparently was a worse record than the IAF when they played the defenders.


Secondly, the same weapons range handicaps applied to both sides! It was not as if the Americans were the only ones that these ROEs applied to, as you are implying, but the Indians, too, limited the same range on their BVR missiles. The exercise was made to test tactics and pilot skill, not how far the USAF or IAF can slug it out


Thirdly, the IAF did not use AWACS against AWACS-less F-15s, as some of you suggest. Heck, the Phalcons are still a couple years in coming. The simulated AWACS was simply an An-32 that one mission required for the fighters to protect. Both the USAF and IAF used their datalinking capabilities, however, the IAF and especially the MiG-21s having it apparently being a shock to the Americans (though I don't know why it would be, as it is publicly-available information...)


Forthly, so what if America didn't field their best aircraft (AESA-equipped F-15s)?. Neither did India (Su-30MKI with BARS ). However, the even the aircraft America fielded (i.e. AESA-less F-15s (without the hardware, software updates, etc.)) with their slotted-array radars still outclassed the N-001 radars of the Su-30Ks by a generation! Only the MiG-21 Bis with their Kopyo-M radar was the technological equivilant of the F-15s, but even this doesn't have the same range. However, it should be noted that in some of the missions involved the IAF using their datalinking capabilities, with appaerent tremendous success, but it wasn't used in every mission, though.


Fifthly, though America fielded an average squadron, so did India! The article specifically states that the Indian pilots were a mix from novice to expert, as is the norm in IAF squardrons, where there are no 'elite' squadrons. It is not as if the IAF aces all flew against rookie USAF pilot.


Sixthly, what is all this ruminition about poor IAF pilot training?(!) The IAF is one of the few AFs in the world that is always at a state of operational readiness, i.e. has the immediate ability to conduct full scale operations as soon as the order is given. They train long, and they train hard. One reason the attrition rate is high for the old MiG-21s is because the IAF logs so very many flying hours on the machines (though even then the attrition rate is not exceptional, given the flying hours.)

Heck, even the USAF guys who came said their Indian pilot friends logged just as many, and in many cases more flying hours than them!


Lets see... am I forgetting anything else?
Oh yes, seventhly, the IAF MiG-21 Bisons are probably the most advanced -21s in the world. Packed to the brim with Indian, Israeli and French avionics, Indian software, composities and computers, and the most modern Russian technologies and radar. Not your father's -21s by any means but still not equal to the F-15s America brought in.


===============


The exercise (like all exercises are) was a very specific one, aimed to test the skills and abilities of the pilots applied to very exacting scenarios. The Americans did not have their technical advantages, and neither did the Indians; as the exercises were designed to test mission planning, aerial tactics and pilots. The ROEs did not handicap one country versus the other; there wouldn't be any value to an exercise if that were the case. The reason that this exercise generated so much interest, was that the IAF apparently very much impressed the Americans with their abilities, and showed that pilot-to-pilot, as an American pilot said, the IAF is "just as good as us."

I simply don't understand the bruising of egos and the need for excuses founded on misconceptions that this exercise generated. Remember, this wasn't a competition, but a cooperation in exercise, seeing and learning and experimenting ('how would 4 F-15s fare versus 4 -27s and 2 Su30s and these mission factors?''hmm interesting, now what about using this tactic against this situation', etc)... The only thing to take away from this exercise is that both sides learned a great deal from each other, and laid a great foundation for friendship and future cooperation.



Hear's to the great, up and coming US-India relationship!

Cheers,
Raj

[edit on 26-11-2004 by rajkhalsa2004]

[edit on 26-11-2004 by rajkhalsa2004]

Hmmm......great post ..

----
-----

ohhh yes ...The US have been F###ed

gio India long live Russian Technology....Americans dont cry...Russians n Indians will be kind to u

Im looking forward to unification of the whole world but we can start off with Russia and India..

To tell u the fact I am as much Indian as i m Russian coz my mother is from Russia and my father was from India....however I prefered to be a Russian Citizen and I m proud to b a Russian ..but I am quite aquanted with situations in India.....after all "Indi Russi bhai bhai"....but one thing i think you know very well that Russia had been a true Friend of India . Russia had been a friend when India got her freedom and provided her will all sorts of Technologies , During the Bangladesh War it was due to the fear of the Soviet Navy that the US fleet refrained from attacking India and still today we are helping you with the UN issues ,Groshkovs ,Shukhois and the Migs...A friend in need is a friend indeed ....while on the other hand you know well the real motivation of the US who always helps Pak and how it plays "double standards" when it comes to India - the US will always remain closer to Pak than to India coz its their policy to help the weak(Pak) to subdue the strong(Ind) so that they remain the Ultimate unchallenged players , well i think I need not explain these politics to you....u Indians understand this better than us , the same applies with China.....still they capture a significat part of your country , n r trying to start Maoist revolution in the eastern part of your country.
so I think the only possible means to subdue the americans is a coalition between Russia and India which is on its firm footing....................The only think I dislike about Indians is that they always have an Inferiority complex within them...they take it fr granted that they are Inferior than the Europe/US......India must understand its potential and must understand that those days are gone when they used to play secondary roles Its time fr her to become the political leaders with Russia as her friend.

But what you must also understnad is that Russia is playing a double game by befriending China..or that mybe to get India and china to 'make up and kiss'..I don't know..
But prelude you tell me, besides India and maybe cuba(Cuba that to out of bare necessity) which other country has pledged alligence to the USSR?? No other country has supported Russia more on issues like Chechnya, NATO, Yugoslavia etc etc..

Does Russia allow dual citizenship? because india has just begun to do so..so then maybe you could get both ...

[edit on 16-1-2005 by Daedalus3]

in order to understand why Russia is Isolated from the other countries u need to understand international politics a bit of History Cold war etc etc ,but in Nut shell here is the reason :
after the breakdown of soviet union all the countries including India prefered to stay with the US in order to gain political support.....u can easyly see the situation in Iraq when the whole of western Europe prefer to play second fiddle to US ...when all knew that all what was done against Iraq was wrong .....

But its Russia alone who had the GUTS to stay against USA ....we openly protested against american action Iraq ...most of the citizens of asian countries did the same but their Government prefered to stay in safe sides by not annoying US ........

Moreover toay Russia has developed good relations with France , Brazil , Germany as well as with the asian CIS countries.....
the reason that we are alone is we prefer our selfrespect more than any political benefits (from US etc)....we may b alone but atleast our country has some opinion of our own we dont play second Fiddle to anyone..............moreover we are the only "potential" enemy of the US so the US too with their Popular Media tries its best to Isolate us

moreover remember we were the only potential country who did not impose sanctions against India during the Pokhran tests......

about our relations with china al lot depends upon the "treaty of Good neighbourlyhood " that we once signed with them

the reason why we are alone is the same reason why u people are alone in case of "Kashmir" look at any international website and u ll find a different map of India ...in some of them u will find kashmir as a seperate nation in others u ll fid a snignificant part of Kashmir under Pakistan ......this easyly Illustrates u how alone u are in Issues like Kashmir.......same is the case with Cechnia the West dont dare to show Cechnia as a seperate nation or being separated from Russia but still they go on supporting separatist Movements in our country......

in Both cases India and Russia these western countries and the US have similar motives.......to stop by any means ........the rise of Potential enemies like china ,India and Russia .they havenot been able to to that with china but have been able to to that to an extent with India and Russia.

No no no..Im not doubting Russia's prowess in standing up for itself..I'm just saying that besides India no other country has stood by Russia post WWII..so credit goes to India as well..

[edit on 16-1-2005 by Daedalus3]

Great post I don't know about now, but I do remember reading that a lot of U.S. Air Force pilots, pre-9/11, were leaving due to the fact that they weren't flying enough; who wants to be a jet fighter pilot, and only fly 8 hours a month. A lot of the pilots said they hated that, and also, they didn't feel competent as fighter pilots, as their training was too cut. This shortage of U.S. Air Force pilots has been fixed some, post-9/11, as more people have joined up, I don't know if they have upped the ante for the training though.

We Americans have Bill Clinton to thank for that, with his administration's slashing of the U.S. military budget.

However, as for egos, you are damn right it hurts egos for Americans, especially would-be pilots!! This is America after all; there is no reason other countries can't be amongst the best in terms of pilots, but.....like I just said, THIS IS AMERICA!! We are supposed to be amongst the best regardless; there is no excuse for that.

Hopefully this exercise will help to get more training for the pilots; this happened in the Vietnam War. In Korea, the U.S. Air Force was obviously superior to the Russian and Korean pilots; in Vietnam, this superiority had dropped a good deal. They fixed that, but I guess now it has dropped some, provided everything said is true.

True , this wasn't a competition, it was a learning exercise; both sides learned a lot about each other's tactics. So I mean no need to make excuses unless necessary. But still, America has the most powerful military and has spent the most $$$ in developing it, and we are supposed to be the main freedom-lovers of this world, so it is only natural we should be able to take pride in our defensive force; however, we should be able to take pride in it for its skill, so they need to keep those pilots trained well.