U.S. warned it could lose air supremacy

[irra!]

U.S. warned it could lose air supremacy
Friday, June 25, 2004 Posted: 1348 GMT (2148 HKT)





WASHINGTON (*******) -- United States must modernize its fighter jets to maintain air supremacy, a top Air Force general said Wednesday citing the success of advanced Russian-made jets against American planes in a recent exercise as signaling an erosion of its overwhelming advantage.

Gen. Hal Hornburg, head of U.S. Air Combat Command, said a U.S. air-to-air exercise with the Indian Air Force in February, in which India used Russian jets to defeat aging American F-15Cs, revealed "that we may not be as far ahead of the rest of the world as we once thought we were."

Defense experts in both the United States and Europe, however, have said it is unlikely that America -- with vast spending power and a major industrial base -- would lose its dominance in military technology.

U.S. defense officials have said Indian SU-30, Mig-27 and older MiG-21 jets, some armed with Russian-made AA-10 air-to-air missiles, got the best of F-15s based in Alaska in exercise "Cope India" high over northern India.

Hornburg said in an interview with military writers the air maneuvers emphasized his service's push for expensive, stealthy new F/A-22 "Raptors" being built by Lockheed Martin Corp. and F-35 Joint Strike Fighters being designed by Lockheed with input from allies.

He declined to discuss classified results of the exercise but said, "Something like Cope India, when we find that some of our advantages aren't as great as we thought they might be, leads me to remind people that we need to modernize our air-to-air capability."

Hornburg added, "We have been saying for a long time that we need newer fighters to do more things," and that the Indian exercise could be a "wake-up call" for Washington.

Russia's Sukhoi aviation works and the Moscow Air Production Organization company have been designing and building increasingly advanced fighters such as the MiG-29 in recent years. India, China and other countries are buying the warplanes -- some with contracts for co-production.

France and Sweden also build advanced combat planes and a consortium of four European countries, including Britain, are producing the Eurofighter "Typhoon" jet.

"I see air forces across the spectrum and across the world becoming better and better as each year passes. That just means that we have to do the same thing," said Hornburg.

"With air superiority, everything is possible. Without it, hardly anything's possible" he added. "People jump to the conclusion that it is ours just because we go. And that's blatantly false."


http://edition.cnn.com/2004/US/06/23/airforce.supremacy.reut/index.html

[Uncle Chô]

How many times will we see this topic? :roll:

I tend to believe many posters on this Forum are Lockheed Martin employees trying to influence their fellow US citizens to lobby their senators to vote for more F-22 credits... p-)

[Commander Cool]

Those mock battles with the Indians were not an accurate representation of how American air power is used. American pilots never go into battle alone, they go along with force multipliers such as AWACS, jamming planes, satellite intelligence, etc. In those battles with the IAF, the USAF pilots did not have any of those advantages they are used to, so they fought in an environment which they are not familiar with, so no wonder they lost. But in real life, it is extremely unlikely a US pilot will find himself in a situation where he is alone without the force multipliers he is accustomed to.

[IDFM203]

Those mock battles with the Indians were not an accurate representation of how American air power is used. American pilots never go into battle alone, they go along with force multipliers such as AWACS, jamming planes, satellite intelligence, etc. In those battles with the IAF, the USAF pilots did not have any of those advantages they are used to, so they fought in an environment which they are not familiar with, so no wonder they lost. But in real life, it is extremely unlikely a US pilot will find himself in a situation where he is alone without the force multipliers he is accustomed to.Listen I am not saying that in real life the USAF would lose or that they are inferior simple based on those exercises, however lets not underestimate the Indian air force as well for they also have some of those force multipliers, especially those new Israeli made Phalcons (http://www.israeli-weapons.com/weapons/aircraft/phalcon/Phalcon.html) that we just supplied to them, which I belive are the most advanced AWACS systems in the world.

I believe they also have satellite intelligence (again I think there has also been some Israeli supplied optical sights that are used on some of Indian satellites (http://www.globes.co.il/serveen/))..........(If the link just goes to the front page well then click and scroll on the left under "Sector" and look for the section of "Aerospace, defense" and then look for the "El-Op awarded $3.5m space camera contract" title)

So all I am saying is that they have some if it too.

Anyways indeed non-withstanding what happened in that exercise, nothing can compare to the size and scope of the USAF, so yes I agree if an all out war situation, well yes the advantage goes to the USAF.

Btw in those mock exercises, I dont think the Indian air force employed those force multipliers, or did they?

Shalom :D

[usa320]

The exercise was rigged, more than likely to gain support for the F/A-22 programme, which had my support from the get go anyway. Most of the fights put as many as 8 SU-30's up against a single F-15C...

And it was not a fair way to measure our aerial strength, as our pilots would never perform a fighter sweep or CAP without AWACS, UAV's, SEAD, EW, ect.

Had we had all the supporting elements we would really have, the outcome would have been far different.

US strategy is to destroy as many planes on the ground anyways, and because of B-2's and JDAMs, its quite easy to do that.

[cut]

The exercise was rigged, more than likely to gain support for the F/A-22 programme, which had my support from the get go anyway. Most of the fights put as many as 8 SU-30's up against a single F-15C...

And it was not a fair way to measure our aerial strength, as our pilots would never perform a fighter sweep or CAP without AWACS, UAV's, SEAD, EW, ect.

Had we had all the supporting elements we would really have, the outcome would have been far different.

US strategy is to destroy as many planes on the ground anyways, and because of B-2's and JDAMs, its quite easy to do that.

I thought only liberals had conspiracy theories like that ;)

[A Soldier]

Im sure that we still won, but lost a few planes so that made everyone get into a uproar, OMG THESE INDIANS GOT SOME OF OUR PLANES!!!!! Then our B2's took out the rest of their AirForce while it was on the ground ;)

[ßå$tĮТHÏ¿ð]

The exercise was rigged, more than likely to gain support for the F/A-22 programme, which had my support from the get go anyway. Most of the fights put as many as 8 SU-30's up against a single F-15C...

And it was not a fair way to measure our aerial strength, as our pilots would never perform a fighter sweep or CAP without AWACS, UAV's, SEAD, EW, ect.

Had we had all the supporting elements we would really have, the outcome would have been far different.

US strategy is to destroy as many planes on the ground anyways, and because of B-2's and JDAMs, its quite easy to do that.

I thought only liberals had conspiracy theories like that ;)

:lol:

[Fredd00]

U.S. defense officials have said Indian SU-30, Mig-27 and older MiG-21 jets, some armed with Russian-made AA-10 air-to-air missiles, got the best of F-15s based in Alaska in exercise "Cope India" high over northern India.

MiGs - 21 - lol, lol, lol, against F-15 C LOL


I tend to believe many posters on this Forum are Lockheed Martin employees trying to influence their fellow US citizens to lobby their senators to vote for more F-22 credits..

It seems LM should fire entire PR department

[Ratamacue]

The exercise was rigged, more than likely to gain support for the F/A-22 programme, which had my support from the get go anyway. Most of the fights put as many as 8 SU-30's up against a single F-15C...

And it was not a fair way to measure our aerial strength, as our pilots would never perform a fighter sweep or CAP without AWACS, UAV's, SEAD, EW, ect.

Had we had all the supporting elements we would really have, the outcome would have been far different.

US strategy is to destroy as many planes on the ground anyways, and because of B-2's and JDAMs, its quite easy to do that.

I thought only liberals had conspiracy theories like that ;)
Well, the truth is, the F/A-22 program is severely under scrutiny simply due to the massive cost involved. If the Air Force can make a good case that "oh look, we're losing air superiority because we don't have the absolute latest and greatest aircraft" then chances are that the program will continue. They want the F/A-22 bad, and if it takes a couple ****ty performances at air combat exercises to get what they want, I think they would do that.

[Angelino]

The Indians aren't the only ones that use MiG-21s --- that plane is the aerospace industry's equivalent of the AK-47 and a lot of other countries use it (or clones of it) as well. What this exercise showed us is that while the F-15 is still a superior aircraft, it doesn't have as much of a superior advantage as we thought. One on one, the F-15 will easily wipe the floor with the MiG, but perhaps not as easily with one on three or two on five scenarios. The MiG-21's big advantage is that it is cheaper and simpler to manufacture and hence a large country with a fairly large industrial base (*cough* CHINA *cough*) can potentially produce large enough numbers of these to counter our current jets. It'll be interesting to see how AWACS, Jamming F-111s and satellite pics would work against a large country like China.

[RomanS]

http://www.reserve-info.de/luftwaffe/Intdat/su-37c.jpg

http://www.wforum.com/will/images/su37_02.jpg

http://www.modelspot.com/photo/macs01/su30.jpg

[soma]

But the states still has the bomb. Many of them.

[Thor]

France and Sweden also build advanced combat planes and a consortium of four European countries, including Britain, are producing the Eurofighter "Typhoon" jet.


Now you americans just take it easy. I for one can assure you that Sweden has no evil covert plan to go to war with USA. :) We might just invade Russia someday, but that's another story. ;)

(and we only sell our planes to western allies)

[SeanAshi]

U.S. warned it could lose air supremacy It doesn't matter if we are the best or if we are #15

[StarvingStudent47]

Air supremacy is NOT what our military should be focusing on. Better APCs for urban combat, better body armor, shoot, how about just plain "every soldier has body armor and the correct color camoflauge"? How about paying troops better to help morale, and giving the more training to help avoid any more Abu Ghraib-style embarassments?

This air supremacy thing is just a pork-barrel project to help out a few major companies. It's not what the USA should be focusing its limited resources on.

That's right. LIMITED resources. Every dollar spent on increasing our already awesome air supremcy is one less dollar for the boots on the ground. Not a good idea at this point.

[Uncle Chô]

It'll be interesting to see how AWACS, Jamming F-111s and satellite pics would work against a large country like China.
- Indian's Mig21s are more dangerous to their pilots and civilians on the ground than real threats to an opposing air force :roll:

- EF-111s are no longer flying (which was a BIG mistake done by USAF " think tanks " after Desert Storm) :roll:

[Helly]

Air supremacy is NOT what our military should be focusing on. Better APCs for urban combat, better body armor, shoot, how about just plain "every soldier has body armor and the correct color camoflauge"? How about paying troops better to help morale, and giving the more training to help avoid any more Abu Ghraib-style embarassments?

This air supremacy thing is just a pork-barrel project to help out a few major companies. It's not what the USA should be focusing its limited resources on.

That's right. LIMITED resources. Every dollar spent on increasing our already awesome air supremcy is one less dollar for the boots on the ground. Not a good idea at this point.

"Not a good idea at this point"? So when is it a good idea? When the US military has already well and truly lost air supremacy and having all its air assets shot down by a superior air force while engaged in a major shooting war? If it comes to that, the "boots on the ground" in their "better APCs" and "better body armor" will just be sitting ducks for enemy bombers.

[Moledet]

The pilots lost, not the Jets, in other pilots hands somehow the Jets perform much better (220:20 for ISAF in dog fights vs. US Navy Tomcats in 1998).

[Fredd00]

The pilots lost, not the Jets, in other pilots hands somehow the Jets perform much better (220:20 for ISAF in dog fights vs. US Navy Tomcats in 1998).

And ISAF flyed F- 16 :lol: It's no wonder since F- 14 wasn't suited for dogfight, at all.

[Moledet]

The pilots lost, not the Jets, in other pilots hands somehow the Jets perform much better (220:20 for ISAF in dog fights vs. US Navy Tomcats in 1998).

And ISAF flyed F- 16 :lol: It's no wonder since F- 14 wasn't suited for dogfight, at all.
The F16 is not suited for dog fights, but the F14 is suited for them.
The ISAF used F15s.

[Fredd00]

The F16 is no suited for dog fights, but the F14 is suited for them.

On the contrary, F-16 is lighter and more manoeuvreable than F-14.

[Moledet]

The F16 is no suited for dog fights, but the F14 is suited for them.

On the contrary, F-16 is lighter and more manoeuvreable than F-14.
You know ****. F14 is lighter, he is suppose to take off from air craft carriers, thus he is light.
Read about Iran-Iraq dog fights and then get back and tell me if the F14 is suited for dog fights or if he isn't.

P.S. If you wanna keep arguing, ISAF also kicked the ass of the German luttwafe (that's how you spell it?) with about 100 more kills then the number of kills they achieved.

[Fredd00]

You know ****. F14 is lighter, he is suppose to take off from air craft carriers, thus he is light.


Maximum Takeoff Weight for F-14 72,900 pounds (32,805 kg)
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/f-14.htm

Maximum Takeoff Weight for F-16 37,500 pounds (16,875 kilograms)
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/f-16.htm

Do the math....

rofl rofl rofl rofl rofl rofl rofl rofl rofl rofl rofl rofl

Even F-15 has Maximum Takeoff Weigh (C/D models) 68,000 pounds (30,600 kilograms). But I know **** I know.

[Moledet]

You know ****. F14 is lighter, he is suppose to take off from air craft carriers, thus he is light.


Maximum Takeoff Weight for F-14 72,900 pounds (32,805 kg)
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/f-14.htm

Maximum Takeoff Weight for F-16 37,500 pounds (16,875 kilograms)
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/f-16.htm

Do the math....

rofl rofl rofl rofl rofl rofl rofl rofl rofl rofl rofl rofl

Even F-15 has Maximum Takeoff Weigh (C/D models) 68,000 pounds (30,600 kilograms). But I know **** I know.
So you said that it can carry more ammo and fuel, that's all. The F15 is the ultimate dog fights machine, and the F14 is almost as good.
That's what the ISAF say about the F15E:
"An air dominance fighter manufactured in the USA. Since entering service with Heyl Ha'avir in 1976, the F-15 has registered numerous kills and participated in long range attacks, including as the raid on PLO headquarters in Tunis in 1985. Even now, after more than 20 years in operational service, the F-15 is one of the IAF's first line fighters."

"The F-15 was conceived in response to the USAF's demand for an advanced fighter with better air-to-air ability than any other plane in service, or about to enter service, anywhere. One of the main catalysts that led to the FX tender (as it was called) was the public unveiling of the Soviet MiG-25. The MiG-25 was considered the most advanced plane in the world at the time, and the Americans feared they would lose their edge in air combat.

The first prototype of the F-15, which was developed by McDonnell Douglas (now Boeing) - made its debut flight on July 27th 1972. The USAF, which was its first buyer, took in the first F-15 in 1972 and dubbed it 'Eagle'. It quickly proved that it was indeed the world's best fighter plane. It was the US-led coalition's lead plane in the Gulf War, and helped it gain air supremacy, shooting down 34 Iraqi planes. "
In the 70s when ISAF had to use a fighter jet for dog fights they choosed the F15 because he was slightly better than the F14, still the result should relfect a small adevntage and not such a huge adventage.

[Kitsune]

@moledet:
P.S. If you wanna keep arguing, ISAF also kicked the ass of the German luttwafe (that's how you spell it?) with about 100 more kills then the number of kills they achieved.

Your ISAF didn't "kick ass". Germany was asked to use to take the role of the bad guys, using our MiG 29 (next time you have to ask the Polish to do that, they have them now). This Fighter is the one western pilots are likely to face as a worst case scenario (unless Russia provides rogue nations with their newest Sukhois), that was the point. The Mig 29 had inferior avionics and fought against upgraded Israeli aircraft...it was never a "fair" fight (if there is such a thing), nor was it intendet to be.

If IAF achieves the same against the Taifun, you can justly repeat your devaluating remark.

And it is spelled: "Luftwaffe".

[Moledet]

@moledet:
P.S. If you wanna keep arguing, ISAF also kicked the ass of the German luttwafe (that's how you spell it?) with about 100 more kills then the number of kills they achieved.

Your ISAF didn't "kick ass". Germany was asked to use to take the role of the bad guys, using our MiG 29 (next time you have to ask the Polish to do that, they have them now). This Fighter is the one western pilots are likely to face as a worst case scenario (unless Russia provides rogue nations with their newest Sukhois), that was the point. The Mig 29 had inferior avionics and fought against upgraded Israeli aircraft...it was never a "fair" fight (if there is such a thing), nor was it intendet to be.

If IAF achieves the same against the Taifun, you can justly repeat your devaluating remark.

And it is spelled: "Luftwaffe".
Whatever makes you feel better.

[Shadow]

@moledet:
P.S. If you wanna keep arguing, ISAF also kicked the ass of the German luttwafe (that's how you spell it?) with about 100 more kills then the number of kills they achieved.

Your ISAF didn't "kick ass". Germany was asked to use to take the role of the bad guys, using our MiG 29 (next time you have to ask the Polish to do that, they have them now). This Fighter is the one western pilots are likely to face as a worst case scenario (unless Russia provides rogue nations with their newest Sukhois), that was the point. The Mig 29 had inferior avionics and fought against upgraded Israeli aircraft...it was never a "fair" fight (if there is such a thing), nor was it intendet to be.

If IAF achieves the same against the Taifun, you can justly repeat your devaluating remark.

And it is spelled: "Luftwaffe".
Whatever makes you feel better.

Sounds like someone is sad. :petting:

[tony6]

Germany was asked to use to take the role of the bad guys, using our MiG 29 (next time you have to ask the Polish to do that, they have them now).
We will do it with pleasure :D
"Bad guys"-that sounds good!

[Fredd00]

So you said that it can carry more ammo and fuel, that's all. The F15 is the ultimate dog fights machine, and the F14 is almost as good.

I slightly confused here while you wrote


The F16 is no suited for dog fights, but the F14 is suited for them.

Are you comparing F-16 with F-14. Or the latter with F-15. In that case it can be compared as both heavy twin-engine fighters. But F- 16 is one - engine rather light multirole fighter. Maybe you just typed quickly and input wrong figures '15' instead' of '16'.

However in case you still arguing F-16 is not suited for dogfight tell me what it is suited for? I have a feeling you were misled by the fact that F-14 were basicly designed as interceptor of enemy planes and missiles heading toward CVs. His main armanent were long range Phoenix A-to-A missiles. He wasn't designed to close distance dogfight.

To sum up fair fight would be among ISAF F-15 and F-18 Superhornets. Nonetheless ISAF pilots are consider exellent.


If IAF achieves the same against the Taifun, you can justly repeat your devaluating remark.

I am wonder how the newest Swedish Grippens would perform?

[UoUo]

מולדת..אל תפגע להם בגאווה..אל תגיד קרענו אותכם וכאלה...שילכו להזדיין...

באמת נראה לך שהם יודו בזה שהם הפסידו?

[YankeeDeVallecas]

In a dogfight the Viper would edge out the Eagle...if it got that close. If we're talking straight dog fight the F16 is more manuverable.

[-=P=-]

The F-14 wasn’t designed as interceptor but as dogfighter, the AWG-9/AIM-54 came later there are flight regimes in which the F-14 beat F-16, F-15, Su-27 and MiG-29 and some in which the others are better.

The world did buy the F-15 because it was cheaper and a lot easier to maintain, maintaining the F-14 is extremely expensive it the most complex fighter in the world.

[brigadeotg]

- Indian's Mig21s are more dangerous to their pilots and civilians on the ground than real threats to an opposing air force :roll:


Oh really!! :roll: And why do you think that is..? Care to do some research before posting unsubstantiated BS...

[Uncle Chô]

Oh really!! :roll: And why do you think that is..? Care to do some research before posting unsubstantiated BS...
No unsubstantiated B/S but only facts. Source? My weekly issues of Aviation Week & Space Technologies and other professional aviation magazines. I have no time to browse through the hundreds of pages but you could also have more details here (http://www.warbirdsofindia.com/Crashes/search.asp?plane=50&fmdt=&tdt=&pg=4).

The Mig-21 does have the poorest safety record of the IAF. Why? Because of those factors (http://mod.nic.in/pressreleases/content.asp?id=119)

Is the Mig-21 a bad airplane? Definitely not.

[usa320]

Uncle CHo is right... more indian MiG-21's have crashed in the last year than there are drunken Irishmen.

[brigadeotg]

Oh really!! :roll: And why do you think that is..? Care to do some research before posting unsubstantiated BS...
No unsubstantiated B/S but only facts. Source? My weekly issues of Aviation Week & Space Technologies and other professional aviation magazines. I have no time to browse through the hundreds of pages but you could also have more details here (http://www.warbirdsofindia.com/Crashes/search.asp?plane=50&fmdt=&tdt=&pg=4).

The Mig-21 does have the poorest safety record of the IAF. Why? Because of those factors (http://mod.nic.in/pressreleases/content.asp?id=119)

Is the Mig-21 a bad airplane? Definitely not.

Again how is the Mig-21's safety record relevant to how potent the Mig-21 is?
I quote..

Uncle Chô wrote:

- Indian's Mig21s are more dangerous to their pilots and civilians on the ground than real threats to an opposing air force


Can you show me numbers to prove that the Mig-21 is more dangerous to the IAF than any other air force? Do you know about the capabilities/armament of the Bisons in service with the IAF? The IAF was confident enough to put the Migs against the F-15C's during the recent exercise and even came on top a few occasions. So how is that not capable?

IAF is operating several hundred Mig-21's for over 30+ years. Some of the best IAF pilots fly the Mig-21. You think they would invest all the training, money, infrastructure overs the last 4 decades if they did not think it would serve the IAF's requirement? :roll:
The fact that these aircraft can still operate effectively against other modern aircraft after all these years speaks volumes about their effectiveness in a combat scenario. The Mig-21 still forms the backbone of the IAF and will go against the PAF and the PLAAF in any future war. Thet have pre-defined roles(point defence fighters) and will serve effectively in that role against anything the enemy AF might put up.

Is the Mig's safety record poor? No doubt it is.. The IAF has been trying to replace the 21's and will be replaced completely during the next decade. But that does speak for what it can do in combat in it's defined role against it's opponents.

I know very well of the no of crashes etc and have read the information you have posted in the 2 links. But I still stand by my comments - that your information as to the combat effectiveness of the IAF Mig-21 IS UNSUBSTANTIATED AND INCORRECT.

The Mig-21's safety record and combat capability are two different things.[/quote]

[Uncle Chô]

"Cease Fire!" :D

brigadeotg I understand from your various posts you are (originated) from India. Do not take it personal and do not misundestand my comments - you took them out of the context.

I was simply quoting the fact that despite the facts that Mig-21s are the most numerous fighters in the IAF inventrory, they have a poor safety record (compared to Hawks, Jaguars and Mirage 2000s) and that more aircrafts went down during peace time than being shot down by enemy fighters.

Debat closed ;)