Regarding the Stupid White Men

When questioned on the capabilities of IAF pilots, Col Greg Newbech, USAF Team Leader made the following remarks: -

- What we’ve seen in the last two weeks is, the IAF can stand toe-to-toe with best AF 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.

- Indian hospitality from everyone has been truly overwhelming.

- The greatest compliment we heard from an IAF pilot – You American pilots are just like us, simply down to earth people.

- We depart India with great respect for the Indian Air Force. Your pilots, maint and support crew are exceptional professionals.

The Indian Air Force now looks forward to meeting the USAF in Alaska during Ex Cope Thunder-04.

Are Indian Fighter Pilots better than US Fighter Pilots?

Posted by vkthakur on 23 June 2004 (EST)

The first bilateral dissimilar air combat (DACT) exercise between the U.S. Air Force and the Indian air force in more than 40 years, Cope India 2004, took place at Gawalior, India in Feb this year. Did the IAF pilots out perform the USAF pilots during the exercise.
The first bilateral dissimilar air combat (DACT) exercise between the U.S. Air Force and the Indian air force in more than 40 years, Cope India 2004, took place at Gawalior, India in Feb this year. This blog had carried a report on the exercise.

Reportedly, the exercise found mention in the Senate Appropriations defense subcommittee in March when Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. John Jumper stated that the results of Cope India were ``very revealing``. He did not elaborate. Earlier, Rep. Duke Cunningham (R-CA) said in a Feb. 26 House Appropriations defense subcommittee hearing that U.S. F-15Cs were defeated more than 90 percent of the time in direct combat exercises against the IAF!

These are startling assertions, to say the least! Are they true? is the question doing the rounds on Internet forums frequented by Fighter Flying enthusiasts.

I have no intention of attempting to answer that question. Instead, what I will do is attempt to put it in the right perspective. In doing so, my hope is to make the question irrelevant.

While the Internet is an excellent source of information, it is not always a reliable source of information. It is always a good idea to be skeptical about anything published on the internet that does not originate on an official website or does not refer to a verifiable source. And by that logic, what I say here should also be treated with due skepticism. For the purpose of this article I will assume that the congressional report being cited on internet forums is indeed authentic.


http://kuku.sawf.org/Articles/139.aspx

Are Indian pilots better that their USAF counterparts ?
By thomas on 19 August 2004 (EST)
Dear Mr. Thakur,

I read with much interest your views on the IAF pilots performance during Operation Cope Thunder.Personally I think you have analysed it in a very objective manner and have kept away the ``patriotic`` aspect that may probably have caused a bias in judgement.

When a leading newspaper came out with this article I was asked this same question by a few members of the ``Non Flying`` population.I think the ``patriotic`` aspect got the better of them and they felt that we could win any war under any circumstance - well why not look at India in the IT industry we are simply the best and we are much better than the Americans - I really didn`t want to comment at that point in time as I really didn`t have the facts and figures.

My personal view is that by being of a particular racial origin , one does not necessarily have to be a great pilot.It is the training and the individual aptitude that make one a good pilot.Despite our strong performance in the concerned exercise , we need to ask ourselves , what would it be like in a real war ? What would it be like to go into combat with a country which has far superior technology although limited in numbers ? It may be prudent for our strategic thinkers / planners to look beyond Pakistan and Southern China as areas of combat and possible threats and plan accordingly.

As for many people out there who think that our pilots are simply the best - along with the IT chaps - it would be a good idea to watch the aerobatic displays of the Blue Angels , Thunderbirds , Red Arrows , Anatoly Kvotchur , Viktor Pugachev and the likes.It doesn`t really leave much to the imagination.

Cheers
Thomas.
Reply to this Comment

ylh #383

{You people have never come up with a convincing argument...}

Sez who?

{I have always found some source or the other clearly pointing out the lies that you Indians love shoving down everyone`s throat}

What sources, and how reputable? How about `garbage in, garbage out`?

ylh # 384

{Oh so now the convoluted reply}

`Convoluted` because you don`t like the conclusions that it will force on you? Because you can`t answer it, or deal with it? Is it because you are a total innumerate and fear and hate numbers? If so, how did you manage to graduate from that distinguished Ivy League alma mater of yours? You ought to demand a tuition refund from Rutgers.

{comes down to an explanation of the `mind of the Bania`... how come you don`t fall in the same category}

I may very well, and I may be proud of it. I gather that `bania` is a pejorative term among the brainwashed India-hating youth of Pakistan - it may not be where I come from.

{Wonderful explaining away... typical indian style.. if all of this drivel is still `conservative` I would love to see how you guys exaggerate... wait.. wait.. we already know!}

`Exaggerate` or not, the plain, brutal truth, which you are forced to confront, is that Pakistan failed to achieve its objectives in the 1965 war, and suffered a humiliating (though richly deserved) defeat devoid of dignity in 1971, despite all the pathetic chest-thumping PR, before and after, of your all-conquering Shaheens.

Further, the world-renowned, `one of the best, most combat-ready` PAF was nowhere to be found in Kargil, in its grand old tradition of `let the army fend for itself`, while its opponents flew sortie after sortie to decimate Pakistani troops on the heights. Try to explain THAT away. I note that you produced no answer to #366 - given your known loquacity I can only infer that you HAVE NO ANSWER that you can stomach to the question why the PAF was absent at Kargil.

{You people lost over 100 planes in the past few years... at this rate in the next war PAF will not need to fight...}

Curiously, I don`t see any cockiness in statements of retired Air Chief Marshal Pervez Mehdi Qureshi when he whines about the yawning technological disparity between the IAF and the PAF. As for retired Air Marshal Ayaz Ahmed Khan, it`s a treat to watch the man fret in article after article in that august publication, Pakistan Defence Journal - begging for contemporary aircraft to be acquired to address the `imbalance`, fulminating about the non-supply of 71 F-16s, asking that the Chinese be urged to get cracking on the FC-1, begging for the acquisition of Mirage 2000-5s, even of 50 Su-27s! These gentlemen appear to have lost some of their capacity for self-delusion as they aged. Just hope and pray that you acquire the same wisdom some day.

Oh so now the convoluted reply comes down to an explanation of the `mind of the Bania`... how come you don`t fall in the same category

Wonderful explaining away... typical indian style.. if all of this drivel is still `conservative` I would love to see how you guys exaggerate... wait.. wait.. we already know!

You people lost over 100 planes in the past few years... at this rate in the next war PAF will not need to fight...

So whose asking you to debate with me?

You people have never come up with a convincing argument... I have always found some source or the other clearly pointing out the lies that you Indians love shoving down everyone`s throat.

ylh #369

{If after admitting that the Highest number of kills are attributed to Pakistani aces, Pakistani pilots have more air to air kills than Indians, and PAF has won all the classic air combat maneuvres...}

There you go again ... you are predictably obsessed with air-to-air combat as the be-all and end-all of an air force.

Let me start at the beginning and try to explain this from first principles.

War is not a game or a sporting contest. It is fought for deadly serious reasons, not for stupid bragging rights. The overriding aim is not to rack up some kind of score. It is not even to kill a larger number of the enemy or destroy more of his materiel, though killing and destruction in the course of war is usually a regrettable necessity. The point is to achieve your set political objective, at the lowest cost to yourself.

Therefore the overall measure of the performance of some instrument of war, a navy or an air force for example, has to be the EFFECTIVENESS WITH WHICH IT FURTHERED WAR AIMS. None of the activities of that war instrument make any sense outside this context. This overall judgement has to be qualitative for obvious reasons. In the case of a clearly won war (WON in the sense: POLITICAL OBJECTIVES WERE ACHIEVED, not in the sense of some sort of stupid score) the judgement has to be how the air force in question materially contributed to the victory. In the case of a lost war the question has to be how the air force in question obstructed the other side`s attainment of final victory. In the case of a stalemated war ... I hope you get the point. Please note that this judgement, which is what matters most at the end of the day, is not a comparison with the opposing air force (if any) for superiority/inferiority etc.

After that overall judgement, one can look at air force performance more closely, in quantitative fashion. Here the question has to be - the effort expended, the costs incurred, the results achieved. There are any number of numerical indices that make sense here to look at one part or other of the picture. Measure of effort might include the number of sorties flown, of various kinds; tonnage of bombs dropped on enemy targets, etc. One measure of cost would be the number of aircraft lost, to all causes. Measures of results achieved might include enemy tanks destroyed, enemy aircraft destroyed, airfields put out of commission, total economic damage inflicted, etc. Measures of efficiency might then include - the number of targets of various types destroyed per ground attack sortie, etc. measures of expensiveness might include the attrition rate (number of aircraft of each type lost per 100 sorties by that type). Once you have the numbers you can ask all kinds of questions, e.g what fraction of an air force`s effort was spent merely defending its own assets (e.g. through air defence sorties over its own air space), what fraction in neutralising the enemies air defences (radars, SAM batteries, etc.), what fraction in furthering a ground or sea war, etc. You can then also see whether your air defence sorties were in fact more cost effective than your SAMs in bringing down enemy aircraft; or whether a certain specialised ground attack aircraft was in fact effective against its designated targets. But of course all of these numbers occur in the context of a particular war, against a specific enemy, and don`t make sense outside that context.

Finally, you may want to focus on a specific kind of proficiency - say, in air-to-air combat (that famous Pakistani obsession). Here, if you really want a fair measure of pilot competence, you will have to factor out the differences in performance of dissimilar aircraft (for instance, the PAFs F-86 Sabres seemed to be more maneouvreable than the IAFs Hunters, but less so than the Gnats), and the different armanents involved (e.g. one side, such as the PAF in 1965 & 1971 - has a usable air-to-air-missile, the other doesn`t). So a `fair` test is only possible in exercises, not in the real world of the Indo-Pakistan wars. Further, some matchups are obviously skewed, in that one of the types involved is not primarily designed for air-to-air combat. [Thus the Canberra bombers (English and American) used by both sides were not air combat types at all; and the SU-7 was a dedicated ground-attack aircraft (like the Jaguar) with limited air combat capability.] The best that one can do is look at how comparable aircraft of different sides performed against each other. Even here, the performance is heavily influenced by mission. A dedicated air defence mission flown over one`s home air base is very different from a mission to attack a target in enemy territory while carrying munitions, drop tanks and limited self-defence capability and with tight fuel constraints. Air combat occuring under such circumstances is going to be skewed towards the `home` side.

The point of all the excruciating pedantry above is to indicate how one needs to approach the question of how an air force performed, and what disclaimers to keep in mind if your numbers and conclusions are to be worth anything at all. A statistic such as `highest number of kills` (verified or otherwise) may be useful for inflaming a population with patriotic sentiments; heroic achievements of some ace or the other can be relied upon to fill the heads of impressionable schoolboys with tales of derring-do. But it`s meaningless in the larger scheme of things. It isn`t going to make any difference to the unsentimental flint-hearted bania when he works out his profit-and-loss account after a war and decides whether that expensive supersonic flying club called the IAF paid for its exorbitant price tag; whether those air force types were justified in claiming some of their aircraft obselete and demanding that they be replaced with more modern types; etc.

Now, would you like to assess the overall performance of the two air forces in 1965, in 1971, in Kargil in light of the above? Can you comment on the breakup of Indian losses by type, with reference to the role(s) played by each type. And would you like to do a close reading of Jagan`s loss figures - broken up by aircraft type - to see how the IAFs Gnats performed against the PAFs F-86s in 1971, and how the PAFs F-104s did against the IAFs MiG-21s? Can you explain why I`ve focused on just these pairs? Would you care to assess - fairly, and with reasons - whether these matchups were evenly balanced?

{if Jagan Mohan doesn`t admit that PAF`s superiority... it just proves one thing: He is an Indian, hence he is unable to be fairminded.}

On the contrary, Jagan is probably too sharp to fall into the stupid trap of declaring one air force or the other `superior`. YLH, let me give you a little insight into the mentality of the bania. He is most conservative and ungenerous and merciless in assessing the performance of his own portfolio. That is what keeps him securely in the black. And that is what enabled the IAF to learn from its mistakes in 1965 and do what was required of it in 1971. Further, the bania whether by accident or design has refrained from sponsoring a major national cult around his armed forces. This enables him to use them when appropriate without losing face at the first setback - for instance, in Kargil in May 1999.

Whereas Pakistan through poor judgement and lack of foresight invested a tremendous amount of national pride in the image of the air force, inflating its real achievements in 1965 and investing it with an aura of invincibility. Thus critical analysis of its performance in 1971 is in short supply in Pakistan. Nor could the PAF be used in Kargil, because doing so would have damaged that make-believe image of `superiority`.

Ok Ylh, can you point to a single instance where you have even to the slightest extent modified your views based on what you read on Chowk. I dont recall any so what use is it debating with a person who is convinced he is always right?

Typical Indian way of admitting defeat..

Call your opponent a Nincumpoop... especially when you can`t beat him on the facts...

Im gonna take a pass on the ``who has the best air force`` debate.

However, please let me know when you guys begin discussing the intricacies of ``who`s daddy is the coolest`` or ``who has the hairiest next door neighbour.``

Im gonna take a pass on the ``who has the best air force`` debate.

However, please let me know when you guys begin discussing the intricacies of ``who`s daddy is the coolest`` or ``who has the hairiest next door neighbour.``

For MUSLIMS & Islam-lovers only

Rest: S C R O L L

__________________________________________________

ISLAM AND MODERNISM - II





In his view, Shariah embraces both law and religion. Religion is based upon spiritual experience; law is based upon the will of the community as expressed by its legislature, or any other law-making authority. Religion is unchangeable in its inermost kernel - the love of God for His own sake is sung by sufis and mystices throughout the world.28

Fyzee said that ``the separation of civil law from the moral or religious law can now no longer be delayed in Islam. We must in the first instance distinguish between the universal and particular moral rules. And then we must deal with the law. The first task is to separate logically the dogmas and doctrines of religion from the principles and rules of law. The essential faith of man is something different from the outward observance of rules; moral rules apply to the consience, but legal rules can be enforced by the state. The innter life of the spiriti, the ``Idea of the Holy,`` m ust be separated to some extent from the outward forms of social behaviour. The separation is not simple; it will even be considered un-Islamic. But the attempt at a rethinking of the Shariah can only begin with the acceptance of this principle.`` 29............

Continued............

www.ghazali.net

re:Reply #: 371

RSaxena,

Also interesting is the fact that commando units of US and India will be doing joint exercises in Agra against the backdrop of Taj Mahal. I learnt of joint commando exercises by US and Israel in the past. Why India? I think it has something to do with what happens if Mushy boy is eliminated by ISI or his own army brass and a fundoo takes over. The commandos will be expected to be ready for a doomsday scenario when the nuclear arsenal falls into wrong hands.

Sridhar

AlephNull #366

Yaar, aur kuch kaam-dhanda nahin hai? who are you wasting your time with this nicompoop.

PS : Check out this page by Jagan Mohan..

You will find a number of Gnats, Migs, and even a few SU 7s shot down by the PAF...

http://members.tripod.com/

More on Indian Mythology...

Hari Inder,

Your statement that the `Sabre was a frontline jet in the USAF` smacks of typical ignorance of the Indian variety... F 86 had been rendered obselete in the mid 1950s. By 1965 USAF didn`t even use the Aircraft... USAF had F 4 Phantoms as the frontline Plane... Infact IAF had the most superior aircraft in subcontinent the Mig 21...

Furthermore, PAF only had some 100 + aircrafts (mostly obselete F 86 Sabres and 10 F 104s).. you fellas had something in ball park of 500+...

-YLH

PS Ignorance is not a bliss!