Re: Airpower: India threatens US air superiority

[Krztalizer]

>WASHINGTON - The success of the Indian air force against American
>fighter planes in a recent exercise suggests other countries may soon
>be able to threaten U.S. military dominance of the skies, a top Air
>Force general said Wednesday.
>
>"We may not be as far ahead of the rest of the world as we thought we
>were," said Gen. Hal M. Hornburg, the chief of Air Combat Command,
>which oversees U.S. fighter and bomber wings.

I'd say the same thing if I wanted the Raptor and the Jayesseff funded.

v/r
Gordon

[Gomez Addams]

Are we losing our status as the most powerful country in the world and could
other countries catch up?
"Krztalizer" > wrote in message
...
>
> >WASHINGTON - The success of the Indian air force against American
> >fighter planes in a recent exercise suggests other countries may soon
> >be able to threaten U.S. military dominance of the skies, a top Air
> >Force general said Wednesday.
> >
> >"We may not be as far ahead of the rest of the world as we thought we
> >were," said Gen. Hal M. Hornburg, the chief of Air Combat Command,
> >which oversees U.S. fighter and bomber wings.
>
> I'd say the same thing if I wanted the Raptor and the Jayesseff funded.
>
> v/r
> Gordon

[Eunometic]

"Gomez Addams" > wrote in message
...
> Are we losing our status as the most powerful country in the world
and could
> other countries catch up?

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

Concurently India and China are industrialising. In fact in the
current globalisation climate many of the engineers gaining skills are
indians and chinese in their home countries as western companies move
their manufacturing and R&D efforts to those countries. Many also
gain skills expating in the USA under varous visas. In addition those
countries have sizable and capable R&D capabilties of their own.
With populations of 1 billion or so each some of them are going to be
good engineers and they will thus be able to put together some clever
projects.

I suspect that the current desperate actions by neocons to get
something happening in Iraq and the middle east relate to the
realisation that the gap is closing and capable weapons and technology
is going to be available to the Arabs.






> "Krztalizer" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > >WASHINGTON - The success of the Indian air force against American
> > >fighter planes in a recent exercise suggests other countries may
soon
> > >be able to threaten U.S. military dominance of the skies, a top
Air
> > >Force general said Wednesday.
> > >
> > >"We may not be as far ahead of the rest of the world as we
thought we
> > >were," said Gen. Hal M. Hornburg, the chief of Air Combat
Command,
> > >which oversees U.S. fighter and bomber wings.
> >
> > I'd say the same thing if I wanted the Raptor and the Jayesseff
funded.
> >
> > v/r
> > Gordon
>
>

[Regnirps]

India has ordered Italian Savannahs, and with the big engine. We are in trouble
now!

-- Charlie Springer

[Ron]

I have been able to see some SU-30s take off recently. Impressive plane. Of
course the downside of being able to see SU-30s also puts myself at ground zero
for a Pak/Indian nuke exchange.


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

[Jack Linthicum]

(Ron) wrote in message >...
> I have been able to see some SU-30s take off recently. Impressive plane. Of
> course the downside of being able to see SU-30s also puts myself at ground zero
> for a Pak/Indian nuke exchange.
>
>
>

Remember the MiG-25? There was an impressive airplane.

[Alan Winkle]

India Times reported they were outnumbered 4 on 12
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/745557.cms?headline=Aging~IAF~shoots~down~USAF~top ~guns

Sure sounds like some kind of big spin that they left that bit out.
Hopefully just bad writing.

"Yeoman" > wrote in message
om...
> What's going on here? Is this for real?
>
>
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20040623/ap_on_re_us/us_air_force
> General: U.S. Dominance of Skies May Wane
>
> 2 hours, 37 minutes ago
>
> By JOHN J. LUMPKIN, Associated Press Writer
>
> WASHINGTON - The success of the Indian air force against American
> fighter planes in a recent exercise suggests other countries may soon
> be able to threaten U.S. military dominance of the skies, a top Air
> Force general said Wednesday.
>
> "We may not be as far ahead of the rest of the world as we thought we
> were," said Gen. Hal M. Hornburg, the chief of Air Combat Command,
> which oversees U.S. fighter and bomber wings.
>
>
> The U.S.-India joint exercise, "Cope India," took place in February
> near Gwalior in central, India. It pitted some F-15C Eagle fighters
> from the 3rd Wing at Elmendorf Air Force Base, Alaska, in mock combat
> against Indian MiG, Sukhoi and Mirage fighters.
>
>
> The F-15Cs are the Air Force's primary air superiority aircraft. The
> Indian fighters, of Russian and French design, are the type of planes
> U.S. fighters would most likely face in any overseas conflict.
>
>
> Hornburg, speaking to reporters, called the results of the exercise "a
> wake-up call" in some respects, but he declined to provide details,
> other than to suggest the Indian air force scored several unexpected
> successes against the American planes.
>
>
> For the last 15 years, the U.S. military has enjoyed almost total
> command of the air during conflicts. A few fighters and
> fighter-bombers have gone down, usually victims of surface-to-air
> missile fire, but in general, American planes have been able to target
> enemy ground forces at will.
>
>
> In the most recent invasion of Iraq (news - web sites), Saddam Hussein
> (news - web sites)'s air force stayed grounded.
>
>
> Still, new tactics, better Russian fighters like the Su-30, and a new
> generation of surface-to-air missiles mean that U.S. dominance could
> be ending, said Loren Thompson, who follows military issues for the
> Lexington Institute, a Washington think tank.
>
>
> "The United States has grown accustomed to having global air
> superiority, yet we haven't put much very much money in the last
> generation into maintaining that advantage," he said, noting the F-15
> first flew in the 1970s.
>
>
> "So of course the rest of the world is finally starting to catch up,"
> he said.
>
>
> Hornburg said the exercise shows the need for some new Air Force
> fighters, particularly the F/A-22 Raptor, which is intended to replace
> the F-15C. But critics deride the aircraft as too expensive and built
> to counter a threat that hasn't existed since the Soviet Union
> collapsed.

[Denyav]

>Come on. No other air force has as much experience as the US. The
>Brist would be second.
>

Yeah Right,as long as they face
Taliban,Iraqis,Panamanians,Grenadians,Libyans,Zamb ians ,Micronesians etc .,they
are undoubletely the best.

When they face the real best,they need always no less than a GLOBAL ALLIANCE to
contain and defeat the best.

I think calling third rate powers the best is a stretch at the best.

[Krztalizer]

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

Why not include the World Wars as well? That way, you can say they decisively
won every WWII air war they fought, regardless of who they faced.

[Denyav]

>Why not include the World Wars as well? That way, you can say they
>decisively
>won every WWII air war they fought, regardless of who they faced.

Only as a part of the GLOBAL ALLIANCE which included Great
Britain,US,USSR,Canada,Australia,France,India,Pola nd,South Africa,New Zealand
and many others.

Correct?

[Nele VII]

India would be a tough opponent for US, at least in aerial battles. They
have a lot of experience in previous wars with Pakistan and-unlike the most
of Arab countries-they KNOW how to learn from mistakes. It seems to me that
they are very much like Israelis in the terms of their unfriendly
neighbours. They also have both Western and Russian equipment (i.e.combat
airplanes) and local production, making them almost completely independent.
They are also known as a valuable resource to former USSR (and today,
Russia) for development of new versions of fighters (MiG-21) or even
expanding the envelope (Su-7). Their expertise certainly helped in bringing
the bugs out from the MiG-29 (India being the first country to receive
them).

Unlike other countries USA has faced recently, India wouldn't sit and look a
military buildup; just like Israelis, they would certainly make a preemptive
strike-they are quite capable to do that, and they did it before.

Nele

NULLA ROSA SINE SPINA

Denyav wrote in message >...
>>Why not include the World Wars as well? That way, you can say they
>>decisively
>>won every WWII air war they fought, regardless of who they faced.
>
>Only as a part of the GLOBAL ALLIANCE which included Great
>Britain,US,USSR,Canada,Australia,France,India,Pola nd,South Africa,New
Zealand
>and many others.
>
>Correct?

[Tuollaf43]

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

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

[Scott Ferrin]

On Fri, 25 Jun 2004 12:14:17 +0200, "Nele VII"
> wrote:

>India would be a tough opponent for US, at least in aerial battles. They
>have a lot of experience in previous wars with Pakistan and-unlike the most
>of Arab countries-they KNOW how to learn from mistakes. It seems to me that
>they are very much like Israelis in the terms of their unfriendly
>neighbours. They also have both Western and Russian equipment (i.e.combat
>airplanes) and local production, making them almost completely independent.
>They are also known as a valuable resource to former USSR (and today,
>Russia) for development of new versions of fighters (MiG-21) or even
>expanding the envelope (Su-7). Their expertise certainly helped in bringing
>the bugs out from the MiG-29 (India being the first country to receive
>them).
>
>Unlike other countries USA has faced recently, India wouldn't sit and look a
>military buildup; just like Israelis, they would certainly make a preemptive
>strike-they are quite capable to do that, and they did it before.
>
>Nele

I'm guessing any "air war" with the US vs. India would involve a
pummeling of airfields by Tomahawks before the carriers and Aegis
showed up. The whole "fight smart" thing you know. Trying to slug it
out with "Super" Hornets vs Su-30 would probably end up pretty ugly
unless the US fielded a 100 mile AAM. Or stealth with
JDAM/JSOW/JASSM.

[Kevin Brooks]

"Scott Ferrin" > wrote in message
...
> On Fri, 25 Jun 2004 12:14:17 +0200, "Nele VII"
> > wrote:
>
> >India would be a tough opponent for US, at least in aerial battles. They
> >have a lot of experience in previous wars with Pakistan and-unlike the
most
> >of Arab countries-they KNOW how to learn from mistakes. It seems to me
that
> >they are very much like Israelis in the terms of their unfriendly
> >neighbours. They also have both Western and Russian equipment (i.e.combat
> >airplanes) and local production, making them almost completely
independent.
> >They are also known as a valuable resource to former USSR (and today,
> >Russia) for development of new versions of fighters (MiG-21) or even
> >expanding the envelope (Su-7). Their expertise certainly helped in
bringing
> >the bugs out from the MiG-29 (India being the first country to receive
> >them).
> >
> >Unlike other countries USA has faced recently, India wouldn't sit and
look a
> >military buildup; just like Israelis, they would certainly make a
preemptive
> >strike-they are quite capable to do that, and they did it before.
> >
> >Nele
>
> I'm guessing any "air war" with the US vs. India would involve a
> pummeling of airfields by Tomahawks before the carriers and Aegis
> showed up. The whole "fight smart" thing you know. Trying to slug it
> out with "Super" Hornets vs Su-30 would probably end up pretty ugly
> unless the US fielded a 100 mile AAM. Or stealth with
> JDAM/JSOW/JASSM.

Based upon the monthly accident reports published in the press, would air
combat actually be needed? The Indians seem to be bound and determined to
destroy their own force through training related attrition... :-)

Brooks

[Denyav]

>You Russian can't even beat 1 million Chechens.

As far as I remember "the Global Alliance"was not created to stop Russia (or
Soviet Union),but Soviet Union itself was the part of this "Global Alliance".

Heck,I forgat the name of the small country that faced the Global Alliance.

[T3]

"Kevin Brooks" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Scott Ferrin" > wrote in message
> ...
> > On Fri, 25 Jun 2004 12:14:17 +0200, "Nele VII"
> > > wrote:
> >
> > >India would be a tough opponent for US, at least in aerial battles.
They
> > >have a lot of experience in previous wars with Pakistan and-unlike the
> most
> > >of Arab countries-they KNOW how to learn from mistakes. It seems to me
> that
> > >they are very much like Israelis in the terms of their unfriendly
> > >neighbours. They also have both Western and Russian equipment
(i.e.combat
> > >airplanes) and local production, making them almost completely
> independent.
> > >They are also known as a valuable resource to former USSR (and today,
> > >Russia) for development of new versions of fighters (MiG-21) or even
> > >expanding the envelope (Su-7). Their expertise certainly helped in
> bringing
> > >the bugs out from the MiG-29 (India being the first country to receive
> > >them).
> > >
> > >Unlike other countries USA has faced recently, India wouldn't sit and
> look a
> > >military buildup; just like Israelis, they would certainly make a
> preemptive
> > >strike-they are quite capable to do that, and they did it before.
> > >
> > >Nele
> >
> > I'm guessing any "air war" with the US vs. India would involve a
> > pummeling of airfields by Tomahawks before the carriers and Aegis
> > showed up. The whole "fight smart" thing you know. Trying to slug it
> > out with "Super" Hornets vs Su-30 would probably end up pretty ugly
> > unless the US fielded a 100 mile AAM. Or stealth with
> > JDAM/JSOW/JASSM.
>
> Based upon the monthly accident reports published in the press, would air
> combat actually be needed? The Indians seem to be bound and determined to
> destroy their own force through training related attrition... :-)
>
> Brooks
>

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

T3

[Tuollaf43]

"Kevin Brooks" > wrote in message >...
> "Scott Ferrin" > wrote in message
> ...
> > On Fri, 25 Jun 2004 12:14:17 +0200, "Nele VII"
> > > wrote:
> >
> > >India would be a tough opponent for US, at least in aerial battles. They
> > >have a lot of experience in previous wars with Pakistan and-unlike the
> most
> > >of Arab countries-they KNOW how to learn from mistakes. It seems to me
> that
> > >they are very much like Israelis in the terms of their unfriendly
> > >neighbours. They also have both Western and Russian equipment (i.e.combat
> > >airplanes) and local production, making them almost completely
> independent.
> > >They are also known as a valuable resource to former USSR (and today,
> > >Russia) for development of new versions of fighters (MiG-21) or even
> > >expanding the envelope (Su-7). Their expertise certainly helped in
> bringing
> > >the bugs out from the MiG-29 (India being the first country to receive
> > >them).
> > >
> > >Unlike other countries USA has faced recently, India wouldn't sit and
> look a
> > >military buildup; just like Israelis, they would certainly make a
> preemptive
> > >strike-they are quite capable to do that, and they did it before.
> > >
> > >Nele
> >
> > I'm guessing any "air war" with the US vs. India would involve a
> > pummeling of airfields by Tomahawks before the carriers and Aegis
> > showed up. The whole "fight smart" thing you know. Trying to slug it
> > out with "Super" Hornets vs Su-30 would probably end up pretty ugly
> > unless the US fielded a 100 mile AAM. Or stealth with
> > JDAM/JSOW/JASSM.
>
> Based upon the monthly accident reports published in the press, would air
> combat actually be needed? The Indians seem to be bound and determined to
> destroy their own force through training related attrition... :-)
>
> Brooks

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

[Ron]

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

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


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

[Kevin Brooks]

"Ron" > wrote in message
...
> >Is the IAF attrition rate any worse than say USAF or the RAF? If so by
> >what metric and by how much? Do you have any hard numbers or even
> >reasonable estimates? How does the IAF attrition rate per 100K hours
> >or sorties compare with say USAF, RAF, PLAAF or PAF?
>
> The Indian attrition rate in the Mig-21 has been horrible and they call it
the
> "flying coffin". They are going to start sending new pilots to the UK
for
> about a hundred hours of advanced training in the Hawk, so pilots will
have a
> big more experience, since new pilots have typically been getting the
Mig-21,
> probably the most demanding of the planes they fly.

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

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

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

Brooks

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

[Fred J. McCall]

(Karen Gordon) wrote:

:(K): Would that be the 'superior U.S. airforce' that has killed thousands
:of innocent civilians and allies in its various invasions of other
:countries?
:--
: """""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
: You don't have to fool all the people all of the time;
: you just have to fool enough to get elected. - G. Barzan
: """""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""

And they've obviously found one fool up in the Frozen North.

Are the overwhelming majority of Canadians really this mentally
challenged, or it is just the ones that post here?

--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn

[Aardvark J. Bandersnatch, MP]

"Fred J. McCall" > wrote in message
...
> (Karen Gordon) wrote:
>
> :(K): Would that be the 'superior U.S. airforce' that has killed thousands
> :of innocent civilians and allies in its various invasions of other
> :countries?
> :--
> : """""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
> : You don't have to fool all the people all of the time;
> : you just have to fool enough to get elected. - G. Barzan
> : """""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
>
> And they've obviously found one fool up in the Frozen North.
>
> Are the overwhelming majority of Canadians really this mentally
> challenged, or it is just the ones that post here?

These days it seems to be most of them.

Note that the original poster stated "... has killed thousands of innocent
civilians..." without providing some kind of evidence? Since the
unpleasantness in VietNam, IIRC, the USAF has done an admirable job of
avoiding civilian casualties. The recent exercise in Iraq showed beyond
question how precision munitions could limit civilian casualties. To date,
I've seen no evidence that civilian casualties in Iraq and Afghanistan
number more than a few hundred, if that many. Secondarily, the original
poster mentions "various invasions of other countries" without detailing
which countries he is referencing. If the OP is referring to Afghanistan and
Iraq, he might almost have a good argument. As it is, since we have no real
idea what he's talking about, he's killfile material.

[Steve Hix]

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

> "Fred J. McCall" > wrote in message
> ...
> > (Karen Gordon) wrote:
> >
> > :(K): Would that be the 'superior U.S. airforce' that has killed thousands
> > :of innocent civilians and allies in its various invasions of other
> > :countries?
> > :--
> > : """""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
> > : You don't have to fool all the people all of the time;
> > : you just have to fool enough to get elected. - G. Barzan
> > : """""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
> >
> > And they've obviously found one fool up in the Frozen North.
> >
> > Are the overwhelming majority of Canadians really this mentally
> > challenged, or it is just the ones that post here?
>
> These days it seems to be most of them.
>
> Note that the original poster stated "... has killed thousands of innocent
> civilians..." without providing some kind of evidence?

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

No follow-up responses.

[Eunometic]

"hobo" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> "Eunometic" > wrote:
>
> > Many parts of the US are deindustrializing. Engineering,
> > manufacturing and hi-tech jobs are disappearing and being replaced
> > with services jobs. (most in low paid domestic services: the job
led
> > recovery is a bit of a sham)
>
> It's the reverse. With the decline in the dollar manufacturing is
> returning to the US. What is being outsourced are service jobs.

Plenty of evidence to the contrary.

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


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

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

[Nele VII]

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

Nele

NULLA ROSA SINE SPINA



Ron wrote in message >...
>>Is the IAF attrition rate any worse than say USAF or the RAF? If so by
>>what metric and by how much? Do you have any hard numbers or even
>>reasonable estimates? How does the IAF attrition rate per 100K hours
>>or sorties compare with say USAF, RAF, PLAAF or PAF?
>
>The Indian attrition rate in the Mig-21 has been horrible and they call it
the
>"flying coffin". They are going to start sending new pilots to the UK for
>about a hundred hours of advanced training in the Hawk, so pilots will have
a
>big more experience, since new pilots have typically been getting the
Mig-21,
>probably the most demanding of the planes they fly.
>
>
>Ron
>PA-31T Cheyenne II
>Maharashtra Weather Modification Program
>Pune, India
>

[Tuollaf43]

"Aardvark J. Bandersnatch, MP" > wrote in message news:<jbnDc.186536$Ly.72@attbi_s01>...
> "Fred J. McCall" > wrote in message
> ...
> > (Karen Gordon) wrote:
> >
> > :(K): Would that be the 'superior U.S. airforce' that has killed thousands
> > :of innocent civilians and allies in its various invasions of other
> > :countries?
> > :--
> > : """""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
> > : You don't have to fool all the people all of the time;
> > : you just have to fool enough to get elected. - G. Barzan
> > : """""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
> >
> > And they've obviously found one fool up in the Frozen North.
> >
> > Are the overwhelming majority of Canadians really this mentally
> > challenged, or it is just the ones that post here?
>
> These days it seems to be most of them.
>
> Note that the original poster stated "... has killed thousands of innocent
> civilians..." without providing some kind of evidence? Since the
> unpleasantness in VietNam, IIRC, the USAF has done an admirable job of
> avoiding civilian casualties. The recent exercise in Iraq showed beyond
> question how precision munitions could limit civilian casualties. To date,
> I've seen no evidence that civilian casualties in Iraq and Afghanistan
> number more than a few hundred, if that many.

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

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

> Secondarily, the original
> poster mentions "various invasions of other countries" without detailing
> which countries he is referencing. If the OP is referring to Afghanistan and
> Iraq, he might almost have a good argument. As it is, since we have no real
> idea what he's talking about, he's killfile material.

[Nele VII]

E. Barry Bruyea wrote in message ...
>On Thu, 24 Jun 2004 07:58:07 -0600, Bryan Heit
> wrote:
>
>>E. Barry Bruyea wrote:
>>
>>>Notwithstanding the fact that operating in a non-hostile environment
>>>is a hell of a lot different that in a 'real' war; something Indian
>>>pilots have little or no experience. In every actual air war in which
>>>the U.S. has been involved, they have always come out on top.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>You pay much attention to thw world? India has a lot of experience with
>>war, be it the three "formal" wars with Pakistan, their ongoing conflict
>>within Kashmir, or their ongoing conflict with China over their northern
>>boarder. Indian pilots probably have as near, if not as much, combat
>>experience as their US counterparts.
>>
>>Bryan
>
>Those wars were primarily ground wars; neither side committed much
>airpower to the conflicts.
>

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

Nele

NULLA ROSA SINE SPINA

[Nele VII]

E. Barry Bruyea wrote in message ...
>On Thu, 24 Jun 2004 18:39:54 -0400, Tim >
>wrote:
>
>>E. Barry Bruyea wrote:
>>
>>>On Thu, 24 Jun 2004 07:37:18 GMT, "L'acrobat"
> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>"Yeoman" > wrote in message
om...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Hornburg said the exercise shows the need for some new Air Force
>>>>>fighters, particularly the F/A-22 Raptor, which is intended to replace
>>>>>the F-15C. But critics deride the aircraft as too expensive and built
>>>>>to counter a threat that hasn't existed since the Soviet Union
>>>>>collapsed.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>A cynic would suggest that the entire point of the exercise (for the
USAF)
>>>>was to make sure that the F-15s did not win convincingly, allowing the
USAF
>>>>to push the F-22.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>Notwithstanding the fact that operating in a non-hostile environment
>>>is a hell of a lot different that in a 'real' war; something Indian
>>>pilots have little or no experience. In every actual air war in which
>>>the U.S. has been involved, they have always come out on top.
>>>
>>
>>Who have they actually fought with since W.W.II?
>
>
>Well, they kicked hell out of Russian, Chinese and N. Korean pilots in
>Korea with a kill rate of about 8 to 1 and had roughly the same kill
>rate against Russian & Chinese pilots in Vietnam. Saddam wouldn't
>even commit his Air Force in the first Gulf War.
>

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

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

Nele

NULLA ROSA SINE SPINA

[David Nicholls]

"T3" > wrote in message
...
> >
>
> Heh,heh, kinda like the Russian submarine threat...
>
I am not sure this is that straight forward -

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

Conclusion??

David

[Scott Ferrin]

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

>
>"T3" > wrote in message
...
>> >
>>
>> Heh,heh, kinda like the Russian submarine threat...
>>
>I am not sure this is that straight forward -
>
>US fielded about 100 submarines - lost 2 Thresher & a Skipjack class (I
>forget the name)


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




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

Ohio 18

Plus several one-offs brings it to over 180.







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

I thought it was more like eight or so.

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


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

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





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

http://www.lostsubs.com/ )






>
>Conclusion??
>
>David
>

[Krztalizer]

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

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

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

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

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

[Aardvark J. Bandersnatch, MP]

"Tuollaf43" > wrote in message
m...
> "Aardvark J. Bandersnatch, MP" > wrote in message
news:<jbnDc.186536$Ly.72@attbi_s01>...
> > "Fred J. McCall" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > (Karen Gordon) wrote:
> > >
> > > :(K): Would that be the 'superior U.S. airforce' that has killed
thousands
> > > :of innocent civilians and allies in its various invasions of other
> > > :countries?
> > > :--
> > > : """""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
> > > : You don't have to fool all the people all of the time;
> > > : you just have to fool enough to get elected. - G. Barzan
> > > : """""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
> > >
> > > And they've obviously found one fool up in the Frozen North.
> > >
> > > Are the overwhelming majority of Canadians really this mentally
> > > challenged, or it is just the ones that post here?
> >
> > These days it seems to be most of them.
> >
> > Note that the original poster stated "... has killed thousands of
innocent
> > civilians..." without providing some kind of evidence? Since the
> > unpleasantness in VietNam, IIRC, the USAF has done an admirable job of
> > avoiding civilian casualties. The recent exercise in Iraq showed beyond
> > question how precision munitions could limit civilian casualties. To
date,
> > I've seen no evidence that civilian casualties in Iraq and Afghanistan
> > number more than a few hundred, if that many.
>
> You must have not been looking then. The death toll has easily crossed
> 10,000. Western media reported Iraqi civilian casualties alone crossed
> thousand dead in the first month of the invasion itself. The US
> authority has been careful not to officially keep a count of civilian
> casualties in Iraq - unless ofcourse they are "contractors".
>
> Just google 'iraq civilian casualties'. But why bother? They were just
> wogs.

Google it and what you find is a whole bunch of unsubstantiated accusations
with little or no proof to back them up.

[Denyav]

>If you count phone centers you can. The Indians also do a lot of
>analyzing of US CAT scan data and similar things. Some might consider
>looking at a CAT scan to be performing a service. Its certainly not
>manufacturing.

Indians do much more than analyzing CAT scan data.
There is no way born Americans can compete with Indians.Currently
38% of Medical Doctors in US is either Indian or Indo-American
36% of NASA employees are Indians
34%of MS employees are for example from the India.
CEOs of many US companies are from India.
Either jobs will go to India or Indians will come here to take the jobs

Pick your choice.

[t_mark]

> Indians do much more than analyzing CAT scan data.
> There is no way born Americans can compete with Indians.Currently
> 38% of Medical Doctors in US is either Indian or Indo-American
> 36% of NASA employees are Indians
> 34%of MS employees are for example from the India.
> CEOs of many US companies are from India.
> Either jobs will go to India or Indians will come here to take the jobs

Good lord, I see you're still as deluded as ever.

[Tuollaf43]

"Aardvark J. Bandersnatch, MP" > wrote in message news:<5RLDc.107143$Hg2.21338@attbi_s04>...
> "Tuollaf43" > wrote in message
> m...
> > "Aardvark J. Bandersnatch, MP" > wrote in message
> news:<jbnDc.186536$Ly.72@attbi_s01>...
> > > "Fred J. McCall" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > > > (Karen Gordon) wrote:
> > > >
> > > > :(K): Would that be the 'superior U.S. airforce' that has killed
> thousands
> > > > :of innocent civilians and allies in its various invasions of other
> > > > :countries?
> > > > :--
> > > > : """""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
> > > > : You don't have to fool all the people all of the time;
> > > > : you just have to fool enough to get elected. - G. Barzan
> > > > : """""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
> > > >
> > > > And they've obviously found one fool up in the Frozen North.
> > > >
> > > > Are the overwhelming majority of Canadians really this mentally
> > > > challenged, or it is just the ones that post here?
> > >
> > > These days it seems to be most of them.
> > >
> > > Note that the original poster stated "... has killed thousands of
> innocent
> > > civilians..." without providing some kind of evidence? Since the
> > > unpleasantness in VietNam, IIRC, the USAF has done an admirable job of
> > > avoiding civilian casualties. The recent exercise in Iraq showed beyond
> > > question how precision munitions could limit civilian casualties. To
> date,
> > > I've seen no evidence that civilian casualties in Iraq and Afghanistan
> > > number more than a few hundred, if that many.
> >
> > You must have not been looking then. The death toll has easily crossed
> > 10,000. Western media reported Iraqi civilian casualties alone crossed
> > thousand dead in the first month of the invasion itself. The US
> > authority has been careful not to officially keep a count of civilian
> > casualties in Iraq - unless ofcourse they are "contractors".
> >
> > Just google 'iraq civilian casualties'. But why bother? They were just
> > wogs.
>
> Google it and what you find is a whole bunch of unsubstantiated accusations
> with little or no proof to back them up.

1. Well if you are the paranoid sort who believes the whole western
media (including mainstream US media houses) are out to do the US in,
I'm afraid I cant help you. You can continue to killfile all those who
disagree with you - I am sure that knowning that you wont read their
posts will shatter them.
2. Lack of proof and unsubstantiated accusations didnt dampen US ardor
to go to war did it, eh?

[Tuollaf43]

"Eunometic" > wrote in message >...
> "hobo" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In article >,
> > "Eunometic" > wrote:
> >
> > > Many parts of the US are deindustrializing. Engineering,
> > > manufacturing and hi-tech jobs are disappearing and being replaced
> > > with services jobs. (most in low paid domestic services: the job
> led
> > > recovery is a bit of a sham)
> >
> > It's the reverse. With the decline in the dollar manufacturing is
> > returning to the US. What is being outsourced are service jobs.
>
> Plenty of evidence to the contrary.
>
> http://www.vdare.com/roberts/college_graduates.htm
> http://www.vdare.com/roberts/jobs_front.htm
> http://www.vdare.com/francis/outsourcing.htm
> http://www.vdare.com/rubenstein/income.htm
>
>
> You can't outsource most services jobs very effectively. Unless you
> count Hispanics who have effectively replaced (outsource) teenagers
> and low income Whites and will eventually outsource most Whites
> completely in the US completely on current trends.
>
> Can't they outsource Bush, the Neocons and Democrats? Surely some
> Indian could produce the same drivel they do at 1/10th the price.

I'm afraid Indians cant help you there - they are themselves trying to
outsourcing the drivel spouting politician job to the Italians. But
have a care, and be careful what you wish for. If drivel is what you
want then you will not get any finer politician for it than in India.

[Tuollaf43]

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

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

>
> Nele
>
> NULLA ROSA SINE SPINA
>
>
>
> Ron wrote in message >...
> >>Is the IAF attrition rate any worse than say USAF or the RAF? If so by
> >>what metric and by how much? Do you have any hard numbers or even
> >>reasonable estimates? How does the IAF attrition rate per 100K hours
> >>or sorties compare with say USAF, RAF, PLAAF or PAF?
> >
> >The Indian attrition rate in the Mig-21 has been horrible and they call it
> the
> >"flying coffin". They are going to start sending new pilots to the UK for
> >about a hundred hours of advanced training in the Hawk, so pilots will have
> a
> >big more experience, since new pilots have typically been getting the
> Mig-21,
> >probably the most demanding of the planes they fly.
> >
> >
> >Ron
> >PA-31T Cheyenne II
> >Maharashtra Weather Modification Program
> >Pune, India
> >

[Tuollaf43]

"Kevin Brooks" > wrote in message >...
> "Ron" > wrote in message
> ...
> > >Is the IAF attrition rate any worse than say USAF or the RAF? If so by
> > >what metric and by how much? Do you have any hard numbers or even
> > >reasonable estimates? How does the IAF attrition rate per 100K hours
> > >or sorties compare with say USAF, RAF, PLAAF or PAF?
> >
> > The Indian attrition rate in the Mig-21 has been horrible and they call it
> the
> > "flying coffin". They are going to start sending new pilots to the UK
> for
> > about a hundred hours of advanced training in the Hawk, so pilots will
> have a
> > big more experience, since new pilots have typically been getting the
> Mig-21,
> > probably the most demanding of the planes they fly.
>
> One of the Indian newspapers ran an article by a former Indian AF pilot
> defending the Mig-21; rather tenuous defense, IMO, and one that lost a lot
> of credibility when it tried to paint the FC-1/JF-17 as a development of the
> Mig-21/F-7 line!
> Worse, the writer claims that other aircraft (i.e.,
> Mig-23/27) actually had a *worse* accident rate during some recent
> years--ouch!
>
> www.indian-express.com/ie20020331/week3.html
>
> Curiously, the IAF, while it has repeatedly claimed that its accident rate
> is no worse than other large air forces, does not seem to have released its
> actual accident rate figures for the past few years (unlike the US military,
> which provides an annual synopsis of the accident rate in each service).

OK here's one statistic. In the past ten years the MiG-21's flew
553,000 sorties in IAF service with a total of 98 accidents with 43
pilots killed.

So what are the comparable accident rates for USAF, RAF, PAF or PLAAF?
How much better are they?


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

[Ron]

>I've got no doubt that the IAF can mount some very good drivers with a
>load of experience. I've also got no doubt that the USAF can send some
>inexperienced, marginally competent drivers to exercises and even into
>combat. One can only recall Scott "Hoover" O'Grady for example.
>

>Ed Rasimus
>Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)

I bet you would put him in the category of "Flies fighters" as instead of a
fighter pilot :)

Apparently his actions were a Charlie Foxtrot on the ground too, not just the
air.


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

[Kevin Brooks]

"Tuollaf43" > wrote in message
om...
> "Kevin Brooks" > wrote in message
>...
> > "Ron" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > >Is the IAF attrition rate any worse than say USAF or the RAF? If so
by
> > > >what metric and by how much? Do you have any hard numbers or even
> > > >reasonable estimates? How does the IAF attrition rate per 100K hours
> > > >or sorties compare with say USAF, RAF, PLAAF or PAF?
> > >
> > > The Indian attrition rate in the Mig-21 has been horrible and they
call it
> > the
> > > "flying coffin". They are going to start sending new pilots to the
UK
> > for
> > > about a hundred hours of advanced training in the Hawk, so pilots will
> > have a
> > > big more experience, since new pilots have typically been getting the
> > Mig-21,
> > > probably the most demanding of the planes they fly.
> >
> > One of the Indian newspapers ran an article by a former Indian AF pilot
> > defending the Mig-21; rather tenuous defense, IMO, and one that lost a
lot
> > of credibility when it tried to paint the FC-1/JF-17 as a development of
the
> > Mig-21/F-7 line!
> > Worse, the writer claims that other aircraft (i.e.,
> > Mig-23/27) actually had a *worse* accident rate during some recent
> > years--ouch!
> >
> > www.indian-express.com/ie20020331/week3.html
> >
> > Curiously, the IAF, while it has repeatedly claimed that its accident
rate
> > is no worse than other large air forces, does not seem to have released
its
> > actual accident rate figures for the past few years (unlike the US
military,
> > which provides an annual synopsis of the accident rate in each service).
>
> OK here's one statistic. In the past ten years the MiG-21's flew
> 553,000 sorties in IAF service with a total of 98 accidents with 43
> pilots killed.
>
> So what are the comparable accident rates for USAF, RAF, PAF or PLAAF?
> How much better are they?

Why don't you get back to us when the IAF has the guts to publish its
accident statistics as the US, UK, etc., routinely do, and in a form that
actually allows direct comparison (your X number of sorties bit does not cut
the mustard)? Until then we have the likes of the article cited, which does
not really offer up much of a defense at all...

Brooks

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

[Kevin Brooks]

"Tuollaf43" > wrote in message
m...
> "Nele VII" > wrote in message
>...
> > Let's get some facts, please. Mig-21 is probably the most docile
supersonic
> > fighter that has been in use since 1961 in some 50 countries. It is
known
> > for it straightfowardness and superb handling, only drawback known to me
is
> > inertia roll coupling when doing extremely high-rate unloaded rolls (the
> > same thing it shares with F-15). It is in Indian service since 1963 in
> > almost all versions. Suddenly, they need a Hawk training? Come on!
>
> Not suddenly - they have been begging for the hawk for the past two
decades.

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

Brooks

>
> >
> > Nele
> >
> > NULLA ROSA SINE SPINA
> >
> >
> >
> > Ron wrote in message >...
> > >>Is the IAF attrition rate any worse than say USAF or the RAF? If so by
> > >>what metric and by how much? Do you have any hard numbers or even
> > >>reasonable estimates? How does the IAF attrition rate per 100K hours
> > >>or sorties compare with say USAF, RAF, PLAAF or PAF?
> > >
> > >The Indian attrition rate in the Mig-21 has been horrible and they call
it
> > the
> > >"flying coffin". They are going to start sending new pilots to the UK
for
> > >about a hundred hours of advanced training in the Hawk, so pilots will
have
> > a
> > >big more experience, since new pilots have typically been getting the
> > Mig-21,
> > >probably the most demanding of the planes they fly.
> > >
> > >
> > >Ron
> > >PA-31T Cheyenne II
> > >Maharashtra Weather Modification Program
> > >Pune, India
> > >

[Peter Stickney]

In article >,
"Kevin Brooks" > writes:
>
> "Tuollaf43" > wrote in message
> om...

>> OK here's one statistic. In the past ten years the MiG-21's flew
>> 553,000 sorties in IAF service with a total of 98 accidents with 43
>> pilots killed.
>>
>> So what are the comparable accident rates for USAF, RAF, PAF or PLAAF?
>> How much better are they?
>
> Why don't you get back to us when the IAF has the guts to publish its
> accident statistics as the US, UK, etc., routinely do, and in a form that
> actually allows direct comparison (your X number of sorties bit does not cut
> the mustard)? Until then we have the likes of the article cited, which does
> not really offer up much of a defense at all...

It's not that hard to dope out, Brooks. A typical MiG-21 sortie is
about an hour. (Some are longer, some are less - bit it's not a big
airplane, and even with external tanks doesn't carry a whole lot of
gas.

So, you're looking at roughly 550,000 hrs of flight time.
Which gives us a loss rate of: 17.8/100,000 Flt Hrs,
with a fatality rate of: 7.9/100,000 Flt Hrs.

The corresponding cumulative numbers for USAF aircraft are:
Loss / Fatality per 100,000 flt Hrs
F-100 21.22 / 7.15
F-101 14.65 / 5.82 ( 2 crew, for most aircraft)
F-102 13.69 / 2.87
F-104 30.63 / 11.35
F-105 17.83 / 7.45
F-106 9.47 / 2.6
F-4 4.64 / 5.64 ( 2 crew)
F-5 8.82 / 4.52
F-111 6.13 / 4.05 (2 crew)
F-15 2.47 / 0.93
F-16 4.14 / 1.54

The USAF numbers are cumulative numbers over their entire lives - this
biases the numbers upward, especially in the cases of the F-100 and
F-104, which had a lot of teething trouble entering sevice, and
suffered very high attrition in their early years. In the USAF case,
the cumulative rates are more relevant, however. If we only used the
last 10 years of service, they'd be much lower. Some of tht is due to
the U.S. habit of keeping small numbers of obsolete aircraft arount to
use as test aircraft and drones - so there are long periods with few
flight hours accumulated. Anyway, it appears that the most
contemporary Indian MiG-21 data is a bit above that of nearly all
Century Series U.S. fighters over their lifetimes. The fatality rate,
as a percentage of accidents, is rather worse.


--
Pete Stickney
A strong conviction that something must be done is the parent of many
bad measures. -- Daniel Webster

[t_mark]

> Unlike other countries USA has faced recently, India wouldn't sit and look
a
> military buildup; just like Israelis, they would certainly make a
preemptive
> strike-they are quite capable to do that, and they did it before.

Why is it that people like this seem to completely miss the fact that the US
has yet to bring its resources full-bore to a fight like this? India would
be much more of the exact kind of challenge the US military was meant to
dismantle, and many American resources have never had a real application in
a war with Iraq or in Europe in the 90s.

So, Nele, can you explain this to us?

[Kevin Brooks]

"t_mark" > wrote in message
news:0J4Ec.21160$rh.5685@okepread02...
> > Unlike other countries USA has faced recently, India wouldn't sit and
look
> a
> > military buildup; just like Israelis, they would certainly make a
> preemptive
> > strike-they are quite capable to do that, and they did it before.
>
> Why is it that people like this seem to completely miss the fact that the
US
> has yet to bring its resources full-bore to a fight like this? India
would
> be much more of the exact kind of challenge the US military was meant to
> dismantle, and many American resources have never had a real application
in
> a war with Iraq or in Europe in the 90s.
>
> So, Nele, can you explain this to us?

Heck, I am still waiting for him to explain just how in the heck the Indians
would conduct a preemptive strike against the US; "they are quite capable to
do (sic) that"? Even Diego Garcia appears to be a bit beyond their air
striking distance...

Brooks

>
>

[Kevin Brooks]

"Peter Stickney" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> "Kevin Brooks" > writes:
> >
> > "Tuollaf43" > wrote in message
> > om...
>
> >> OK here's one statistic. In the past ten years the MiG-21's flew
> >> 553,000 sorties in IAF service with a total of 98 accidents with 43
> >> pilots killed.
> >>
> >> So what are the comparable accident rates for USAF, RAF, PAF or PLAAF?
> >> How much better are they?
> >
> > Why don't you get back to us when the IAF has the guts to publish its
> > accident statistics as the US, UK, etc., routinely do, and in a form
that
> > actually allows direct comparison (your X number of sorties bit does not
cut
> > the mustard)? Until then we have the likes of the article cited, which
does
> > not really offer up much of a defense at all...
>
> It's not that hard to dope out, Brooks. A typical MiG-21 sortie is
> about an hour. (Some are longer, some are less - bit it's not a big
> airplane, and even with external tanks doesn't carry a whole lot of
> gas.
>
> So, you're looking at roughly 550,000 hrs of flight time.
> Which gives us a loss rate of: 17.8/100,000 Flt Hrs,
> with a fatality rate of: 7.9/100,000 Flt Hrs.
>
> The corresponding cumulative numbers for USAF aircraft are:
> Loss / Fatality per 100,000 flt Hrs
> F-100 21.22 / 7.15
> F-101 14.65 / 5.82 ( 2 crew, for most aircraft)
> F-102 13.69 / 2.87
> F-104 30.63 / 11.35
> F-105 17.83 / 7.45
> F-106 9.47 / 2.6
> F-4 4.64 / 5.64 ( 2 crew)
> F-5 8.82 / 4.52
> F-111 6.13 / 4.05 (2 crew)
> F-15 2.47 / 0.93
> F-16 4.14 / 1.54
>
> The USAF numbers are cumulative numbers over their entire lives - this
> biases the numbers upward, especially in the cases of the F-100 and
> F-104, which had a lot of teething trouble entering sevice, and
> suffered very high attrition in their early years. In the USAF case,
> the cumulative rates are more relevant, however. If we only used the
> last 10 years of service, they'd be much lower. Some of tht is due to
> the U.S. habit of keeping small numbers of obsolete aircraft arount to
> use as test aircraft and drones - so there are long periods with few
> flight hours accumulated. Anyway, it appears that the most
> contemporary Indian MiG-21 data is a bit above that of nearly all
> Century Series U.S. fighters over their lifetimes. The fatality rate,
> as a percentage of accidents, is rather worse.

I'll wait for the actual numbers, on a by year basis. The Indian media has
come out a couple of times and noted the apparently high loss rate that the
Indian Air Force has been experiencing, especially in the case of the
Mig-21. The USAF, and AFAIK the RAF, provide annual statistics regarding
loss rates per 100K hours, IIRC; I have yet to see anything provided or
cited documenting similar IAF statistics--just unsupported claims by IAF
bigwigs who offer that their own rates don't differ greatly from "other" air
force's rates. What has the Mig loss rate been over the past four or five
years? As to your calculations, they are nice--but ultimately of little real
value. How many sorties were flown each year, versus number of losses that
year? What was the actual flight hour totals (if your one hour estimate for
the average sortie is off by 15 minutes, your numbers are similarly
affected--and correct me if I am wrong, but wasn't the -21 known for having
a rather *short* endurance?)?

In short, why doesn't the IAF provide the real numbers that would allow an
objective comparison? And if there is no accident problem, why have the IAF
leaders been so keen to improve their lead-in-fighter-training program, and
gnashing their teeth over the delays in the Hawk deal? Methinks there is
likely a reason for this, and it likely is tied to that accident rate data
they seem to be reluctant to release.

Brooks

>
>
> --
> Pete Stickney
> A strong conviction that something must be done is the parent of many
> bad measures. -- Daniel Webster

[Arved Sandstrom]

"jim" > wrote in message
gy.com...
>
> "Paul J. Adam" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In message >, Ed Rasimus
> > > writes
> > >On 28 Jun 2004 09:50:36 -0700, (Tuollaf43) wrote:
> > >>Until you know the details and have have specific information (which
> > >>WILL surface eventually) I cant see how anyone can do anything but
> > >>speculate.
> > >
> > >Ahh, at last! We come around to my original question. What was the
> > >scenario? What were the training objectives? What were the ROE? What
> > >all was in play? Did AWACS participate? Was there GCI? Did both sides
> > >have full support? What weapons? Was it ACMI? What kill criteria? Was
> > >it BVR, WVR or some combination? Who refereed?
> >
> > I recall an article by the late Jeff Ethell in which he described how
> > the air force of Chile handed a US Navy carrier air group its head on a
> > silver platter. It made for entertaining reading and I'm sure useful
> > lessons were learned by both sides. Certainly the fact that Mr Ethell
> > was a backseat passenger in an F-5F for several sorties could never have
> > influenced his opinion :)
> >
> > I would be extremely wary of extrapolating, from that exercise, that
> > F-14s and F/A-18s would be rapidly clawed from the skies by F-5s and
> > Hawker Hunters. No radar-guided weapons were considered (whether carried
> > by fighters or by ships), AWACS was kept back and limited to traffic
> > control, EA-6Bs didn't seem to play at all, scoring was imprecise, and
> > the Chilean conclusion that the Tomcat was "not a problem" may owe much
> > more to ROE limitations than to its actual combat capabilities. After
> > all, in real life, if they get into WVR it's because the Tomcat screwed
> > up...
> >
> > This sort of multinational exercise is of much value for military as
> > well as diplomatic reasons, but is also frequently scripted and those
> > limits must be borne in mind.
>
> Outstanding post,
>
> I have played in many exercises where the ROE were considerably
> politicalized to allow a "fair fight"
> However in war the person willing to give a fair fight is an idiot... In
> reality (unless grossly overmached) he who has the best Situational
> awareness (information) will win 99 times out of 100!

And it's quite useful for the US to script these exercises to, in fact, let
their forces get better. It's a chance to prepare your people for when they
may be outnumbered, or out-thought. A properly scripted exercise is by no
means a useless one.

AHS

[Krztalizer]

>
>> Since even a 767 is beyond the capacity of the
>> the US military, Russian military,
>> and Indian military to understand that
>> is obvious. Which is why they're all
>> sent to Iraq or Israel, with their retarted French
>> scientists, rather than stored locally
>> for computer assistance.
>
>
>The English Language - RIP
>--
>Peter
>

May I help, Peter? I speak jive.

v/r
Gordon

[Peter Twydell]

In article >, Krztalizer
> writes
>>
>>> Since even a 767 is beyond the capacity of the
>>> the US military, Russian military,
>>> and Indian military to understand that
>>> is obvious. Which is why they're all
>>> sent to Iraq or Israel, with their retarted French
>>> scientists, rather than stored locally
>>> for computer assistance.
>>
>>
>>The English Language - RIP
>>--
>>Peter
>>
>
>May I help, Peter? I speak jive.
>
>v/r
>Gordon

Certainly you may, but _can_ you?

I kin speak aw sowtsa Inglish, bu' i carn unnestan wo' deez geezas is
sayin a' aw.

When I was at school, a sentence had a subject and a verb, possibly an
object, and sometimes various clauses as well, all put together in a
logical sequence. The posters in this thread (and in others) have some
or all of the requisite parts in their ramblings, but logical sequences
(or even logical thought processes) are conspicuous by their absence.

--
Peter

Ying tong iddle-i po!

[news]

"Arved Sandstrom" > wrote in message
...
> "jim" > wrote in message
> gy.com...

Snip

> > > This sort of multinational exercise is of much value for military as
> > > well as diplomatic reasons, but is also frequently scripted and those
> > > limits must be borne in mind.
> >
> > Outstanding post,
> >
> > I have played in many exercises where the ROE were considerably
> > politicalized to allow a "fair fight"
> > However in war the person willing to give a fair fight is an idiot...
In
> > reality (unless grossly overmached) he who has the best Situational
> > awareness (information) will win 99 times out of 100!
>
> And it's quite useful for the US to script these exercises to, in fact,
let
> their forces get better. It's a chance to prepare your people for when
they
> may be outnumbered, or out-thought. A properly scripted exercise is by no
> means a useless one.
>
> AHS

Never said useless,
Just that I agree with Ed without knowing the ROE and exercise design it
isn't cut and dry as it was being portrayed.

Jim

[Tuollaf43]

"Kevin Brooks" > wrote in message >...
> "Tuollaf43" > wrote in message
> m...
> > "Nele VII" > wrote in message
> >...
> > > Let's get some facts, please. Mig-21 is probably the most docile
> supersonic
> > > fighter that has been in use since 1961 in some 50 countries. It is
> known
> > > for it straightfowardness and superb handling, only drawback known to me
> is
> > > inertia roll coupling when doing extremely high-rate unloaded rolls (the
> > > same thing it shares with F-15). It is in Indian service since 1963 in
> > > almost all versions. Suddenly, they need a Hawk training? Come on!
> >
> > Not suddenly - they have been begging for the hawk for the past two
> decades.
>
> But why have they been "begging" for it if, as you just tried to assert in
> another message, there is really no problem with existing IAF training and
> accidents?

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

>
> Brooks
>
> >
> > >
> > > Nele
> > >
> > > NULLA ROSA SINE SPINA
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Ron wrote in message >...
> > > >>Is the IAF attrition rate any worse than say USAF or the RAF? If so by
> > > >>what metric and by how much? Do you have any hard numbers or even
> > > >>reasonable estimates? How does the IAF attrition rate per 100K hours
> > > >>or sorties compare with say USAF, RAF, PLAAF or PAF?
> > > >
> > > >The Indian attrition rate in the Mig-21 has been horrible and they call
> it
> the
> > > >"flying coffin". They are going to start sending new pilots to the UK
> for
> > > >about a hundred hours of advanced training in the Hawk, so pilots will
> have
> a
> > > >big more experience, since new pilots have typically been getting the
> Mig-21,
> > > >probably the most demanding of the planes they fly.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >Ron
> > > >PA-31T Cheyenne II
> > > >Maharashtra Weather Modification Program
> > > >Pune, India
> > > >

[Tuollaf43]

"Kevin Brooks" > wrote in message >...
> "Tuollaf43" > wrote in message
> om...
> > "Kevin Brooks" > wrote in message
> >...
> > > "Ron" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > > > >Is the IAF attrition rate any worse than say USAF or the RAF? If so
> by
> > > > >what metric and by how much? Do you have any hard numbers or even
> > > > >reasonable estimates? How does the IAF attrition rate per 100K hours
> > > > >or sorties compare with say USAF, RAF, PLAAF or PAF?
> > > >
> > > > The Indian attrition rate in the Mig-21 has been horrible and they
> call it
> the
> > > > "flying coffin". They are going to start sending new pilots to the
> UK
> for
> > > > about a hundred hours of advanced training in the Hawk, so pilots will
> have a
> > > > big more experience, since new pilots have typically been getting the
> Mig-21,
> > > > probably the most demanding of the planes they fly.
> > >
> > > One of the Indian newspapers ran an article by a former Indian AF pilot
> > > defending the Mig-21; rather tenuous defense, IMO, and one that lost a
> lot
> > > of credibility when it tried to paint the FC-1/JF-17 as a development of
> the
> > > Mig-21/F-7 line!
> > > Worse, the writer claims that other aircraft (i.e.,
> > > Mig-23/27) actually had a *worse* accident rate during some recent
> > > years--ouch!
> > >
> > > www.indian-express.com/ie20020331/week3.html
> > >
> > > Curiously, the IAF, while it has repeatedly claimed that its accident
> rate
> > > is no worse than other large air forces, does not seem to have released
> its
> > > actual accident rate figures for the past few years (unlike the US
> military,
> > > which provides an annual synopsis of the accident rate in each service).
> >
> > OK here's one statistic. In the past ten years the MiG-21's flew
> > 553,000 sorties in IAF service with a total of 98 accidents with 43
> > pilots killed.
> >
> > So what are the comparable accident rates for USAF, RAF, PAF or PLAAF?
> > How much better are they?
>
> Why don't you get back to us when the IAF has the guts to publish its
> accident statistics as the US, UK, etc., routinely do,

Are you aware that there are two heavily armed and hostile nations
bordering India which is not the case with either US or UK. If you
think that doesnt impact what information is made public and what isnt
then you are beyond help.

The information the IAF is releasing is for combating popular public
opinion. It is targeted at women who wont marry IAF pilots because
they ride 'flying Coffins' and mothers of pilots who want "zero"
attrition rate.

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

> and in a form that
> actually allows direct comparison (your X number of sorties bit does not cut
> the mustard)?

It is a very precise metric, x sorties total with y accidents. If US
and UK is so free with their attrition data why would it be hard to
get the correspoding numbers for comparable types in those air forces?

Are you aware that the vast majority of the accidents occur during
takeoffs and landing. That being the case the number of sorties is a
appropiate metric for measuring accident rates. If you take off and
land safely the number of hours you fly in the interim contributes
very little to the attrition rate. A attrition per hour flight metric
skews the result in favour of aircraft with long ranges and or those
with AAR capability - neither of which the MiG-21 enjoys.

> Until then we have the likes of the article cited,
> which does
> not really offer up much of a defense at all...

Which was chosen by _you_ mind you; so if you didn't like it why quote
it? Kinda stupid of you.

Do you have any idea for what kind of audience that particular article
was written? And are you aware that the particular gent who wrote that
article has forgotten more about combat aircraft and their operation
then you have ever learnt in your life.

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

[Tuollaf43]

"t_mark" > wrote in message news:<0J4Ec.21160$rh.5685@okepread02>...
> > Unlike other countries USA has faced recently, India wouldn't sit and look
> a
> > military buildup; just like Israelis, they would certainly make a
> preemptive
> > strike-they are quite capable to do that, and they did it before.

I cant seem to remember. Could you please tell me when they made a
pre-emptive strike.

>
> Why is it that people like this seem to completely miss the fact that the US
> has yet to bring its resources full-bore to a fight like this?
> India would
> be much more of the exact kind of challenge the US military was meant to
> dismantle, and many American resources have never had a real application in
> a war with Iraq or in Europe in the 90s.
>
> So, Nele, can you explain this to us?

[Mike]

"Denyav" > wrote in message
...
> >If you count phone centers you can. The Indians also do a lot of
> >analyzing of US CAT scan data and similar things. Some might consider
> >looking at a CAT scan to be performing a service. Its certainly not
> >manufacturing.
>
> Indians do much more than analyzing CAT scan data.
> There is no way born Americans can compete with Indians.Currently
> 38% of Medical Doctors in US is either Indian or Indo-American
> 36% of NASA employees are Indians
> 34%of MS employees are for example from the India.
> CEOs of many US companies are from India.
> Either jobs will go to India or Indians will come here to take the jobs
>
> Pick your choice.

You Indians are never going to get anywhere until you learn to speak and
write good English! ;-)

[Ed Rasimus]

On 29 Jun 2004 11:53:13 -0700, (Tuollaf43) wrote:


>The information the IAF is releasing is for combating popular public
>opinion. It is targeted at women who wont marry IAF pilots because
>they ride 'flying Coffins' and mothers of pilots who want "zero"
>attrition rate.

You guys must be marketing wrong. The danger is what makes fighter
pilots so damned attractive. You don't need to propagandize, simply
issue a large life insurance policy to each aviator.
>
>BTW, Have you perused the Kalam Committee Report on Air Safety for
>instance? 1836875 hours for the whole airfleet in seven years with 194
>accidents and 154 writeoffs.

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

>Are you aware that the vast majority of the accidents occur during
>takeoffs and landing. That being the case the number of sorties is a
>appropiate metric for measuring accident rates. If you take off and
>land safely the number of hours you fly in the interim contributes
>very little to the attrition rate. A attrition per hour flight metric
>skews the result in favour of aircraft with long ranges and or those
>with AAR capability - neither of which the MiG-21 enjoys.
>
>Do you have any idea for what kind of audience that particular article
>was written? And are you aware that the particular gent who wrote that
>article has forgotten more about combat aircraft and their operation
>then you have ever learnt in your life.

Ahh, a similar rubric to the one I often use....."taught him
everything he knows about flying...." but not everything I know.

The fact is that the relevant stats are accidents/100k flight hours
and they must be tied to aircraft type. Rolling F-15 and C-130 hours
into a fleet figure is, exactly as you once state, meaningless.

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

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

Accidents happen, but more often there are maintenance, training and
operational mistakes that make them happen.


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

[Ed Rasimus]

On 29 Jun 2004 11:56:12 -0700, (Tuollaf43) wrote:

>"t_mark" > wrote in message news:<0J4Ec.21160$rh.5685@okepread02>...
>> > Unlike other countries USA has faced recently, India wouldn't sit and look
>> a
>> > military buildup; just like Israelis, they would certainly make a
>> preemptive
>> > strike-they are quite capable to do that, and they did it before.
>
>I cant seem to remember. Could you please tell me when they made a
>pre-emptive strike.

Osirak, Bekaa Valley....


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

[Denyav]

>You Indians are never going to get anywhere until you learn to speak and
>write good English! ;-)
>
>

Every time you drink a Pepsi ,one of the many fortune 500 companies run by
Indians, or visit your doctor think about Indians.
Heck,if I were President I would expand H1b visa categories to include
Presidents,Politicians and Generals.
Apparently US needs to import much more than medical doctors ,scientists and
other high tech professionals.

[Kevin Brooks]

"Tuollaf43" > wrote in message
om...
> "Kevin Brooks" > wrote in message
>...
> > "Tuollaf43" > wrote in message
> > m...
> > > "Nele VII" > wrote in message
> > >...
> > > > Let's get some facts, please. Mig-21 is probably the most docile
> > supersonic
> > > > fighter that has been in use since 1961 in some 50 countries. It is
> > known
> > > > for it straightfowardness and superb handling, only drawback known
to me
> > is
> > > > inertia roll coupling when doing extremely high-rate unloaded rolls
(the
> > > > same thing it shares with F-15). It is in Indian service since 1963
in
> > > > almost all versions. Suddenly, they need a Hawk training? Come on!
> > >
> > > Not suddenly - they have been begging for the hawk for the past two
> > decades.
> >
> > But why have they been "begging" for it if, as you just tried to assert
in
> > another message, there is really no problem with existing IAF training
and
> > accidents?
>
> Which message would that be dear where I have asserted that IAF has no
> problems with training and accidents? Could you quote it?

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

Brooks

>
> >
> > Brooks
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Nele
> > > >
> > > > NULLA ROSA SINE SPINA
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Ron wrote in message
>...
> > > > >>Is the IAF attrition rate any worse than say USAF or the RAF? If
so by
> > > > >>what metric and by how much? Do you have any hard numbers or even
> > > > >>reasonable estimates? How does the IAF attrition rate per 100K
hours
> > > > >>or sorties compare with say USAF, RAF, PLAAF or PAF?
> > > > >
> > > > >The Indian attrition rate in the Mig-21 has been horrible and they
call
> > it
> > the
> > > > >"flying coffin". They are going to start sending new pilots to
the UK
> > for
> > > > >about a hundred hours of advanced training in the Hawk, so pilots
will
> > have
> > a
> > > > >big more experience, since new pilots have typically been getting
the
> > Mig-21,
> > > > >probably the most demanding of the planes they fly.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >Ron
> > > > >PA-31T Cheyenne II
> > > > >Maharashtra Weather Modification Program
> > > > >Pune, India
> > > > >

[Jarg]

"Denyav" > wrote in message
...
> >You Indians are never going to get anywhere until you learn to speak and
> >write good English! ;-)
> >
> >
>
> Every time you drink a Pepsi ,one of the many fortune 500 companies run by
> Indians, or visit your doctor think about Indians.
> Heck,if I were President I would expand H1b visa categories to include
> Presidents,Politicians and Generals.
> Apparently US needs to import much more than medical doctors ,scientists
and
> other high tech professionals.

Right, we can only hope the United States can someday attain India's level
of success!

Jarg

[Tuollaf43]

"Kevin Brooks" > wrote in message >...
> "Tuollaf43" > wrote in message
> om...
> > "Kevin Brooks" > wrote in message
> >...
> > > "Tuollaf43" > wrote in message
> > > m...
> > > > "Nele VII" > wrote in message
> >...
> > > > > Let's get some facts, please. Mig-21 is probably the most docile
> supersonic
> > > > > fighter that has been in use since 1961 in some 50 countries. It is
> known
> > > > > for it straightfowardness and superb handling, only drawback known
> to me
> is
> > > > > inertia roll coupling when doing extremely high-rate unloaded rolls
> (the
> > > > > same thing it shares with F-15). It is in Indian service since 1963
> in
> > > > > almost all versions. Suddenly, they need a Hawk training? Come on!
> > > >
> > > > Not suddenly - they have been begging for the hawk for the past two
> > > decades.
> > >
> > > But why have they been "begging" for it if, as you just tried to assert
> in
> > > another message, there is really no problem with existing IAF training
> and
> > > accidents?
> >
> > Which message would that be dear where I have asserted that IAF has no
> > problems with training and accidents? Could you quote it?
>
> So you are not saying that? Odd. It appeared to me that you took exception
> with my noting the IAF was having a particular problem with accidents...but
> if you now agree that is the case, OK!
>

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

> Brooks
>
> >
> > >
> > > Brooks
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Nele
> > > > >
> > > > > NULLA ROSA SINE SPINA
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Ron wrote in message
> >...
> > > > > >>Is the IAF attrition rate any worse than say USAF or the RAF? If
> so by
> > > > > >>what metric and by how much? Do you have any hard numbers or even
> > > > > >>reasonable estimates? How does the IAF attrition rate per 100K
> hours
> > > > > >>or sorties compare with say USAF, RAF, PLAAF or PAF?
> > > > > >
> > > > > >The Indian attrition rate in the Mig-21 has been horrible and they
> call
> > > it
> > > the
> > > > > >"flying coffin". They are going to start sending new pilots to
> the UK
> for
> > > > > >about a hundred hours of advanced training in the Hawk, so pilots
> will
> > > have
> > > a
> > > > > >big more experience, since new pilots have typically been getting
> the
> Mig-21,
> > > > > >probably the most demanding of the planes they fly.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >Ron
> > > > > >PA-31T Cheyenne II
> > > > > >Maharashtra Weather Modification Program
> > > > > >Pune, India
> > > > > >

[Tuollaf43]

Ed Rasimus > wrote in message >...
> On 29 Jun 2004 11:56:12 -0700, (Tuollaf43) wrote:
>
> >"t_mark" > wrote in message news:<0J4Ec.21160$rh.5685@okepread02>...
> >> > Unlike other countries USA has faced recently, India wouldn't sit and look
> a
> >> > military buildup; just like Israelis, they would certainly make a
> preemptive
> >> > strike-they are quite capable to do that, and they did it before.
> >
> >I cant seem to remember. Could you please tell me when they made a
> >pre-emptive strike.
>
> Osirak, Bekaa Valley....

t-marks post seems to say that the Indians had done a pre-emptive
strike before. I am aware of Israeli actions of this nature.


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

[Kevin Brooks]

"Tuollaf43" > wrote in message
om...
> "Kevin Brooks" > wrote in message
>...
> > "Tuollaf43" > wrote in message
> > om...
> > > "Kevin Brooks" > wrote in message
> > >...
> > > > "Tuollaf43" > wrote in message
> > > > m...
> > > > > "Nele VII" > wrote in message
> > >...
> > > > > > Let's get some facts, please. Mig-21 is probably the most docile
> > supersonic
> > > > > > fighter that has been in use since 1961 in some 50 countries. It
is
> > known
> > > > > > for it straightfowardness and superb handling, only drawback
known
> > to me
> > is
> > > > > > inertia roll coupling when doing extremely high-rate unloaded
rolls
> > (the
> > > > > > same thing it shares with F-15). It is in Indian service since
1963
> > in
> > > > > > almost all versions. Suddenly, they need a Hawk training? Come
on!
> > > > >
> > > > > Not suddenly - they have been begging for the hawk for the past
two
> > > > decades.
> > > >
> > > > But why have they been "begging" for it if, as you just tried to
assert
> > in
> > > > another message, there is really no problem with existing IAF
training
> > and
> > > > accidents?
> > >
> > > Which message would that be dear where I have asserted that IAF has no
> > > problems with training and accidents? Could you quote it?
> >
> > So you are not saying that? Odd. It appeared to me that you took
exception
> > with my noting the IAF was having a particular problem with
accidents...but
> > if you now agree that is the case, OK!
> >
>
> What I wanted to know was if you really had an insight into the
> question at all or were merely returgating sensational accounts from
> the newspapers. From your other posts on this thread the answer is
> clear.

Apparently not. I was not aware of the domestic newspaper accounts regarding
this subject until you piped up with your 'it ain't so!' bleating and I did
a little bit of websearching. My impression that the Indians do indeed have
a significant problem with training losses comes from watching the
accidents/write-off reports over the past few years as published in some of
the military journals, and seeing some of the cringing on the part of the
IAF leadership in regards to getting their hands on relatively modern
LIFT-type platforms. The two taken together point to a real problem in the
IAF. Further compounded by the IAF's reticence to list annual accident
statistics in a form that allows direct comparison with the air forces that
largely set the standards for professionalism. Now either you agree they
have a problem, or you don't--kind of hard to figure which is the case when
you post in *both* modes.

Brooks

>
> > Brooks
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Brooks
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Nele
> > > > > >
> > > > > > NULLA ROSA SINE SPINA
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Ron wrote in message
> > >...
> > > > > > >>Is the IAF attrition rate any worse than say USAF or the RAF?
If
> > so by
> > > > > > >>what metric and by how much? Do you have any hard numbers or
even
> > > > > > >>reasonable estimates? How does the IAF attrition rate per 100K
> > hours
> > > > > > >>or sorties compare with say USAF, RAF, PLAAF or PAF?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >The Indian attrition rate in the Mig-21 has been horrible and
they
> > call
> > > > it
> > > > the
> > > > > > >"flying coffin". They are going to start sending new pilots
to
> > the UK
> > for
> > > > > > >about a hundred hours of advanced training in the Hawk, so
pilots
> > will
> > > > have
> > > > a
> > > > > > >big more experience, since new pilots have typically been
getting
> > the
> > Mig-21,
> > > > > > >probably the most demanding of the planes they fly.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >Ron
> > > > > > >PA-31T Cheyenne II
> > > > > > >Maharashtra Weather Modification Program
> > > > > > >Pune, India
> > > > > > >

[Tuollaf43]

Ed Rasimus > wrote in message >...
> On 29 Jun 2004 11:53:13 -0700, (Tuollaf43) wrote:
>
>
> >The information the IAF is releasing is for combating popular public
> >opinion. It is targeted at women who wont marry IAF pilots because
> >they ride 'flying Coffins' and mothers of pilots who want "zero"
> >attrition rate.
>
> You guys must be marketing wrong. The danger is what makes fighter
> pilots so damned attractive.

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

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

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

> >
> >BTW, Have you perused the Kalam Committee Report on Air Safety for
> >instance? 1836875 hours for the whole airfleet in seven years with 194
> >accidents and 154 writeoffs.
>
> Interesting that you say that and then below you discount that sort of
> stat as being inappropriately skewed toward long duration heavies.

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

> >Are you aware that the vast majority of the accidents occur during
> >takeoffs and landing. That being the case the number of sorties is a
> >appropiate metric for measuring accident rates. If you take off and
> >land safely the number of hours you fly in the interim contributes
> >very little to the attrition rate. A attrition per hour flight metric
> >skews the result in favour of aircraft with long ranges and or those
> >with AAR capability - neither of which the MiG-21 enjoys.
> >
> >Do you have any idea for what kind of audience that particular article
> >was written? And are you aware that the particular gent who wrote that
> >article has forgotten more about combat aircraft and their operation
> >then you have ever learnt in your life.
>
> Ahh, a similar rubric to the one I often use....."taught him
> everything he knows about flying...." but not everything I know.

umm, just so that there is no confusion that line was addressed to the
modern military marvel - Brooks (Grofaz II).

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

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

> Rolling F-15 and C-130 hours
> into a fleet figure is, exactly as you once state, meaningless.

Indeed.

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

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

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

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

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

>
> Accidents happen, but more often there are maintenance, training and
> operational mistakes that make them happen.
>
>
> Ed Rasimus
> Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
> "When Thunder Rolled"
> Smithsonian Institution Press
> ISBN #1-58834-103-8

[Tuollaf43]

"Kevin Brooks" > wrote in message >...
> "t_mark" > wrote in message
> news:0J4Ec.21160$rh.5685@okepread02...
> > > Unlike other countries USA has faced recently, India wouldn't sit and
> look
> a
> > > military buildup; just like Israelis, they would certainly make a
> preemptive
> > > strike-they are quite capable to do that, and they did it before.
> >
> > Why is it that people like this seem to completely miss the fact that the
> US
> > has yet to bring its resources full-bore to a fight like this? India
> would
> > be much more of the exact kind of challenge the US military was meant to
> > dismantle, and many American resources have never had a real application
> in
> > a war with Iraq or in Europe in the 90s.
> >
> > So, Nele, can you explain this to us?
>
> Heck, I am still waiting for him to explain just how in the heck the Indians
> would conduct a preemptive strike against the US; "they are quite capable to
> do (sic) that"? Even Diego Garcia appears to be a bit beyond their air
> striking distance...
>
> Brooks

Su-30MKI + Il-78MKI couldn't do it?

>
> >
> >

[Tuollaf43]

"Kevin Brooks" > wrote in message >...
> "Tuollaf43" > wrote in message
> om...
> > "Kevin Brooks" > wrote in message
> >...
> > > "Tuollaf43" > wrote in message
> > > om...
> > > > "Kevin Brooks" > wrote in message
> >...
> > > > > "Tuollaf43" > wrote in message
> > > > > m...
> > > > > > "Nele VII" > wrote in message
> >...
> > > > > > > Let's get some facts, please. Mig-21 is probably the most docile
> supersonic
> > > > > > > fighter that has been in use since 1961 in some 50 countries. It
> is
> known
> > > > > > > for it straightfowardness and superb handling, only drawback
> known
> > > to me
> > > is
> > > > > > > inertia roll coupling when doing extremely high-rate unloaded
> rolls
> (the
> > > > > > > same thing it shares with F-15). It is in Indian service since
> 1963
> in
> > > > > > > almost all versions. Suddenly, they need a Hawk training? Come
> on!
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Not suddenly - they have been begging for the hawk for the past
> two
> > > > > decades.
> > > > >
> > > > > But why have they been "begging" for it if, as you just tried to
> assert
> in
> > > > > another message, there is really no problem with existing IAF
> training
> and
> > > > > accidents?
> > > >
> > > > Which message would that be dear where I have asserted that IAF has no
> > > > problems with training and accidents? Could you quote it?
> > >
> > > So you are not saying that? Odd. It appeared to me that you took
> exception
> > > with my noting the IAF was having a particular problem with
> accidents...but
> > > if you now agree that is the case, OK!
> > >
> >
> > What I wanted to know was if you really had an insight into the
> > question at all or were merely returgating sensational accounts from
> > the newspapers. From your other posts on this thread the answer is
> > clear.
>
> Apparently not. I was not aware of the domestic newspaper accounts regarding
> this subject until you piped up with your 'it ain't so!' bleating

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

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

> and I did
> a little bit of websearching.

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

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

Nobody cares for your impressions - I certainly dont after your
repeated idiotic remarks about mountain warfare which you evidently
still stick too. Do you have any factual data to back up your
"impressions"? Obviously not. Absolute number of accidents is
meaningless unless you can measure it against sorties or as some
prefer flight hours.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You jump to the conclusion that since someone questions stuff you are
saying then they must automatically support the diametrically opposite
viewpoint. You are just one more simpleton in the with me or against
me crowd. My philosophy in life in such matters is profundly alien to
your juvenile attitude of 'my belief right or wrong'. No wonder you
find me hard to figure out.

>
> Brooks
>
> >
> > > Brooks
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Brooks
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Nele
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > NULLA ROSA SINE SPINA
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Ron wrote in message
> >...
> > > > > > > >>Is the IAF attrition rate any worse than say USAF or the RAF?
> If
> so by
> > > > > > > >>what metric and by how much? Do you have any hard numbers or
> even
> > > > > > > >>reasonable estimates? How does the IAF attrition rate per 100K
> hours
> > > > > > > >>or sorties compare with say USAF, RAF, PLAAF or PAF?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >The Indian attrition rate in the Mig-21 has been horrible and
> they
> call
> > > > > it
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > >"flying coffin". They are going to start sending new pilots
> to
> > > the UK
> > > for
> > > > > > > >about a hundred hours of advanced training in the Hawk, so
> pilots
> will
> > > > > have
> > > > > a
> > > > > > > >big more experience, since new pilots have typically been
> getting
> > > the
> > > Mig-21,
> > > > > > > >probably the most demanding of the planes they fly.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >Ron
> > > > > > > >PA-31T Cheyenne II
> > > > > > > >Maharashtra Weather Modification Program
> > > > > > > >Pune, India
> > > > > > > >

[Ed Rasimus]

On 30 Jun 2004 23:21:24 -0700, (Tuollaf43) wrote:

>Ed Rasimus > wrote in message >...
>>
>> You guys must be marketing wrong. The danger is what makes fighter
>> pilots so damned attractive.
>
>umm, I thought it was the large heads and child like personality :)


Big watches and small watchamacallits.
>
>> You don't need to propagandize, simply
>> issue a large life insurance policy to each aviator.
>
><scratchs head> How does that help? In India the tendency is to mate
>for life. Being a widow with a large chunk of cash is not an
>attractive option.

Being a widow with a large chunk of cash is quite attractive in some
cultures. In fact, it even makes the widow a lot more
attractive--witness Theresa Heinz-Kerry.
>
>> >
>> >BTW, Have you perused the Kalam Committee Report on Air Safety for
>> >instance? 1836875 hours for the whole airfleet in seven years with 194
>> >accidents and 154 writeoffs.
>>
>> Interesting that you say that and then below you discount that sort of
>> stat as being inappropriately skewed toward long duration heavies.
>
>I do believe that they are inappropriately skewed. But I quoted them
>to show that some statistics in hours are available - if you look for
>them. I dont see the dichotomy.

Statistics in hours, even when available, if they d on't demonstrate
something relevant aren't meaningful. Add airlift, tanker, trainer and
bomber hours to fighter stats in the USAF and you'll get some
remarkable safety stats. But worthless.
>
>> The fact is that the relevant stats are accidents/100k flight hours
>> and they must be tied to aircraft type.
>
>Tied to aircraft type is obvious. But why necessarily measured in
>fight hours? Why are per sortie figures irrelevant?

Because sortie length varies. In most fighter units an ACM/BFM sortie
can run 0.9 hours. An A/G range sortie can be 1.5 and a X-country or
deployment sortie may be 4, 5 or more hours long.
>
>> When we deal with fighter types, however, if your accidents are taking
>> place during takeoff and landing, you really need to address your
>> training progams--initial training, not operational. (Maybe that
>> relates to the Hawk program?)
>
>Yes again. A disproportionately large number of accidents involve
>Mongols and the MOFTUs; not the line squadrons or during primary
>training on subsonic jets.
>
>And I am sure that I dont need to tell you the kind of training any
>Air Force does in "peace time" and the kind it does when hostilities
>are "imminent" and how that difference impacts on safety.

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

The USAF/USN learned that lesson well. The introduction of Red Flag,
DACT/ACMI, realistic EW training and instrumented ranges has been a
giant step in achieving preparedness. If you aren't training for war,
you aren't training.
>
>>
>> Operational aircraft tend to be lost in the high performance portions
>> of the mission---mid-airs in A/A; ground strikes in low-level nav;
>> ordnance delivery issues such as release failures, weapon malfunctions
>> and frag hits; departures from controlled flight; and structural
>> failure due to exceeding operating limitations.
>
>Or bird ingestion when you fly from heavily populated areas with low
>public sanitation. Or using a thoroughbred mach two interceptor for
>CAS with rocket pods or worse NOE flying with CBUs.

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

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

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

[jim]

"Arved Sandstrom" > wrote in message
...
> "jim" > wrote in message
> gy.com...
> >
> > "Paul J. Adam" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > In message >, Ed Rasimus
> > > > writes
> > > >On 28 Jun 2004 09:50:36 -0700, (Tuollaf43) wrote:
> > > >>Until you know the details and have have specific information (which
> > > >>WILL surface eventually) I cant see how anyone can do anything but
> > > >>speculate.
> > > >
> > > >Ahh, at last! We come around to my original question. What was the
> > > >scenario? What were the training objectives? What were the ROE? What
> > > >all was in play? Did AWACS participate? Was there GCI? Did both sides
> > > >have full support? What weapons? Was it ACMI? What kill criteria? Was
> > > >it BVR, WVR or some combination? Who refereed?
> > >
> > > I recall an article by the late Jeff Ethell in which he described how
> > > the air force of Chile handed a US Navy carrier air group its head on
a
> > > silver platter. It made for entertaining reading and I'm sure useful
> > > lessons were learned by both sides. Certainly the fact that Mr Ethell
> > > was a backseat passenger in an F-5F for several sorties could never
have
> > > influenced his opinion :)
> > >
> > > I would be extremely wary of extrapolating, from that exercise, that
> > > F-14s and F/A-18s would be rapidly clawed from the skies by F-5s and
> > > Hawker Hunters. No radar-guided weapons were considered (whether
carried
> > > by fighters or by ships), AWACS was kept back and limited to traffic
> > > control, EA-6Bs didn't seem to play at all, scoring was imprecise, and
> > > the Chilean conclusion that the Tomcat was "not a problem" may owe
much
> > > more to ROE limitations than to its actual combat capabilities. After
> > > all, in real life, if they get into WVR it's because the Tomcat
screwed
> > > up...
> > >
> > > This sort of multinational exercise is of much value for military as
> > > well as diplomatic reasons, but is also frequently scripted and those
> > > limits must be borne in mind.
> >
> > Outstanding post,
> >
> > I have played in many exercises where the ROE were considerably
> > politicalized to allow a "fair fight"
> > However in war the person willing to give a fair fight is an idiot...
In
> > reality (unless grossly overmached) he who has the best Situational
> > awareness (information) will win 99 times out of 100!
>
> And it's quite useful for the US to script these exercises to, in fact,
let
> their forces get better. It's a chance to prepare your people for when
they
> may be outnumbered, or out-thought. A properly scripted exercise is by no
> means a useless one.
>
> AHS

Oh I would agree, but I was just saying just because they "lost" don't mean
much without know the conditions...
As a real life example look at the rangers in Samalioa of "blackhawk down
fame"
Some have said they got their tails kicked badly, other (more knowledgable
folks) would say considering they were out numbered by at least 100:1
still achieved their mission, (lost only 18 while killing over 300 of the
enemy) they were the ones dishing out the asskickin.

Jim

[Kevin Brooks]

"Tuollaf43" > wrote in message
om...
> "Kevin Brooks" > wrote in message
>...
> > "Tuollaf43" > wrote in message
> > om...
> > > "Kevin Brooks" > wrote in message
> > >...
> > > > "Tuollaf43" > wrote in message
> > > > om...
> > > > > "Kevin Brooks" > wrote in message
> > >...
> > > > > > "Tuollaf43" > wrote in message
> > > > > > m...
> > > > > > > "Nele VII" > wrote in message
> > >...
> > > > > > > > Let's get some facts, please. Mig-21 is probably the most
docile
> > supersonic
> > > > > > > > fighter that has been in use since 1961 in some 50
countries. It
> > is
> > known
> > > > > > > > for it straightfowardness and superb handling, only drawback
> > known
> > > > to me
> > > > is
> > > > > > > > inertia roll coupling when doing extremely high-rate
unloaded
> > rolls
> > (the
> > > > > > > > same thing it shares with F-15). It is in Indian service
since
> > 1963
> > in
> > > > > > > > almost all versions. Suddenly, they need a Hawk training?
Come
> > on!
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Not suddenly - they have been begging for the hawk for the
past
> > two
> > > > > > decades.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > But why have they been "begging" for it if, as you just tried to
> > assert
> > in
> > > > > > another message, there is really no problem with existing IAF
> > training
> > and
> > > > > > accidents?
> > > > >
> > > > > Which message would that be dear where I have asserted that IAF
has no
> > > > > problems with training and accidents? Could you quote it?
> > > >
> > > > So you are not saying that? Odd. It appeared to me that you took
> > exception
> > > > with my noting the IAF was having a particular problem with
> > accidents...but
> > > > if you now agree that is the case, OK!
> > > >
> > >
> > > What I wanted to know was if you really had an insight into the
> > > question at all or were merely returgating sensational accounts from
> > > the newspapers. From your other posts on this thread the answer is
> > > clear.
> >
> > Apparently not. I was not aware of the domestic newspaper accounts
regarding
> > this subject until you piped up with your 'it ain't so!' bleating
>
> OK once again - post the 'it aint so' part of my post - chapter and
> verse.

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

>
> And bleating eh? Good, that probably means I'll inherit the world
> then.
>
> > and I did
> > a little bit of websearching.
>
> I am impressed - the fact that you are doing elementary research
> indicates progress from the last time we had a tete-a-tete. Atta-boy!

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

>
> > My impression that the Indians do indeed have
> > a significant problem with training losses comes from watching the
> > accidents/write-off reports over the past few years as published in some
of
> > the military journals,
>
> Nobody cares for your impressions -

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

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

Still whining about that, eh? And still convinced that the Chinese are
plotting to sweep down from the Tibetian heights and overrun India as soon
as they can, right? And still can't point out just what about any of that
oxygen-deprived stratospheric terrain is actaully worth fighting over in the
first place, right? And lastly, still wedded to your 'mass is king' theory
of Lanchesterian attrition warfare? Figures...

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

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

>
> > and seeing some of the cringing on the part of the
> > IAF leadership in regards to getting their hands on relatively modern
> > LIFT-type platforms.
>
> Which airforce doesnt want the newest, shiniest toy they can afford
> (and sometimes cant afford)? What is unique about that? If the brass
> wants new aircraft all it means is that they want new aircraft. Note
> that so far there have been no suggestions that the IAF is trying to
> con or fraud the parliament into funding upgrades as USAF is repeated
> claimed to be doing.

Uhmmm..be careful. What is the progress on that lil' ol' investigation in
the Indian armed forces I read something about recently? You know, the one
where it appears some combat "incidents" in Kashmir were staged to make a
couple of higher ranking officers look good...? Now THAT is a pretty blatant
piece of "con artistry"...while the USAF has been at worst accused of
setting the exercise ROE up such that *maybe* it was disadvantageous to the
visiting team... while the IAF remains unwilling to release detailed
accident statistics to support its own assertions that the accident problem
ain't a problem? You ever heard the one about folks living in glass houses?

>
> And your use of 'cringe' is interesting. You must be mighty perceptive
> if you could tell that from military journals. What gave the distinct
> impression of cringing? Are you sure that is the word you meant or
> just wanted to use a new word you heard your dad say? The dictionary
> tells me cringe is draw back with fear or pain or show submission or
> fear.
>
> And if the IAF is indeed afraid of its masters, the elected
> representatives, then surely that is prefable to what you claim the
> USAF is up to with the congress now and has done so in the past -
> swindle.

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

>
> > The two taken together point to a real problem in the
> > IAF. Further compounded by the IAF's reticence to list annual accident
> > statistics in a form that allows direct comparison with the air forces
that
> > largely set the standards for professionalism.
>
> Oh yes. The same airforce in which your pop was the terror flieger?
> And which now bombs sewage facilities and water plants. If that is
> what professionalism entails then I supppose the rest of the unwashed
> would rather not be professional.

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

>
> > Now either you agree they
> > have a problem, or you don't--kind of hard to figure which is the case
when
> > you post in *both* modes.
>
> This is merely indicative of a defect in your mentality and attitude
> towards life. Unlike you I dont choose a 'side' of the argument and
> pile up evidence for it and belittle anything and anyone that oppposes
> it. To understand complex issues I am willing to keep my mind open; I
> will post both data that supports as well as that which conflicts with
> my opinions if that is available - point is to learn something; not
> just grind idealogical axes.

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

Brooks

<snip>

[Kevin Brooks]

"Tuollaf43" > wrote in message
om...
> "Kevin Brooks" > wrote in message
>...
> > "t_mark" > wrote in message
> > news:0J4Ec.21160$rh.5685@okepread02...
> > > > Unlike other countries USA has faced recently, India wouldn't sit
and
> > look
> > a
> > > > military buildup; just like Israelis, they would certainly make a
> > preemptive
> > > > strike-they are quite capable to do that, and they did it before.
> > >
> > > Why is it that people like this seem to completely miss the fact that
the
> > US
> > > has yet to bring its resources full-bore to a fight like this? India
> > would
> > > be much more of the exact kind of challenge the US military was meant
to
> > > dismantle, and many American resources have never had a real
application
> > in
> > > a war with Iraq or in Europe in the 90s.
> > >
> > > So, Nele, can you explain this to us?
> >
> > Heck, I am still waiting for him to explain just how in the heck the
Indians
> > would conduct a preemptive strike against the US; "they are quite
capable to
> > do (sic) that"? Even Diego Garcia appears to be a bit beyond their air
> > striking distance...
> >
> > Brooks
>
> Su-30MKI + Il-78MKI couldn't do it?

Yeah, they could...maybe. Not sure when that will be true, as I believe the
entry of an aerial tanking platform into IAF service is a pretty new
development, and they are likely to still be on the learning curve of how to
use and exploit it. Of course, if there was any kind of real tension between
the two nations, getting there would have to done through a likely skirmish
line of USN Aegis CG's/DDG's, maybe a carrier air wing or two, any tactical
fighters the USAF or RAF decided to deploy to DG as a protective CAP/runway
alert element, and likely a couple of Patriot batteries. How many Midas's
does the IAF have, and are they willing to risk them (and Su-30's, for that
matter) in an effort to accomplish nothing more than really ****ing off the
US and UK? Sorry, but this one is pretty much a non-starter.

Brooks

>
> >
> > >
> > >

[Tuollaf43]

"Kevin Brooks" > wrote in message >...
> "Tuollaf43" > wrote in message
> om...
> > "Kevin Brooks" > wrote in message
> >...
> > > "t_mark" > wrote in message
> > > news:0J4Ec.21160$rh.5685@okepread02...
> > > > > Unlike other countries USA has faced recently, India wouldn't sit
> and
> > > look
> > > a
> > > > > military buildup; just like Israelis, they would certainly make a
> preemptive
> > > > > strike-they are quite capable to do that, and they did it before.
> > > >
> > > > Why is it that people like this seem to completely miss the fact that
> the
> US
> > > > has yet to bring its resources full-bore to a fight like this? India
> would
> > > > be much more of the exact kind of challenge the US military was meant
> to
> > > > dismantle, and many American resources have never had a real
> application
> in
> > > > a war with Iraq or in Europe in the 90s.
> > > >
> > > > So, Nele, can you explain this to us?
> > >
> > > Heck, I am still waiting for him to explain just how in the heck the
> Indians
> > > would conduct a preemptive strike against the US; "they are quite
> capable to
> > > do (sic) that"? Even Diego Garcia appears to be a bit beyond their air
> > > striking distance...
> > >
> > > Brooks
> >
> > Su-30MKI + Il-78MKI couldn't do it?
>
> Yeah, they could...maybe. Not sure when that will be true, as I believe the
> entry of an aerial tanking platform into IAF service is a pretty new
> development, and they are likely to still be on the learning curve of how to
> use and exploit it. Of course, if there was any kind of real tension between
> the two nations, getting there would have to done through a likely skirmish
> line of USN Aegis CG's/DDG's, maybe a carrier air wing or two, any tactical
> fighters the USAF or RAF decided to deploy to DG as a protective CAP/runway
> alert element, and likely a couple of Patriot batteries. How many Midas's
> does the IAF have, and are they willing to risk them (and Su-30's, for that
> matter) in an effort to accomplish nothing more than really ****ing off the
> US and UK? Sorry, but this one is pretty much a non-starter.
>

Strawman. You said that DG is beyond air striking distance of the IAF.
Fact is you are wrong again, it insnt. Question was not if airstike is
the best way of getting DG; there are other better ways.

> Brooks
>
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > >

[Ron]

> Yeah, they could...maybe. Not sure when that will be true, as I believe the
>> entry of an aerial tanking platform into IAF service is a pretty new
>> development, and they are likely to still be on the learning curve of how
>to
>> use and exploit it. Of course, if there was any kind of real tension
>between
>> the two nations, getting there would have to done through a likely skirmish
>> line of USN Aegis CG's/DDG's, maybe a carrier air wing or two, any tactical
>> fighters the USAF or RAF decided to deploy to DG as a protective CAP/runway
>> alert element, and likely a couple of Patriot batteries. How many Midas's
>> does the IAF have, and are they willing to risk them (and Su-30's, for that
>> matter) in an effort to accomplish nothing more than really ****ing off the
>> US and UK? Sorry, but this one is pretty much a non-starter.

I agree, and not just because I fly out of a airport/base that has those Su-30s
:)

This seems pretty academic and its hard to think of a real scenario that would
have USAF/RAF going up against IAF.

Its probably far more likely that Pakistan would have a coup where Islamic
militants would take over, and there would be combined US/UK/IAF action to
either grab those weapons or destroy them.


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

[ZZBunker]

(Denyav) wrote in message >...
> >If you count phone centers you can. The Indians also do a lot of
> >analyzing of US CAT scan data and similar things. Some might consider
> >looking at a CAT scan to be performing a service. Its certainly not
> >manufacturing.
>
> Indians do much more than analyzing CAT scan data.
> There is no way born Americans can compete with Indians.Currently
> 38% of Medical Doctors in US is either Indian or Indo-American
> 36% of NASA employees are Indians
> 34%of MS employees are for example from the India.
> CEOs of many US companies are from India.
> Either jobs will go to India or Indians will come here to take the jobs

As long the CEO's are AT&T and subsidaries, nobody in the US cares
that much, since AT&T causes more illness that it cures.



> Pick your choice.

[Tuollaf43]

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

> > > > > > > > > Let's get some facts, please. Mig-21 is probably the most
> docile
> supersonic
> > > > > > > > > fighter that has been in use since 1961 in some 50
> countries. It
> > > is
> > > known
> > > > > > > > > for it straightfowardness and superb handling, only drawback
> known
> > > > > to me
> > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > inertia roll coupling when doing extremely high-rate
> unloaded
> > > rolls
> > > (the
> > > > > > > > > same thing it shares with F-15). It is in Indian service
> since
> > > 1963
> > > in
> > > > > > > > > almost all versions. Suddenly, they need a Hawk training?
> Come
> on!
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Not suddenly - they have been begging for the hawk for the
> past
> two
> > > > > > > decades.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > But why have they been "begging" for it if, as you just tried to
> > > assert
> > > in
> > > > > > > another message, there is really no problem with existing IAF
> > > training
> > > and
> > > > > > > accidents?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Which message would that be dear where I have asserted that IAF
> has no
> > > > > > problems with training and accidents? Could you quote it?
> > > > >
> > > > > So you are not saying that? Odd. It appeared to me that you took
> exception
> > > > > with my noting the IAF was having a particular problem with
> accidents...but
> > > > > if you now agree that is the case, OK!
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > What I wanted to know was if you really had an insight into the
> > > > question at all or were merely returgating sensational accounts from
> > > > the newspapers. From your other posts on this thread the answer is
> > > > clear.
> > >
> > > Apparently not. I was not aware of the domestic newspaper accounts
> regarding
> > > this subject until you piped up with your 'it ain't so!' bleating
> >
> > OK once again - post the 'it aint so' part of my post - chapter and
> > verse.
>
> OK, then you are asaying you were asking an honest question instead? If so,
> the answer is that the IAF has failed to provide the detailed kind of
> accident statistics (like those routinely released by the RAF, USAF, etc.)
> that would be required to support the assertion that their accident rate is
> no worse than any other large air force's rate, especially in the specific
> case of the Mig-21. Given the frequent reporting of IAF accidents in the
> aviation press, and the lack of opposing data from the IAF, and the domestic
> press accounts in India, it does indeed appear that the IAF is having an
> accident problem. There is you answer--if you want to refute it, come back
> with some accident-per-100K flight hours, by aircraft type, as provided by
> the IAF; otherwise you are blowing hot air, as usual.

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

>
> >
> > And bleating eh? Good, that probably means I'll inherit the world
> > then.
> >
> > > and I did
> > > a little bit of websearching.
> >
> > I am impressed - the fact that you are doing elementary research
> > indicates progress from the last time we had a tete-a-tete. Atta-boy!
>
> Why, have you actually increased your basic military knowledge since that
> time? It was none too impressive, as I recall...

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

> >
> > > My impression that the Indians do indeed have
> > > a significant problem with training losses comes from watching the
> > > accidents/write-off reports over the past few years as published in some
> of
> > > the military journals,
> >
> > Nobody cares for your impressions -
>
> In the absence of any usable factual data from the IAF, those impressions
> stand.

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

>
> I certainly dont after your
> > repeated idiotic remarks about mountain warfare which you evidently
> > still stick too.
>
> Still whining about that, eh?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

> Do you have any factual data to back up your
> > "impressions"? Obviously not. Absolute number of accidents is
> > meaningless unless you can measure it against sorties or as some
> > prefer flight hours.
>
> Which despite being harangued about the number of accidents, the IAF has not
> provided. Curious, huh?

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

> >
> > > and seeing some of the cringing on the part of the
> > > IAF leadership in regards to getting their hands on relatively modern
> > > LIFT-type platforms.
> >
> > Which airforce doesnt want the newest, shiniest toy they can afford
> > (and sometimes cant afford)? What is unique about that? If the brass
> > wants new aircraft all it means is that they want new aircraft. Note
> > that so far there have been no suggestions that the IAF is trying to
> > con or fraud the parliament into funding upgrades as USAF is repeated
> > claimed to be doing.
>
> Uhmmm..be careful. What is the progress on that lil' ol' investigation in
> the Indian armed forces I read something about recently? You know, the one
> where it appears some combat "incidents" in Kashmir were staged to make a
> couple of higher ranking officers look good...?

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

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

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

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

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

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

> >
> > And your use of 'cringe' is interesting. You must be mighty perceptive
> > if you could tell that from military journals. What gave the distinct
> > impression of cringing? Are you sure that is the word you meant or
> > just wanted to use a new word you heard your dad say? The dictionary
> > tells me cringe is draw back with fear or pain or show submission or
> > fear.
> >
> > And if the IAF is indeed afraid of its masters, the elected
> > representatives, then surely that is prefable to what you claim the
> > USAF is up to with the congress now and has done so in the past -
> > swindle.
>
> You are jumping to conclusions that were not intended. Maybe my fault for
> using the strictly improper wording. Insert "wincing" instead, if it will
> keep you from getting your panties all tangled up. The IAF leadership has
> IIRC made it quite clear over the years that they were quite anxious to get
> new trainers into service..add all of those reported accidents to the mix,
> and what do you come up with? Sounds like they already knew they had a
> problem on their hands--even if they were loathe to come out and admit it.

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

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

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

> >
> > > The two taken together point to a real problem in the
> > > IAF. Further compounded by the IAF's reticence to list annual accident
> > > statistics in a form that allows direct comparison with the air forces
> that
> > > largely set the standards for professionalism.
> >
> > Oh yes. The same airforce in which your pop was the terror flieger?
> > And which now bombs sewage facilities and water plants. If that is
> > what professionalism entails then I supppose the rest of the unwashed
> > would rather not be professional.
>
> Ah, I see you still possess your usual grace and charm.

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

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

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

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

> >
> > > Now either you agree they
> > > have a problem, or you don't--kind of hard to figure which is the case
> when
> > > you post in *both* modes.
> >
> > This is merely indicative of a defect in your mentality and attitude
> > towards life. Unlike you I dont choose a 'side' of the argument and
> > pile up evidence for it and belittle anything and anyone that oppposes
> > it. To understand complex issues I am willing to keep my mind open; I
> > will post both data that supports as well as that which conflicts with
> > my opinions if that is available - point is to learn something; not
> > just grind idealogical axes.
>
> So, which is it--does the IAF have an apparent problem with its accident
> rates (in particular with the Mig-21), or not? Stop dancing around the issue
> and come down on one side or the other for a change.

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

Very well then.

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

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

> Brooks
>
> <snip>

[Tuollaf43]

Ed Rasimus > wrote in message >...
> On 30 Jun 2004 23:21:24 -0700, (Tuollaf43) wrote:
>
> >Ed Rasimus > wrote in message >...
> >>
> >> You guys must be marketing wrong. The danger is what makes fighter
> >> pilots so damned attractive.
> >
> >umm, I thought it was the large heads and child like personality :)
>
>
> Big watches and small watchamacallits.

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

> >
> >> You don't need to propagandize, simply
> >> issue a large life insurance policy to each aviator.
> >
> ><scratchs head> How does that help? In India the tendency is to mate
> >for life. Being a widow with a large chunk of cash is not an
> >attractive option.
>
> Being a widow with a large chunk of cash is quite attractive in some
> cultures. In fact, it even makes the widow a lot more
> attractive--witness Theresa Heinz-Kerry.

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

> >> >BTW, Have you perused the Kalam Committee Report on Air Safety for
> >> >instance? 1836875 hours for the whole airfleet in seven years with 194
> >> >accidents and 154 writeoffs.
> >>
> >> Interesting that you say that and then below you discount that sort of
> >> stat as being inappropriately skewed toward long duration heavies.
> >
> >I do believe that they are inappropriately skewed. But I quoted them
> >to show that some statistics in hours are available - if you look for
> >them. I dont see the dichotomy.
>
> Statistics in hours, even when available, if they d on't demonstrate
> something relevant aren't meaningful. Add airlift, tanker, trainer and
> bomber hours to fighter stats in the USAF and you'll get some
> remarkable safety stats. But worthless.
> >
> >> The fact is that the relevant stats are accidents/100k flight hours
> >> and they must be tied to aircraft type.
> >
> >Tied to aircraft type is obvious. But why necessarily measured in
> >fight hours? Why are per sortie figures irrelevant?
>
> Because sortie length varies. In most fighter units an ACM/BFM sortie
> can run 0.9 hours. An A/G range sortie can be 1.5 and a X-country or
> deployment sortie may be 4, 5 or more hours long.

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

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

> >> When we deal with fighter types, however, if your accidents are taking
> >> place during takeoff and landing, you really need to address your
> >> training progams--initial training, not operational. (Maybe that
> >> relates to the Hawk program?)
> >
> >Yes again. A disproportionately large number of accidents involve
> >Mongols and the MOFTUs; not the line squadrons or during primary
> >training on subsonic jets.
> >
> >And I am sure that I dont need to tell you the kind of training any
> >Air Force does in "peace time" and the kind it does when hostilities
> >are "imminent" and how that difference impacts on safety.
>
> Whoa. Bad assumption there. If an AF's peace time training isn't done
> in consideration of hostilities ALWAYS being imminent, it is wasted
> jet fuel. Train like you fight. "Everything else is rubbish." (Sorry
> Baron, couldn't resist.)

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

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

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

> >>
> >> Operational aircraft tend to be lost in the high performance portions
> >> of the mission---mid-airs in A/A; ground strikes in low-level nav;
> >> ordnance delivery issues such as release failures, weapon malfunctions
> >> and frag hits; departures from controlled flight; and structural
> >> failure due to exceeding operating limitations.
> >
> >Or bird ingestion when you fly from heavily populated areas with low
> >public sanitation. Or using a thoroughbred mach two interceptor for
> >CAS with rocket pods or worse NOE flying with CBUs.
>
> You're talking to the wrong guy about "thoroughbred mach two" types
> flying CAS with rockets, or LL with CBU's and iron. Been there done
> that in F-105s and F-4Es. Both M-2 high altitude systems, both down in
> the mud delivering the mail.

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

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

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

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

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