Coping well at Cope India
Coincidentally, 15 years ago to the date, the MiG-21 (NATO reporting name: Fishbed) had defeated modern American F-series aircraft in a mock combat exercise, sending shock waves through the American defence establishment.
In the space of just 13 days, at the Cope India exercise held at the Gwalior air force range from February 15-27, 2004, Indian pilots notched up an astounding 9:1 kill ratio against the all-powerful US Air Force, dealing a massive blow to the myth of invincibility of American air power. What happened at Gwalior will better explain how a six-decade-old jet that has been consigned to the boneyard by the Russians could defeat a modern F-16.
Held from February 15-27, Cope India 2004 highlighted three major issues:
- The innovativeness of Indian fighter pilots.
- The impact of Russian jets when flown by a highly trained and motivated crew.
- The limitations in USAF pilot training.
While the Pentagon brass tried to knock the IAF's achievement, the USAF gave their Indian counterparts their due. Aviation Week & Space Technology's David A. Fulghum quotes Colonel Mike Snodgrass, commander of the USAF's 3rd Wing based at Elmendorf Air Force Base, Alaska: "The outcome of the exercise boils down to (the fact that) they ran tactics that were more advanced than we expected...They could come up with a game plan, but if it wasn't working they would call an audible and change (tactics in flight)."
About the different IAF fighters the six F-15Cs from the American pilots encountered, Snodgrass said: "The two most formidable IAF aircraft proved to be the MiG-21 Bison, an upgraded version of the Russian-made baseline MiG-21, and the Su-30MK Flanker, also made in Russia."
About the capabilities of IAF pilots, USAF team leader Colonel Greg Newbech said: "What we've seen in the last two weeks is the IAF can stand toe-to-toe with the best air force in the world. I pity the pilot who has to face the IAF and chances the day to underestimate him; because he won't be going home."
"They made good decisions about when to bring their strikers in. The MiG-21s would be embedded with a (MiG-27) Flogger for integral protection. There was a data link between the Flankers that was used to pass information. They built a very good (radar) picture of what we were doing and were able to make good decisions about when to roll (their aircraft) in and out."
Clearly, it was the IAF's intense training that has given it the edge. A leading Indian newspaper summed up the aerial encounter: "The US Air Force underestimated the Indian Air Force pilots and their numerical skills. They thought these are another set of Iraqi or Iranian pilots."
A different spin in DC
Used to hearing the United States is second only to god, the US leadership nearly burst a collective artery. The USAF detachment had barely packed up its kits at Gwalior when Republican Congressman from California, Duke Cunningham, told a House Appropriations defence subcommittee hearing that USAF F-15Cs had been defeated more than 90 per cent of the time in direct combat exercises against the IAF.
Cunningham's revelation kicked up a huge uproar in Washington. Some Western military observers attempted to debunk the results, claiming the USAF did not bring its true 'go-to-war-gear' to these exercises and that the American pilots fought with several handicaps. What really happened?
Handicapped and totally unprepared
First up, it's true the F-15Cs that participated in Cope India 2004 were not equipped with the latest active electronically scanned array (AESA) radars. But then neither were the Indian jets. Secondly, at India's request the USAF agreed to offer combat at 3-to-1 odds, which meant the six American jets were up against 18 IAF aircraft. And finally, the Americans agreed not to simulate their beyond-visual-range (BVR) missiles. Doesn't look like a fair fight.
But wait, ask yourself, which air force would spend millions of dollars on a fortnight long exercise that ends in a turkey shoot? Not the IAF, which is a highly professional service. Also, why would the USAF bring all that high-octane military gear all that way just to get a drubbing?
The IAF believes its strength is dogfighting, for which it trains hard as Western air forces. Secondly, the service did not deploy its advanced Su-30 MKI (NATO reporting name: Flanker),
only the older Su-30, because the MKI's radar frequencies are classified. There's little advantage in letting your adversary's patron know your combat strategies.
The Indians wanting to even the odds is understandable but the United States accepting these handicaps seems counterintuitive. But in fact the
USAF agreed because it was desperate to get a close look at the legendary Flanker.
Why the USAF came up short
The lopsided result can be explained in the difference in combat styles of the two air forces. While the IAF varied aircraft mixes, altitudes and formations, the American pilot seemed stuck in the static Cold War-style of ground-controlled interceptions, which gives little leeway to the individual pilot. Weaknesses in crew performance and limitations in their range of action were evident during the simulated aerial combat.
Also, US fighter pilots train in a closed system where belief in the America military's superiority reigns supreme. The strategy is that overwhelming numbers - recall the 1,000 aircraft raids over defenceless and tiny Iraq - and technological pyrotechnics will allow the US to dominate without sweating it out. With the notable exception of Vietnam, the US has never take on a large or well-trained military - and probably never will - so the strategy has worked for it.
Also, the 1982 wipeout of the Syrian Air Force over the Bekka Valley by the Israeli Air Force in which 82 Syrian MiGs were downed against the loss of perhaps two American-built Israeli jets had reinforced the belief that US jet fighters are invincible. It was Cope India 2004 that showed the quality of the men in uniform matters more than the jets they fly.