Migfan From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 3, posted (6 years 10 months 1 week 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 3289 times:
I for one would not want to face China in a military conflict. The sheer numbers that are employed are staggering. The Chinese do not have the most advanced technology, but they have lots of older technology. China is more of an economic threat, than a military threat.
The UK are front-line professionals all of the way. Too bad, their services are being whittled away be accountants. The need of the times are being met by some excellent aircraft, Typhoon, Tornado, and Sentry. AEW/C3 capability is essential on the digital battlefield.
The Russian armed forces are hurting, that both good and bad. Good for her enemies that her conventional forces suffer from old equipment, poor facilities and the of a stable environment. Bad for her enemies is the instability which can lead to all sorts of politcal nightmares. Russia's nuclear capability keeps her as a player on the world's political stage.
The US is the US. We are involved in a global conflict on two fronts. That is bad from any strategic standpoint. Further, the US is fighting a war that it's services are not fully trained to face. An F-22 does not mean a whole lot to a terrorist. Other air forces who would challenge, know better than to meet America in the air. Political leadership is taking the armed forces down a road that may not be the best for them.
Just my thoughts, no offense meant to the people of any nation discussed.
BarfBag From India, joined Mar 2001, 2050 posts, RR: 6 Reply 4, posted (6 years 10 months 1 week 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 3257 times:
Quoting MigFan (Reply 1): This is not air-related, but the Indian Navy did at one time posess a nuclear attack submarine, INS Chakra. I am not sure if they still do.
The INS Chakra was on lease from the Soviet Navy. It went back around the time the USSR fell apart. India is building its own nuclear subs, under the Advanced Technology Vessel (ATV) project. Details are sketchy, since it is one of the most secretive projects in India. It isn't clear whether there'll just be an SSBN or both SSN and SSBNs; the SLBM variant of the Agni-III ICBM will arm them.
AGM100 From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 5407 posts, RR: 17 Reply 5, posted (6 years 10 months 1 week 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 3250 times:
Through out history the Indian Military has been very well trained and disciplined. There is know reason to believe that these traditions would not carry over to the modern force. They have very good equipment , which of course if used properly is very formidable.
I do not think India would do well in a scenario like air superiority achievement against the US/USSR. But they would hold their own against there immediate neighbours for sure.
I think India needs to buy F-22'S and F-35'S !!! It would sure make Uncle Sam happy !!
You dig the hole .. I fill the hole . 100% employment !
Quoting Scramble on the Web: The Indian Air Force has accepted that the increased costs of maintaining a modern and effective air force in the future would necessitate a reduction in quantitative levels. The MiG-21bis-UPG (or MiG-21 Bison as they are called by the IAF) upgrade programme is finally well underway. IAF's second-generation fighter types - the MiG-29 and Mirage 2000 - will see an intensive avionics upgrade as well as the ability for some of the MiG-29s being equipped for air refuelling. The multi-role capability and very high serviceability of the Mirage 2000 (close to 90%), has led the Indian Air Force placing an order for an additional ten aircraft to be delivered by 2004. The Sukhoi Su-30MK/MKI is the most important combat aircraft programme currently underway. The licence production of this combat aircraft is to start in 2004 and will be completed by 2017. The first Su-30MKs (eighteen aircraft in service with No. 24 Squadron) will be converted to the MKI configuration as soon as the 32 Su-30MKIs built in Russia have been delivered by 2003.
As far as training is concerned the Indian Air Force finally agreed on the choice for the Advanced Jet Trainer (AJT) programme. The contract for a total of 66 Hawk Mk132 was officially signed in Delhi on March 26, 2004. The first Hawks can be found on the productionline at BAE Warton. The delivery schedule for the UK build Hawks will be between September 2007 and February 2008 whereas the locally build Hawks will be delivered between 2008 and 2010. In the meantime, the HJT-36 Sitara (Intermediate Jet Trainer) is under full-scale development and is expected to enter service in 2004 to replace the HJT-16 Kiran.
Not much about how good they are, but I would put the air forces in order of overall fighting might this way
US-Well, yeah, it is the US
China-Nothing will stop thousands of planes, save enough F15s and F22s
Russia-Just a little money, and they would be running with the US
India-More modern than China, but smaller
England/France-Not that big, but I wouldn't mess with it
"We have slain a large dragon, but we now live in a jungle filled with a bewildering variety of poisonous snakes."
Aseem From India, joined Feb 2005, 2042 posts, RR: 11 Reply 10, posted (6 years 10 months 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 3087 times:
Quoting AislepathLight (Reply 7): The delivery schedule for the UK build Hawks will be between September 2007 and February 2008 whereas the locally build Hawks will be delivered between 2008 and 2010. In the meantime, the HJT-36 Sitara (Intermediate Jet Trainer) is under full-scale development and is expected to enter service in 2004 to replace the HJT-16 Kiran.
anybody having idea how the HJT-36 Sitara compares to British built Hawks?
RAPCON From Puerto Rico, joined Jul 2006, 671 posts, RR: 0 Reply 13, posted (6 years 10 months 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 3050 times:
Quoting HAWK21M (Thread starter): Reading a Posts on Airforce v/s Airforce of Different countries.
How Highly would the Indian Air Force [IAF] be rated.
Good enough to keep the neighbor out east in check, and the one up north from doing something stupid!
1. Fighter/Attack force needs to be standardized. There are too many different types (MIG 21, 23, 27, 29, M2000, SU's, Jags). It's gotta be a logistician's nightmare. Go with a SU, F18, Jag force. Everything else gets scrapped.
2. Transport fleet appears well balanced and capable. Time to retire the AN32's (now, not 20 years from now with some weak home built). Go 130J. Get the license and build them at home.
3. All helo's to the Indian Army. They'll operate them more efficiently vis their requirements.
4. TAKE CARE OF YOUR TROOPS. Pilots are underpaid, facilities need to be improved.
5. For God's sake someone do something about the procurement process
And, keep strengthening the ties with western militaries, and training with them (wave gbye to the Russkies).
MODS CAN'T STOP ME....THEY CAN ONLY HOPE TO CONTAIN ME!!!
AislepathLight From United States of America, joined Dec 2005, 562 posts, RR: 0 Reply 15, posted (6 years 10 months 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 3042 times:
Quoting Maiznblu_757 (Reply 14): The Indians are really interested in the Super Hornet. I wouldnt be surprised if they order up to 120 Super's as well as F-16's.
It's amazing to see that quite a few around have finally decided that the F18 is "the plane". Even though I have some hard fealings about it replacing the dear F14, it is a great plane. Being able to truck around so many AMRAAMs is great, and it can also do its share of ground attack. But still, I think that it cost a little much to develop, with its two roles for one plane deal. The F16 and F15 both have fit itself nicely in that niche for the airforce, and the F18 has done the same for the navy.
"We have slain a large dragon, but we now live in a jungle filled with a bewildering variety of poisonous snakes."
BarfBag From India, joined Mar 2001, 2050 posts, RR: 6 Reply 18, posted (6 years 10 months 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 2974 times:
Quoting RAPCON (Reply 17): As long as India does not something against the US interests!
That summarizes the whole problem. Indian foreign policy is simply too independent to be beholden to such a consideration. Unfortunately, the US apparently tends to see it as binary 'with us or against us' logic. That's not quite the case; no wilful antagonism is intended, just that only self-interest is permanent, not friends or enemies.
There has never been war between India and the US. The only time things came close was in 1971 when the US sent the USS Enterprise task force to try and get us to stop pounding Pakistan to a pulp, but we refused. The US role as a global power puts it at odds with large regional powers everywhere, because the US intrudes on what they see as their area of primary influence. It has nothing to do with the malevolence of the US; it is a fact that every power sees a region of influence for itself - the US began with the Monroe Doctrine. All powers have a similar mindset, and do not take kindly to the presence of another, unless they are the dominant one in the area.
Russia and France (and Israel, when they can act independently) are excellent choices because they are smaller powers who are reliable, and are unlikely to ever face a conflict of interest with us. The Russians may be a sizeable power, but our ties to them have historically always been cordial. For India, it is better to deal with them than have to put up with some Congressman on the hill passing an amendment because we did something innocuous like a few thermonuclear tests. Sanctions against a country like India simply do not work; it just costs you business with us.
BarfBag From India, joined Mar 2001, 2050 posts, RR: 6 Reply 23, posted (6 years 10 months 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 2915 times:
Quoting RAPCON (Reply 20): Then buy frenchie. But the "cost of business" with us requires strings and conditions. India doesn't like it, it can go somewhere else to buy. The US won't be offended one bit.
It's the other way around. We have buyer's choice. The US is just one of several sellers who are vying for our RFPs. It sees its chances brightening due to the upswing in ties, but it is still hampered by its own geopolitical position.
Blrsea From India, joined May 2005, 1227 posts, RR: 3 Reply 24, posted (6 years 10 months 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 2896 times:
Quoting RAPCON (Reply 22):
I don't doubg that, but that's irrelevant to the fact that MIG (the Russian Company) is going down fast. Even the Russian AF has stopped purchasing MIG's.
India has ordered 16 Mig-29s for our Navy. They will be based on the Admiral Gorshkov aircraft carrier that has been ordered. IN may go in for more purchases later on. Mig-27s are being upgraded, and they might use the new engines developed by Russian firm. IAF too has 45+ Mig-29s which are scheduled for upgrades in the near future, and no doubt Mig corp will play a major role there too. I wouldn't write off Mig series so fast. The soviet philosophy was to have simple aircraft which can be mass produced. They did the job they were supposed to do effectively, but were labor intensive, which isn't a problem for India
US Super Hornets are good, but it will depend on the political bonhomie between the two countries, and the amount of technology transfer that India will get. Russia and France have been good in that aspect. When US imposed sanctions on India after our nuclear tests in 1998, some of our seaking helicopters were grounded. India wouldn't like to have a huge percentage of its airforce grounded by a fickle seller. It will depend on the types of guarantees that US will offer to offset any potential sanctions in future.
India now has a policy where in any major purchases above $100 million dollars need to have atleast 30% offset to Indian industries. US companies are not so keen on that clause and were trying to get it waived off through diplomatic channels. Russia and France don't have any issues with that.
There are quite a few variables at work, and given India's delays in making any decision, I wouldn't hold my breath on decisions for the major 126 aircraft aquisitions coming in any soon.
25 RAPCON: The Russians have, and I have too. BTW, I can't wait to see the Indian MIG29's taking off from the carrier....with a full load.
26 Migfan: They'll do it just fine, I am sure. We're talking about an aircraft that can get airborne in under a thousand feet with a full load. No catapult. /M
27 RAPCON: Migfan, You ever been on a carrier at sea? Or gotten shot out of a cat? I have. Guess what? It takes a lot of hummph to get a fully loaded combat jet
28 AislepathLight: Where/When? Or even the the F18E/Fs... I think that they (Super Hornets) are better than MIG29s (operating from a carrier or land) or F16s. You gotta
29 RAPCON: In 1990 I had 4 trap/cats out of both JFK & SARA on C-2. In 1991 I got a nice 2hr ride on one of the back seats of an EA6B on KITTY HAWK. What's this
30 AislepathLight: I meant that we could sell F18s to them (you don't even need a Lightning II). I am all for the Super Hornet Sound amazing!
31 MigFan: Nope, I am an Army guy. My flight time has been in UH-1s, UH-60s and other types. However, I can read and do the math. Your claims are well and just.
32 AislepathLight: MigFan... we are talking about the MIG29, not the SU27. Thanks for the incite though.
33 MigFan: Oh.. Okay Same idea, we can start splitting hairs if necessary. If anything, the Su-27 extends the idea that a conventional aircraft can operate witho