| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: Tech |
| General: U.S. Dominance of Skies May Wane |
| 2004-06-23 |
| 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, Saddam Hussein’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. |
| Posted by:Anonymous5089 |
| #24 As an Indian was a bit skeptical about the 90 percent of the time losses suffered by the USAF. Also we never fielded the Su 30 MKI, but the basic Su 30 K (which has a different radar and avionics pacakage as compared to the Su 30 for Russia). What really might have happened is that if you take out the AWACS then it proves that no force is as dominant. And secondly the USAF might have gotten ready to face the us with their Soviet / Russian tactics mode and were unpleasently surprised when we played to a different tune. As far as the Mig 21's and 27 were concerned, they were used as sheep for the F 15's and Su 30's to guide over troubled spots. The newly upgraded Mig 21's are reportedly capable of precision bombing and maybe they were being used in this capacity and not as an interceptor. In any case the Mig 21 will not last long against either the F 15 or the Su 30 or the Mig 29 as an interceptor. As far as the AWACS are concerned, the Phalcon will join the IAF by 2007. War between US and India, not in a million years - we have just too many things invested in each other to start another war. |
| Posted by: Arijit 2004-08-12 08:04 |
| #23 Does anyone have any information on the profile of the pilots who participated in Cope India? Their age-group, ranks, and flying hours (on actual machines as well as simulators)? Even a broad idea would be interesting, provided it was in the right direction. |
| Posted by: Anonymous5555 2004-07-06 7:29:43 AM |
| #22 There is one insightful comment here by someone who points out that one needs to pay attention to the "words" used by the US general. This was not an ordinary "pretend" mock fight where a lot of politics was being played. There was more to it. For the very first time the US was confronting SU27/30 . By the way no MKI nor the the latest radar etc was used by the IAF as the US was not using their latest avionics even though they did use the upgraded radar packages. So in essence the participants pitted aircrafts that are not the "best" but close enough in capabilities. Also the source of this "leak" is not India but the US itself so there should be more weight given to it. Some people have claimed that the US loses such battles as a political gesture but this is not always so because I have seen documents about how US took part in an exercise and came 2nd amongst the 5 or 6 nations (I believe in this one exercise Greeks did better but the Turks and others faired worse than the US). Note not last but 2nd and this is consistent with what I have seen about engagements between the US and German flyers flying MiG29s etc. In any case apparently Rep. Duke Cunningham made statements in the Congress how the IAF won 90% of the engagements in Cope India where the US was fighting against a greater number of attacking/defending aircrafts of the IAF. While this is "disturbing" it is not "worrisome" since USAF is unlikely to be outnumbered by any AF in the near future. Also US did not have AWACS nor did the Indians who have no AWACS yet. But the USAF is designed to use AWACS etc whereas the IAF is not so the USAF was at a greater disadvantage relatively speaking. There have been some rumors, actually also hinted at by my friend (an IAF officer who is an instructor and a test pilot), that the 1-v-1 type of engagements went surprisingly in the favor of Indians to the tune of 3:1!!!! Now that is "worrisome" and as you can see there are some statements being made by the USAF about bringing about a change in training both in terms of content and quantity. Finally no need to worry really since even if every IAF pilot is better trained/educated than his/her US counterpart, as an organization the IAF would not last very long in any confrontation with the US given the technology gap. This was acknowledged by the IAF itself. So where does it all leave us. Training and equipment go hand in hand. IAF with very fine equipment and perhaps superior training is capable of dealing with the USAF's second rung aircrafts but US has no need, and I do not think any desire, to fight on an equal footing. The day of knights in shining armor is past. The name of the game is overwhelming superiority. This the US has. IAF might be able to sting and hurt a little but is going to get stomped in a no-hold-barred kind of a fight with the USAF. For instance how would it help the IAF to be able to win every dogfight but have all their aircrafts destroyed on the ground so that no dogfights ever take place? In the end it is a good learning experience for the IAF and the USAF but it is not then end of the world for the US. A little humility will be good for the US. |
| Posted by: Anonymous5478 2004-06-30 12:56:21 PM |
| #21 Given how much pressure the fighter jocks are under, due to the dominance of the groundstrike element and ground forces in the news and strategic situation, there's a great temptation to write this off as a showboat. I just hope it isn't a case of crying wolf. Who cares about the Indians? We aren't in a position to get into a strategic conflict with them in the next fifty years or so, barring some sort of mind-meltingly bizarre eventuality. The Chinese are the primary worry. Once they think that they've got enough of a chance in the air to cover an amphibious force, they're very, very likely to make a try for Taiwan. It's the naval air force that we need to concentrate on, not the Air Force proper. As I understand the F-22, it's not usable as a carrier plane. That makes it not useful in the Straits of Taiwan situation, which is the only near-term air-superiority theatre of importance. What are we going to do, base a Raptor squadron outside of Taipei? That's a diplomatic nonstarter. If the Chinese decide to rush the straits, we won't have time to surge Raptors into position. It'll be a naval operation. And don't hand me "what if air superiority fighters make it into the Middle East"? The day an Arab nation manages to field a competent air force is the day after the end of the world. It'll take divine intervention. |
| Posted by: Mitch H. 2004-06-24 8:25:22 AM |
#20 Air Force General: We Need New, Really Expensive PlanesWhatta surprise! |
| Posted by: someone 2004-06-24 5:20:10 AM |
| #19 Here is the link to the execise. It apears to be the Indians used the MiG-21 the MiG-27 ( I didn't even know the MiG-27 was an air superiority fighter ) and the SU-30. The MiG-21 is an interceptor, not designed to be a dogfighter (it's wings are too stubby ), the MiG-27 was designed as a night/all weather ground strike bird and the SU-30 is actually a varient of the SU-27, which is a multi-role aircraft. The other bird, the Mirage2000 is Frog, and with the SU-30 the only other aircraft even eorth upgrading avionic on. Old Spook: the MiG-31 is a primary high altitude interceptor, not intended to be used as a general air superiority fighter the way the MiG-29 and SU-27/30 is. As I understand it, the MiG-31 was built to handle high altitude threats such a strategic bombers, and that was why it was built with a multi-function radar-avionic suite. When cruise missles started to enter service with the US, the Russians kept the aircraft as a high altitude interceptopr, but they changed their design paradigm to deal with multiple threats both from low-flying missiles and bombers, as well an enemy air superiority fighters. The MiG-31 is still in service, I think, but only with the POV forces, whatever they call them now .(Air Defense ) |
| Posted by: badanov 2004-06-23 11:21:46 PM |
| #18 Wasn't this particular fight also 12 Indian planes v US 4 in favor of the Indians? |
| Posted by: Laurence of the Rats 2004-06-23 10:47:10 PM |
| #17 Valentine,valid points,but when USAF General in charge of prepping US pilots for combat expresses concern,that means bad things happened that were not expected.The bit about not as far ahead could be being polite to hosts or way of saying "they have some good pilots".But when top General uses phrase "wake-up",that means something went wrong-whether tactics,skill level,equipment whatever.Something came out of the exercise that USAF didn't expect.Which is why such exercises are valuable. |
| Posted by: Stephen 2004-06-23 10:43:39 PM |
| #16 Folks before anyone gets too excited either way allow me to point out excercises like these are extremely staged. They are designed to throw unlikely scenarios and have the pilots engage in such ways that it tests tactics that both sides try to cook up. These excercises aren't even designed to show whos the best but rather what possibilities can be done by each side when developing offensive and defensive strategies and maneuvers. Even with that kind of level of interaction a lot of tactics, ideas, technology and various other capabilities are not thrown in these engagements, afterall neither participating side wants to reveal ALL their capabilities. |
| Posted by: Valentine 2004-06-23 10:23:34 PM |
| #15 Robin, The Marines aren't showing the Army the way again, are they? Actually, the Field Artillery is missing the boat here big time. They should have made a deal for UAV as a quid pro quo for dropping Crusader voluntarily. Once Army avation gets the SDB on the UAV's they'll become the low cost time on target winner. |
| Posted by: Mr. Davis 2004-06-23 10:06:39 PM |
| #14 F-15 pilots' reliance on radar/radar-guided missile kills combined w/Indian pilots willingness to get close and mix it up That's the key. Put some F-16s up there, then mix it up and see what results you get. |
| Posted by: Rafael 2004-06-23 9:58:51 PM |
| #13 No details provided but it sounds like several times Indian pilots bested US pilots,with an overall exercise exchange rate far below what USAF expects in wartime.The USAF expects to dominate over hostile territory,so having "home-air" should not be a factor,unless USAF had no AWACs or ground radar help and India AF did.As suggested,F-15 pilots' reliance on radar/radar-guided missile kills combined w/Indian pilots willingness to get close and mix it up(esp.w/Russian IR sight on helmet)could have led to US flight getting 2-3 "kills",but unexpectedly losing 1-2 to do so;not what USAF wants to do. I have some serious doubts about UAVs replacing as many tactical a/c as some think.First,attrition rate is fairly high.If a $2million UAV lasts about 100 missions before crashing one thing,but one costing $20mil is another matter.(Yes I know new technology and it will mature,but improvements will have to be in electronics which are always costly.)Second,they are new,which means people have just started thinking of ways to defeat them.I wonder if they will turn out to be vulnerable to ARMs.UAVs communicate w/ground controllers,esp. for attack,w/GPS sats,com sats,and I have to believe the Russians,French and even US will find way to exploit that for detection and missile acquisition.As to air-to-air UAVs,how do they detect hostile a/c?Can't use radar,as that lets everyone know where you are.IR is short-range and cameras see where they are pointing. For past quarter-century Second and Third World countries have relied on ground-based defences to deter US airpower.The results have been dismal.We may see countries in future decide to field numbers of fighters w/purpose of knocking down several US a/c in opening of any conflict.(Unlikely,true,but China at least is starting to field large numbers of decent fighters.)Build 1,000 a/c shelters for 150 a/c and think how expensive it would be to launch a first-strike cruise missile attack,esp.if lots of long taxiways and multiple runways,reinforced highways available. |
| Posted by: Stephen 2004-06-23 9:51:03 PM |
| #12 But critics deride the aircraft as too expensive and built to counter a threat that hasn’t existed since the Soviet Union collapsed. Problem is, even though the threat no longer exists, some of the hardware that gave the threat substance still does. |
| Posted by: Bomb-a-rama 2004-06-23 9:16:35 PM |
| #11 Wish I could say it was the Army, Mr. Davis, but while there's lots of UAV/UCAV and unmanned ground vehicle stuff going on in the Army, the Marines are taking the lead in battlefield use of micro-UAVs for recon. It'll be interesting to see if / how they adopt UCAVs too. OldSpook, got to agree with you re: the engineers ..... |
| Posted by: Robin Burk 2004-06-23 9:11:43 PM |
| #10 Correction: MiG-29 (31 as yet unconfirmed). SU-30 are definitely confirmed in service there, and they SU-30MK variant with the local's (India with Israeli help) radar and computer systems in it is probably superior to the home-build one in the CIS, and on par or better than the Starship (F-15). |
| Posted by: OldSpook 2004-06-23 9:11:41 PM |
| #9 The Indians are flying SU-27, SU-30 and Mig-31's, many of them with uprated electronic the Indian's have gotten from Israeli sources (India enemy = Pakistan, Israel = helping enemy of an enemy). These are all 1990's design and construction airframes, and are more aerobatic than the US equivalents (F15, F16). Combine that with the improved electronics, and probably one of the best multimode tack-while-scan multitargeting radars on any aircraft of any nation (MiG-31), and India now having a lot of good software - unless we really put newer aircraft up, we will get smoked. About the only thing we have that can deal with this is the F/A-18 E/F (uprated models), and our Airborne radars and processing capability (AWACS and the JSTARs follow-on, as well as probably satellite stuff). Plus US air-to-air flying time dropped out hte bottom in the 1990's under the defense cutbacks and groundstrike missions of the Balkans and Iraq (No-Fly Zone enforcement) - so our pilots are not trained as well as they should be. Glad this happened in a drill. All those software and electronics engineers we let in here in the 1990's are now back home, fully trained, while their American counterparts are unemployed and losing ground in the skills dept, while US corporations farm out their software to Indian companies (furthering the gap). Anyone thats been around has known that we were losing our edge. Now its becoming public knowlege because somone in the USAF is seeing political advantage. Where the hell were these people 5 years ago? |
| Posted by: OldSpook 2004-06-23 9:09:10 PM |
| #8 Russia has licensed its SU-27 aircraft to the Indian Air Force to be built in India. The way I hear, the SU-27 has received some signifigant avionics upgrades in the passed six years or so. The InAF also flies the MiG-29, which is an awesome dogfighting bird. the MiG-29 has also recent undergone big avionics upgrades to put them on par with the F-15 and F-16. We have heard about how superior our pilots are against MiG pilot, but I have to believe Indian pilots may well wind up taking their place amoungst the worlds best fighter pilots, right alongside with US, British, Russian, Israeli, US Navy and German pilots. It is also interesting to note that our air force has suffered greatly in the 90s from lack of training flights to keep our pilots in the best training. Dunno if that is still the case, or not. I hope not. I think some pilots may be doing some extra calesthenics when they get home. |
| Posted by: badanov 2004-06-23 9:01:31 PM |
| #7 Gosh, Robin, while the USAF fighter jocks push for the F-22, what branch will be seeking to develop all those low cost, man launchable UC/UAVs to provide close air support to infantry and protect Apaches from the beating they took at Karbala? |
| Posted by: Mr. Davis 2004-06-23 8:56:15 PM |
| #6 Why would there be an automatic assumption that the Indian aircraft is now superior, when all these aircraft have been around since the 70's? Is it possible that the high op-tempo of the WOT have improved our ground support and bombing capability at the expense of our dog-fighting skills? |
| Posted by: Super Hose 2004-06-23 8:39:04 PM |
| #5 AHM, your last point is the best one, I think. Familiarity with the atmosphere etc. probably wouldn't help the red side much, but it certainly is the case there there is (and will be) a big emphasis on unmanned combat air vehicles (UCAVs). There was a fairly successful test firing of a missile against a truck from a UCAV recently. I suspect there will be a big push for cheap, easily replaceable UAVs/UCAVs in the next decade or so. While there's a good case to make for having an advanced fighter, there's so much else that could be done with that money .... or so goes the argument, anyway. I'll be posting a series on military transformation and technology shortly over at Winds of Change. Y'all who've been in uniform are welcome to drop by and kibbitz it LOL. |
| Posted by: Robin Burk 2004-06-23 8:33:36 PM |
| #4 Our boys would never throw a fight. The Raptor may be expensive, but being the best and having the best is never cheap. Plus a single Raptor is worth a couple 15C models in a fight anyways. Have you seen the capabilities of that plane? Oooo-fucking-rah. But, truth is, we'll probably have a remote controlled air force in another 10-20 years. |
| Posted by: AllahHateMe 2004-06-23 8:21:35 PM |
| #3 Tibor, Naw our Air Force would never do that...would it? |
| Posted by: Mr. Davis 2004-06-23 7:57:29 PM |
| #2 Two thoughts (only one of which requires my tinfoil hat). First, the exercises took place over India, and it is obvious that the Indian pilots would have a clear home field advantage in terms of knowing the terrain, atmospheric conditions, etc. Second, by having the F-15C's perform poorly, the case for the F-22 becomes more compelling (think modern day "missile gap"). |
| Posted by: Tibor 2004-06-23 7:52:28 PM |
| #1 Lockheed test pilots flying the Indian birds? |
| Posted by: RWV 2004-06-23 7:46:58 PM |