What's new

The real Red Flag facts...USAF briefing about IAF participation

congrats P2Prada
you are the biggest joke of the forum.

those who still dont believe joke-india 04 was rigged are being delusional and are living in fool of paradise.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Someone else...

Indian Su-30s In Action
November 12, 2008: U.S. pilots have had several encounters with the Indian Su-30 MKI fighters and the overall (and unofficial) reaction is a big yawn. The Indians are quite proud of their Su-30 MKIs, as they are the top of the Su-30 line. Outfitted with more powerful engines, and Western electronics, the 38 ton aircraft is a maintenance nightmare, and, well, delicate. The Su-30 MKI is a highly developed Su-27, a 33 ton aircraft designed in response to new U.S. fighters. Chief among these was the F-15, a 31 ton, 1970s design that proved very successful. None have ever been shot down, and few aircraft it has fought have survived.
The Russians went in several directions with the Su-27/30. The main departure from the F-15 was to make the Russian design more maneuverable. This puzzled many U.S. observers, because air warfare was seen going in the direction of AWACS, jamming and long range missile engagements. Building a better dogfighter went against this trend.

In any event, the Indians, apparently at the urging of the Russians, refused to conduct joint (with the U.S. and other NATO nations) training exercises under highly realistic conditions (little jamming or AWACS use). The U.S. Air Force was not reluctant to go along with this, because many technical secrets would be revealed to the Indians (and vice versa) if the training combats were as realistic as they could be.

The eight Indian Su-30 fighters, that recently participated in U.S. Air Force "Red Flag" exercises in the United States (Nevada), were specifically ordered not to use their Russian made NO11M radar. This was expected, as the Indians are obliged to keep the technical details of this equipment secret, lest a potential enemy get a head start on figuring out how to deal with it. Allowing this radar to emit its regular signals would give counter-measures people a head start in figuring out how to deceive it. NO11M is a modern radar, which first entered service in 1993. India, and the Russians, don't want the NO11M broadcasting at a place like Nellis Air Force Base, the Nevada location of the Red Flag exercises. That's because Nellis has plenty of equipment to pick up every nuance of the NO11M broadcasting in combat mode.

In the fifteen years the NO11M has been in service, the U.S. has probably recorded it in action, but not to the extent that this could be done at Nellis. Then again, maybe American spies got all the data they needed right from the factory. No one is talking, and the Indians, at the behest of their Russians suppliers, are not taking any chances.

Indian pilots were also not allowed to drop chaff or flares, or use some of the other electronic communications their Su-30s are equipped with. The Americans admired the skill of the Indian pilots, who were handpicked for these "Red Flag exercises, but disappointed that more realistic training (as is the case between NATO pilots) was not possible. But U.S. and NATO pilots saw enough to make them realize that the Su-30, even the MKI model, was hardly a super-fighter. F-15s and F-16s could handle it in a real war, and the F-22 would probably really clean up.
 
Yep... As realistic as Indians wants to be. How realistic was anything besides eating curry?
 
Ok. Lets get back to point 1, the beginning. My views.

1) The RF exercises:
MKIs got their *** wooped. But, at the same time the MKIs were much more handicapped than the F-15Cs in CI-2004 exercises. The MKIs performed well and was praised by all.
The situational awareness the NATO forces enjoyed was much greater than the MKIs. The MKIs were merely blind.

All in all, the exercises went well and was a good platform for future US exercises.

2)The Mig-21 Bison:
Their ability to jam legacy radars and quickly shoot and get out makes the Bison a worthwhile fighter even in a BVR environment. The Bison may not win us the war. But, they most definitely can HELP the MKIs, Mirage-2000s and Mig-29s win the war.

3)The Atlantique incident:
Both India and Pak just came out of the kargil war. A Recce plane comes dangerously close to the border, which is not allowed in the 1991 bilateral agreement. The plane was brought down for breaking the agreement. Period. Training or the real thing, the situation is the same.

These are only my views. If you have different views then post them rather than blindly resorting to personal attacks. It wont take us anywhere.
 
3)The Atlantique incident:
Both India and Pak just came out of the kargil war. A Recce plane comes dangerously close to the border, which is not allowed in the 1991 bilateral agreement. The plane was brought down for breaking the agreement. Period. Training or the real thing, the situation is the same.

Those views were rejected by international diplomats taken to the site of the crash in Pakistan - they clearly stated (in a BBC link) that India overreacted by shooting down the Atlantique.

The fact of the matter is that this was close to the Kargil war, and India decide to take a cheap shot by shooting down a recce AC when any other time different options would have been resorted to.
 
1) The RF exercises:
MKIs got their *** wooped. But, at the same time the MKIs were much more handicapped than the F-15Cs in CI-2004 exercises. The MKIs performed well and was praised by all.
The situational awareness the NATO forces enjoyed was much greater than the MKIs. The MKIs were merely blind.

All in all, the exercises went well and was a good platform for future US exercises.

How do we come to the conclusion that the MKI's were more handicapped? Why does a 3 to 1 ratio, 32 KM vs 100km BVR in CI against the US not count as a larger handicap?

It seems that India was trying to simulate a scenario against Pakistan in CI - greater numbers of air assets, no AWACS, no BVR etc. In the near future, two out of those 3 parameters will probably change in Pakistan's favor.
 
Nice. I was only replying to 23 March's post saying PAF has experience against superior enemies in real combat. So, both india and pak have only experienced advanced enemies in phoney wars.

Not exactly...:disagree: While IAF has Actual Combat experience against PAF only, the PAF guys have fought against Indians, Israel’s and Russians.

Phoney Wars?? Interesting expression..:lol: Well, the correct term for this is a Military Exercise…That’s how the Military trains itself all over the world. One doesn’t need a full fledge war every second year with thousands lives lost on both sides to train its forces…Therefore they do the Exercises instead…


Nice, so the PAF air crews are well versed with all of the above on american systems.
Good that you acknowledged …Yes they are very well versed..:tup:


Oh wait, PAF has no EA-6B, E-2C and E-3 platforms. So, PAF experiences are superficial at best..

Superficial at best? I didn’t really get it exactly that what you are on about here!!!!.... Due to our constraints, we cannot afford everything that’s out there. So best we can do is to train our pilots/controllers wherever we can with the friendly forces. That’s how its also done in NATO and many airforces world over : PAF regularly sends its personnel to participate in various exercised all over the globe, people also go on courses, deputations, exchange postings etc where they train themselves with the hardware that we don’t have right now . It’s a very usual practice. In this way, at least we have a large pool of pilots/controllers that are very well versed with all the latest technologies and trust me that all this training will come very handy if it’s ever needed in the real terms.

Hopefully, once we can afford or have those systems, we will have a good number of people already trained on them.



Try avoiding an IR missile along with the gun at the same time.

Sorry mate, no idea what you are talking here..:undecided:.. Guns are used (mostly) once the front aircraft is at such a close range that one cannot fire his IR missile. To fire an IR missile you need to have correct angle-off, be in the range , need right amount of IR energy and be in the firing envelop. If any one of these conditions is missing, IR missile is useless. So then a pilot has to switch over to gun mode (if in correct range)…One never simultaneously employs a Gun and an IR missile at the same time, its only one of them at a time…


Flying is the same. Be it on a Mustang or a Viper. You need to learn the basics first. Rookies start on a subsonic trainer, learn basic maneuvers. Then go on to perform dog fights with other rookies as in WW2. Then they are given a supersonic fighter. After 6-12 months they are taught warfare in AWACS environment. Nobody whos born today jumps to a MKI tomorrow. Basics are important.
So is driving a car. You need to be trained specifically to drive a Ferrari Enzo or a Bugatti Veyron even if you have experience driving a normal car. They always start with the basics first.

Don’t confuse or mix basic flying techniques/abilities with basic fighting tactics….Just learning to fly an F-16 or a Mirage-2000 is one thing, while employing and using these aircrafts as a Weapon System in combat is another. The basics fighting rules are still the same, however new ones keep evolving with improvements in the technology.

The only difference is IAF systems will be more capable and not to mention numerically superior.

Well, we were always outnumbered since independence but this really never bothered our training or morale. PAF tactics are more of a defensive with limited offensive, so numbers comparison doesn’t really matter here much. If we can achieve our objectives with 350 fighters, then it’s pointless to have 1000 fighters…:pop:

But, here, IAF Mig-21s brought down american F-15s and F-16s.
Really…:lol:...I am sure that awarding few ‘ Dead-man shots ‘ or shots that were well out of Mig-21s dynamic launch zone ( DLZ) wont hurt USAF much…;)


So, now who shall we give credit to.
Well, who else other than you P2 for twisting facts and everything else around here.:crazy:.... Cheers man....
 
Those views were rejected by international diplomats taken to the site of the crash in Pakistan - they clearly stated (in a BBC link) that India overreacted by shooting down the Atlantique.

The fact of the matter is that this was close to the Kargil war, and India decide to take a cheap shot by shooting down a recce AC when any other time different options would have been resorted to.

Then there is no point arguing about it. Kargil was a bigger stab in the back just when nawaz shariff and Vajpayee were building up on CBMs. In front of the Kargil War, Atlantique is a dwarf.
 
Then there is no point arguing about it. Kargil was a bigger stab in the back just when nawaz shariff and Vajpayee were building up on CBMs. In front of the Kargil War, Atlantique is a dwarf.

Occupying territory in a disputed region vs shooting down a recce AC?

I am pretty sure the upwards of 3000 Indian soldiers who died (11 to 1 ratio of attackers to defenders in mountainous terrain), died with weapons in hand in full combat.
 
How do we come to the conclusion that the MKI's were more handicapped? Why does a 3 to 1 ratio, 32 KM vs 100km BVR in CI against the US not count as a larger handicap?

We were part of the Blue team which is offensive in nature compared to the red team during the RF. The blue team was superior in numbers compared to the red team. Our main objective was strike missions. In strike missions, we were given only a situational awareness of 20 miles compared to the 300+ miles that the other NATO forces enjoyed. 32 km vs 100km is just one handicap. But, denying situational awarness is at a whole different level. Plus, we did not have Combat ID capability. So, some 200 planes took part. We had no awareness of what took place outside a 20 miles radius. The handicap were self imposed though. So, we cant blame the americans either.

During CI-2004, atleast the F-15s were not denied situational awarness. The F-15s had their radar on at all times. IAF did not have AWACS suport. A Transport plane, An-32 was simulating an AWACS. the IAF had their on board radars on.

It seems that India was trying to simulate a scenario against Pakistan in CI - greater numbers of air assets, no AWACS, no BVR etc. In the near future, two out of those 3 parameters will probably change in Pakistan's favor.

But, it is not always that PAF will have AWACS support. And not all fighters have BVR. indo-pak war will be an attrition based war.
 
Occupying territory in a disputed region vs shooting down a recce AC?

Not the same thing. The russians would have loved to bring the SR-71 down if they were capable of it. Bringing down a recce plane is more important than a fighter.

I am pretty sure the upwards of 3000 Indian soldiers who died (11 to 1 ratio of attackers to defenders in mountainous terrain), died with weapons in hand in full combat.

Wrong numbers.
 
Occupying territory in a disputed region vs shooting down a recce AC?

I am pretty sure the upwards of 3000 Indian soldiers who died (11 to 1 ratio of attackers to defenders in mountainous terrain), died with weapons in hand in full combat.

Agno, please support your claims. The actual figures are not known, but all the neutral sources i could find dispute the figures you quoted.

India: 524 KIA, 1363 wounded. Pak: 696 killed
1999 Kargil Conflict

India: 527 KIA, 1363 wounded. Pak: 357-500 KIA, 686 Wounded
NationMaster - Encyclopedia: Kargil War

Over 4,000 soldiers killed in Kargil: Sharif
The Hindu : Over 4,000 soldiers killed in Kargil: Sharif

The last one is an Indian source, and reports the highest figures for Pak losses. But the other 2 are neutral sources. Estimates of Pak casualities vary, but estimated Indian deaths are more or less the same as the ones quoted above.

I can quote more sources if necessary.
 
Those views were rejected by international diplomats taken to the site of the crash in Pakistan - they clearly stated (in a BBC link) that India overreacted by shooting down the Atlantique.

The fact of the matter is that this was close to the Kargil war, and India decide to take a cheap shot by shooting down a recce AC when any other time different options would have been resorted to.

The same people also said this

The atlantique plane "may have strayed into restricted space", and that Islamabad was unable to explain why it was flying so close to the border.

BBC Link
 
The same people also said this

The atlantique plane "may have strayed into restricted space", and that Islamabad was unable to explain why it was flying so close to the border.

BBC Link

Which does not take away form the fact that they claimed Indian actions were out of line.
 

Latest posts

Pakistan Defence Latest Posts

Military Forum Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom