These are late-generation fighters with thrust vectoring pitted against aging F-16s. During the last such air exercises, the F-16s lost; there was speculation that the U.S. military was deliberately fighting out of its weight class to plump for a raise.

Manish: Those were F-15C fighters (older generation F-15 fighters, about 3 of them), and rules of engagement severely curtailed American advantages (no AIM-120 missles) for long distance shots. The fight was more close in, and favored Indian tactics. Brass didn't seem to mind since it made a better case for bringing in more cash for the F-22, which by all accounts is virtually undefeatable. In internal American tests, all American fighters have gone done against it.

India wanted F-16s, but the US refused. Since the US was not bringing what India wanted, India didn't bring what the US wanted. They fielded a combination of Mirage 2000, MIGs, and non MKI Sukhoi 30s.

Thanks, fixed.

One correction after another. Post #1 was written by me, and I mistakenly put Manish's name in the 'name' field, when I was simply trying to address the post to him. My bad.

Interesting story. I hope you guys stay on top of things and also report who comes out on top, though one again gets the feeling that the dogfights (if they still have them with these new-fangled aircrafts) won't again be reflections of actual capabilities.

Masale wallah,
I too used to think that dogfights are outdated with such aircraft but turns out I was wrong. However, both of us were in august company. According to various programmes on Discovery/Wings, the USAF thought that dogfights were a thing of the past in the Vietnam war, when air-to-air missiles were introduced. However, they found out that at close range missiles are no good and that dogfighting was a skill that was still needed...according to the show, the Top Gun programme (of Tom Cruise fame) was initiated to train pilots in just that skill.

Yeah, and each F-22 costs a 100 mil per plane. Plus it has stealth, since all future wars will be fought on definitive fronts.
Btw, why hasn't air superiority over baghdad helped the americans in curbing the insurgency? Because it doesn't matter if your aircraft is made for stealth or not, you need real intelligence on the ground to tell you where to shoot.
Plus the E-3 Airborne radar isn't much help if its shot down and I wouldn't put it beyond the IAF to use tactics like that to get ahead.
One of my friends brothers participated in one of these exercises in the past. He said that since the language of the aviaton is english, the americans were listening in to all the comm chatter from the indian pilots. When they realized, they immediately switched to punjabi, and won the round.

Anangbhai...whaaa?????? Are all IAF pilots Punjabi? Do all IAF pilots speak Punjabi? is there a TOPAFL to get into the IAF? :)

Well my friend is punjabi so their squadron was probably based in punjab or haryana. Probably from one of the western air command squadrons.

Call me a heretic, but they're now much too look. For $45 million a pop, one would at least expect something that looked like this:
http://www.stardestroyer.net/Empire/Tech/Myths/Vader.jpg

Yeah, and each F-22 costs a 100 mil per plane. Plus it has stealth, since all future wars will be fought on definitive fronts. Btw, why hasn't air superiority over baghdad helped the americans in curbing the insurgency? Because it doesn't matter if your aircraft is made for stealth or not, you need real intelligence on the ground to tell you where to shoot.

What does the insurgency have to do with air superiority? Nothing. The analogy doesn't make any sense. Air superiorty comes in handy at the inital phase of operations for a large scale battle, when you're trying gain control. The Americans established that in the first few days. The insurgency is fought on the ground, not air. If you had airborne insurgents flying kamakazi missions, THEN aircrafts come into play. Right now, aircrafts are used as bomb trucks. You could throw in any aircraft. To say that the US is not worried about a large scale convential fight is intellectually dishonest. Not all scenarios will be an insurgency battle (China and North Korea). Chinese have Sukhois, too.

The F-22 is more like a 150 million per piece, BUT it holds an approximate 1-2 (maybe 3) ratio over an F-15 as a force multiplier. Maintence life cycle cost is also considered for the weapons system, and this aircraft was designed with that in mind. the F-35 will the backbone of the new force, with F-22 performing as the tip of the spear in numerically inferior numbers to F-15s. The idea behind the F-22 is less aircraft, greater and more diverse capabilities. Not a bad concept, it's just hard for congress to justify the expense. IF the EU (Hu Jintao is in Europe on a State visit) ever opens up arm sales to China, you wouldn't see anyone hesitate even a bit.

E-3 is a huge component of the exercise. But E-3s can easily loiter outside the area of engagement and gain data. It doesn't get up close and dirty, the system is designed to cover a huge area. If they're in range, well then, that would make a juicy target. Not attacking one would be stupid.

These exercises, atleast from what the article states, will be mixed forces. It makes sense since Indian pilots were sent to train and familiarize with F-16 operations in Japan. This means each country is looking at joint operational capabilities, as well as tyring to flush out weaknesses and learn from them, the primary goal of these excersies. As mentioned in previous threads, such training is held not to show who has a better airforce and who can defeat the other, it's about information exchange and learning something new. All data from these exercises will be available to both sides, which means everyone has a chance to see what worked and what didn't.

The English to Punjabi thing is funny.

Those were F-15C fighters (older generation F-15 fighters, about 3 of them), and rules of engagement severely curtailed American advantages (no AIM-120 missles) for long distance shots. The fight was more close in, and favored Indian tactics.

Excerpts:

USAF pilots do not usually train to fight enemy pilots. Instead, they train to shoot them down much before the enemy aircraft can come in close enough to fight with them. Given the right circumstances USAF pilots do their jobs very well! So the question whether Indian fighter pilots are better than USAF fighter pilots is moot. They probably are if they get to fight them!. Like they did at Gawalior. But that was an exercise. In actual combat, however, they will probably be taken out long before they get to engage the USAF pilots.

It's Sukhoi MKI (capitalized abbrvs) and not Mki. Its like if you say 'Awacs' and not 'AWACS' :).

Thanks,
Yuv

Fixed; perhaps you should tell the Calcutta Telegraph too ;)

The reason these new planes are even being approved is because the airforce generals have all the clout and always want a new F (i.e. fighter designation) plane every decade whether they need it or not. The F-22 is too expensive to lose, and generals DO NOT like losing planes, and they plan their strategy accordingly. So the diversity of operations that the F-22 can do is only on paper, same goes for the F-35 Joint Strike fighter.
All indications for future combat point to the situation in iraq. A small insurgency, technically proficient but uses low-tech methods, constantly on the move, supported by a civilian population. The more hardware america puts in the equation, the lower on the tech ladder they go to circumvent the technology. We got cellphone jammers, they have wired IEDs, we have air superiority and choppers everywhere, they travel light and no more than 2 or 3 together. We get reactive armor, they get shape charges.
All I'm saying is, I don't think stealth shielding is going to be exactly needed in urban warfare. What is needed is more close air support aircraft like the A-10 Hog, but the generals will never accede because that's not where the money and contracts are. We need more CAS, light armor and infantry heavy on firepower, lesser numbers (less leaks in intel) and more ground based intelligence. An F-22's radar can't tell the soldier on the ground where the the explosives for the IED's are coming from, and there is no way these planes would ever be used for strafing runs on factories or mobile insurgents.
Oh..and IAF pilots are also trained to shoot before the enemy gets close enough to dogfight. In fact, that's how they won some of the exercises, by using their fire and forget systems and able to divert time and attention to the next problem.

Anangbhai:

I see what you're saying, and it IS a valid concern among many circles.

Under the current picture, the USAF has all the muscle it needs to handle threats. But you're essentially writing off the value of an aircraft because the ground pounder won't get much from it. I love the A-10 Warthog. Honestly, I'm a little surprised that with it's abilities, the USAF will write it out in favor of the F-35.

But the F-22 will not only replace the F-15. The F-117 is getting quite old. The F-22 is not merely stealth, but has supercruise abilities (getting in and out of the battle field very fast), excellent range, better communication and electronic warfare capabilities, radar, etc.

I am a proponent of the F-22. BUT economic cost does factor in. Does the USAF need 400 of them? Probably not. In the current situation, a grunt needs all he can get. I agree with that assessment. The boot ulitmately bears the bigger burden, and should have all resources possible. Steatlh has no bearing on an urban battle field. But a grunt calling in an airstrike in a remote location that would take one aircraft 20mins to get there, vs a shorter time makes a world of a difference.

Writing something off because Generals would feel uncomfortable to use it is reaching for an answer. People said the same thing about all other US assets that came with a heavy price tag. The B-2 bomber, F-117, M1A1 Abrams all cost quite a bit. If the country has money to get ALL their forces the best tools, they should in a measured economic sense.

Using that same logic, India would be hesitant to use the SU-30s when comparing the respective defense budgets of each nation. A new F-15 costs anywhere between 60-80 million depending on the goodies involved. When you add up lifecycle costs of reduced manpower and equipment on these aircrafts, 2 F-15s for 1 F-22 isn't a bad tradeoff.

Oh..and IAF pilots are also trained to shoot before the enemy gets close enough to dogfight. In fact, that's how they won some of the exercises, by using their fire and forget systems and able to divert time and attention to the next problem

This is true, all fights aren't dogfights, but handicapping the Americans to 20 mile ranges on their missles against numerically superior and well trained opposition is significant. AMRAAMS are lethal, and as a weapons system (AESA radar, AWACS, F-15s, etc.) the USAF pefroms very well.

Also, you are overlooking the EU factor. China will get EU weapons sooner or later. This means the Typhoon, Rafale, Naval weapons, etc. will all be on the block. From all accounts, these are excellent and powerful aircraft, just like the SU-30 MKI. If someone comes up with a weapon, you need one that can defeat it convincingly. Typhoon, Rafale, SU-30, F-15E (or latest South Korean version) are all pretty much on the same playing field. There isn't much of a gap here. The F-22 may be a pricey fighter on steroids, but it is a 5th generation aircraft.

From the exercise Indians and Americans got what they wanted, if not more:

a) Indians validated some techniques and strategies in an offensive role against the possible type of enemy it would face (Pak, China). Neither country has AMRAAMS, AWACS, or the BVR capability of the USA.

b) The USAF fought in a position they've rarely been in, with one hand tied behind their backs and in a defensive posture. With todays battlefield, this doesn't happen that often. Only way to keep relative close in fighting skills alive (Sparrow, AA-12, MICA ranges) is to train.

Both sides got excellent training, and thats the goal. A larger exercise this time around only goes to show both sides want more.

India will be getting AWACS aircraft from Israel soon, and I personally believe they should convert some of the older, faster jets for sigint and recon missions instead of junking them.
I don't think the F-22 is a total waste of time, but I don't believe that replacing entire air-wings with only 2 aircraft models and their variations is stupid. Besides, with the delays both the F-22 and F-35 programs are having, the senate has decided to go ahead and put more money in to upgrade older F-16s and A-10s for operational capability into the teens.
Israel has a lot of money too, but the way they use it for their military is far far ahead of how the US uses it, and I guess that happens with such large amounts of money and resources.
I personally favor India buying EU weapons in lieu of the US foisting off old-ass F-16's while they get their stealth fighters. Why don't we just upgrade to 5th gen EU fighters which are already operational and are comparable to the new american fighters?

Israel and India have hostile neighbors, which means tactics, strategies, and weapons employed will differ.

When talking about weapons system acqusition, initial unit cost is only ONE factor, among many. I can't stress enough how life cycle cost management plays into everything, including initial design. The money spent AFTER the system is fielded DWARFS initial cost. If a manufacturer builds more cost into the initial price, but reduces lifecycle or operations/support cost signficantly, they actually make said item cheaper.

From Boeing's website:

In general, the design, development and production of a military aircraft system make up only about 30 percent of a government's investment in total ownership cost. The overwhelming 70 percent of that total cost is in sustainment and support — from program planning and management, through training, technical manuals and support equipment, to maintenance, modifications, upgrades and other aging-aircraft sustainment initiatives.

No one here knows the details, so all one can do is stick with facts. It's easy for all of us (me included) to play arm chair general. The decision makers have the most information, therefore, so I give these guys the benefit of the doubt.

The Israeli Phalcon systems are a good investment by India.

India itself is at the crossroads. With the impending retirement of Mig 27s and Mig 21s (with only upgraded ones remaining), the force size is shrinking fast. The LCA won't be online anytime soon. Personally, I don't think India will buy the F-16, though a new block series wouldn't be a bad choice if the price is right. The choice between F-18, Mirage, Mig 29, and Gripen is interesting. In reality, all fit the bill pretty well.

Life cycle cost and how much of these aircraft India will be allowed to manufacture at home will determine the answer.

Heres r some pics from the american fleet on the tarmac in india

Awacs and F16s

F16 and Migs(i think)

USAF realesed info

American crewman with an indian plane in background

usaf story regarding air crew