Posted on 10/07/2004 6:46:59 AM PDT by sukhoi-30mki
3rd Wing Explains 'Cope India' Exercise Aviation Week & Space Technology 10/04/2004, page 50 David A. Fulghum Elmendorf AFB, Alaska
3rd Wing explains what happened when U.S. pilots faced innovative Indian air force tactics
Indian 'Scare'
The losing performance of F-15Cs in simulated air-to-air combat against the Indian air force this year is being perceived by some, both in the U.S. and overseas, as a weakening of American capabilities, and it is generating taunts from within the competitive U.S. fighter community.
The Cope India exercise also seemingly shocked some in Congress and the Pentagon who used the event to renew the call for modernizing the U.S. fighter force with stealthy F/A-22s and F-35 Joint Strike Fighters.
The reasons for the drubbing have gone largely unexplained and been misunderstood, according to those based here with the 3rd Wing who participated. Two major factors stand out: None of the six 3rd Wing F-15Cs was equipped with the newest long-range, active electronically scanned array (AESA) radars. These Raytheon APG-63(V)2 radars were designed to find small and stealthy targets. At India's request, the U.S. agreed to mock combat at 3-to-1 odds and without the use of simulated long-range, radar-guided AIM-120 Amraams that even the odds with beyond-visual-range kills.
These same U.S. participants say the Indian pilots showed innovation and flexibility in their tactics. They also admit that they came into the exercise underrating the training and tactics of the pilots they faced. Instead of typical Cold War-style, ground-controlled interceptions, the Indians varied aircraft mixes, altitudes and formations. Indian air force planners never reinforced failure or repeated tactics that the U.S. easily repelled. Moreover, the IAF's airborne commanders changed tactics as opportunities arose. Nor did U.S. pilots believe they faced only India's top guns. Instead, they said that at least in some units they faced a mix of experienced and relatively new Indian fighter and strike pilots.
Maj. Mark A. Snowden, the 3rd Wing's chief of air-to-air tactics and a participant in Cope India, spoke for the 13 U.S. pilots who attended the exercise. They flew six F-15Cs, each equipped with a fighter data link for rapid exchange of target information, AIM-9Xs and a Joint Helmet-Mounted Cueing System, he says. The aircraft had been to Singapore for another exercise and for the long, six-week jaunt it was decided not to bring along the additional maintenance package needed to support AESA-equipped F-15Cs.
Cope India was held Feb. 15-28 at Gwalior, about 150 mi. south of Delhi, where the Indian air force has its Tactics Air Combat Development Establishment, which operates late-model MiG-21 Fishbeds as fighter escorts and MiG-27 Floggers as strike aircraft. Aerospace officials who have heard the classified brief on the exercise say the MiG-21s were equipped with a "gray-market" Bison radar and avionics upgrade.
Mica-armed Dassault Mirages 2000s are also stationed there. Brought in for the exercise were Sukhoi Su-30s (but not the newest Su-30 MKIs) carrying simulated AA-11s and AA-12 Adders. There also were five MiG-29 Flankers involved in a peripheral role and an Antonov An-32 Cline as a simulated AWACS.
"The outcome of the exercise boils down to [the fact that] they ran tactics that were more advanced than we expected," Snowden says. "India had developed its own air tactics somewhat in a vacuum. They had done some training with the French that we knew about, but we did not expect them to be a very well-trained air force. That was silly.
"They could come up with a game plan, but if it wasn't working they would call an audible and change [tactics in flight]," he says. "They made good decisions about when to bring their strikers in. The MiG-21s would be embedded with a Flogger for integral protection. There was a data link between the Flankers that was used to pass information. [Using all their assets,] 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."
Aerospace industry officials say there's some indication that the MiG-21s also may have been getting a data feed from other airborne radars that gave them improved situational awareness of the airborne picture.
Generally the combat scenario was to have four F-15s flying at any time against about 12 Indian aircraft. While the U.S. pilots normally train to four versus 12, that takes into account at least two of the U.S. aircraft having AESA radar and being able to make the first, beyond-visual-range shots. For the exercise, both sides restricted long-range shots.
"That's what the Indians wanted to do," Snowden says. "That [handicap] really benefits a numerically superior force because you can't whittle away some of their force at long range. They were simulating active missiles [including] AA-12s." This means the missile has its own radar transmitter and doesn't depend on the launch aircraft's radar after launch. With the older AA-10 Alamo, the launching fighter has to keep its target illuminated with radar so the U.S. pilots would know when they were being targeted. But with the AA-12, they didn't know if they had been targeted. The Mirage 2000s carried the active Mica missile. Aerospace industry officials said that some of the radars the U.S. pilots encountered, including that of the Mirage 2000s, exhibited different characteristics than those on standard versions of the aircraft.
The U.S. pilots used no active missiles, and the AIM-120 Amraam capability was limited to a 20-naut.-mi. range while keeping the target illuminated when attacking and 18 naut. mi. when defending, as were all the missiles in the exercise.
"When we saw that they were a more professional air force, we realized that within the constraints of the exercise we were going to have a very difficult time," Snowden says. "In general, it looked like they ran a broad spectrum of tactics and they were adaptive. They would analyze what we were doing and then try something else. They weren't afraid to bring the strikers in high or low. They would move them around so that we could never anticipate from day to day what we were going to see."
By comparison, the U.S. pilots don't think they offered the Indians any surprises. The initial tactic is to run a wall with all four F-15s up front. That plays well when the long-range missiles and AESA radar are in play.
"You know we're there and we're not hiding," Snowden says. "But we didn't have the beyond-visual-range shot or the numerical advantage. Eventually we were just worn down by the numbers. They were very smart about it. Their goal was to get to a target area, engage the target and then withdraw without prolonging the fight. If there were a couple of Eagles still alive away from the target area, they would keep them pinned in, get done with the target and then egress with all their forces.
"All their aircraft seemed to be capable of breaking out [targets] and shooting at the ranges the exercise allowed," he says. "We generally don't train to an active missile threat [like the Mirage's Mica or the AA-12 for the Russian-built aircraft], and that was one of the things that caused us some problems."
USAF planners here see Cope India as the first step in an annual series of exchange exercises.
I read something over the weekend on this, and they were blaming the fact that the US flew without any of it's normal E3/AWAC coordination.
Well India won't be getting an AWACS till around 2008,when it's first Israeli Phalcon systems come to town-so I think that was pretty much even(though the IAF has been known to use refitted Avros & AN-32s in a rudimentary AEW role).
I think "Rokke" our F-16 driver mentioned that in the real world if they bad guys got close we had messed up 9 different ways. Apparently the rules of this test ensured the bad guys could get close.
However, I am sure that that the Indian Air Force is good, and they are on our side. This is good.
So, you didn't go to this exercise? :-)
What I heard in this was an evaluation why they got their clock cleaned. I think it was the best thing that could have happened. The best lessons are the ones that hurt your pride a little bit. They sting a lot. The point about underestimating the enemy is a lesson relearned at the beginning of many wars.
I think they will learn from this and if it ever happens again they wont go in with the same old tactics against an opponent they don't respect. Getting smacked around in training saves lives in real life.
Throughout history countries have lost battles and wars because they underestimate their opponent or don't have good intelligence about their tactics and capabilities.
It's perfectly obvious from the post that the US didn't have good intel about the Indian AF capability or equipment. Even for an exercise with a friendly force, you'd expect that we'd know about their capabilities.
Were we too lazy to distribute the intel information or did we simply not have the intelligence in our pipeline?
Shouldn't someone be put on the griddle at the Defense Intelligence Agency about this?
Hmmm. Why do you think that they are on our side?
India has not been an ally of the U.S. in the past, and it's not officially one now although there has been a rapprochement over the last few years. Pakistan is our official major non-NATO ally in that area.
If it comes to picking sides when China invades Taiwan, I am not so sure that India won't choose to quietly support China, not us. Pakistan would likely choose China, no matter what our latest alliance agreement is.
(An interesting hypothetical situation: if we take out Iran, then the balance does change a lot. If we suddenly have a very increased influence over the oil industry in that area, China might well tone down its bellowing.)
Ping...
Hmmm,India may never have been a past ally of the US,nor has it been an enemy.If you want to know about a pretty interesting phase in Indo-US ties,do a bit of research from the years 1962-late 64.India had just been defeated by China in a border war,where the Soviets stayed neutral & where the US helped,but in a limited sense,given it was tied down with the Cuban missile crisis.After the war,the US increased military aid to India,held joint air exercises(the recent ones were held after 40 yrs!!),trained special operations forces consisting of Tibetans & undertook joint surveillance of Chinese nuke assets(which had just been tested in 1963).At about the same time,someone in Washington had a brainwave & decided that Pakistan was the best bet for the US as most "experts" in the US predicted tthat a democratic & diverse India wouldn't hold together,while a dictatorial & Slammic Pakistan would serve US interests far better.Moreover Pakistan was close to Iran,the then centrepiece of US middle east policy.So the US supplied a submarine & F-104 starfighters to the Pakis & along with the Brits,denied the same stuff to India.At the same time,the Soviets invited the Indian armed forces to look at their weaponry & were very liberal in showing the Indians around.The 1965 India-Pak war(where Pakistan ,flush with US supplied weaponry launched a pre-emptive strike on India) & the coming to power of Indira Gandhi in 1967,firmly put India on the Soviet course.
But the Pakis being your allies,I have no qualms with that-but don't forget they are the world's largest nuke proliferators & along with their Saudi buddies,helped lay the seeds for Al-Qaeda & the Taliban-a pretty trustworthy ally,right??
Bout India's stance on Taiwan,I think Ive told you earlier,that it would depend on the state of Indo-US & US-Pak ties.Besides,I hope you know where US allies like Australia,Great Britain,Singapore & even South Korea stand on Taiwan-all of them are behind Beijing & are averse to participating in clash on the straits.
These exercises ,for the USAF,was the best way to take a look at the SU-30,which the People's Republic of China also operates.The Chinese SU-30s ,unlike their Indian counterparts,don't have Israeli or French electronics,so they are a bit behind the Indian Flankers on that.The Numerical mismatch(3:1) was all about what a USAF unit would face in the Taiwan straits & the weapons used (AA-11,AA-12) are all in the PLAAF's kitty.The only other users of the SU-30 are Indonesia,Malaysia(which uses slightly downgraded variant of the Indian SU-30MKI,with French avionics replacing the Israeli ones) & a variant of the MKI is reportedly being hawked to Thailand.
I personally have no affection for our government's position vis-a-vis Pakistan as an ally -- clearly, the relationship has always been one of convenience and not one of conviction -- and I would personally be happier if we did instead have India has our major ally in the region. Despite the earlier calculation that India was unstable, it has proven that Pakistan is the far more rockier of the two. Even the ascent of the BJP, which had caused some concerns over this way, has worked out well from our viewpoint.
But the Pakis being your allies,I have no qualms with that-but don't forget they are the world's largest nuke proliferators & along with their Saudi buddies,helped lay the seeds for Al-Qaeda & the Taliban-a pretty trustworthy ally,right??
I have plenty of qualms about Islamabad as an ally, starting with the fact that it is one assassination away from being an openly radical Islamist state which has an aggressive history; as it is, the ISI is indeed still the Taliban's best buddy as far as I can see. I don't think that Pakistan is trustworthy, and I certainly don't believe they would be anything other than China's friends in the event China seizes Taiwan.
Bout India's stance on Taiwan,I think Ive told you earlier,that it would depend on the state of Indo-US & US-Pak ties.Besides,I hope you know where US allies like Australia,Great Britain,Singapore & even South Korea stand on Taiwan-all of them are behind Beijing & are averse to participating in clash on the straits.
Indeed, we have discussed this issue, and I agree to the extent that our relations are in a period of flux, and thankfully very much an improving one. But at the current point (and I think Taiwan/China is very currently in play), my best guess is that India must lean toward China on this issue, as you point out, as so many other countries also already do. India, and indeed all countries, recognize geopolitical realities even what they are not always obvious to their populace.
And who knows? I could very well be wrong -- maybe India will feel that choosing the U.S. in the event would be a better move. While I don't think it would be enough to push the U.S. into an active defense of Taiwan -- at this point, our leaders have likely recognized that it is not in our interest or even ability to do so -- if the signals went out, maybe it would have effect on China's current bellicosity. As I said in the earlier posting, if we did take out Iran, I personally think that it might cool China's jets a bit also.
Do you realize what you are saying? Is this something you want to be true, or do you just believe it because you read it?
Please pay attention to this:
The U.S. military has not lost a dogfight in combat between fighter aircraft in more than 30 years. Not one dogfight. Not one. Do you read me?
It is a habit among laypersons to assume the truth from what they read in the media without question. Do you believe that the U.S. would ever in a million years discuss, print or share the actual capabilities of our weaponry with anyone? Anywhere? I would bet my life, that there are not three FReepers who know and the ACTUAL abilities of the F-15 Eagle or it's weapons systems.
When exercises are performed with other nations, we don't show up to show what we can do. We show up to see what THEY can do. We don't show them jack, my friend. Why give them the bar to shoot for? All they need to know, is that the F-15 in combat has SMOKED every opposing aircraft that came within the range of it's radar. Period.
Any nation taking comfort in the results of exercises like the one described here, would be foolish. The Indians need to justify their expenditures just like we do. If that exercise gets them a few more MiGs, good for them. We want the F-22. If that means telling a few tall ones, so be it.
I'll tell you this much, not one of those Indian pilots believes today that they can take on an Eagle in combat, and expect to live long enough to see their families again.
BVR intercepts are fine and good -- in exercises. In the real world most of the time aircrew hands are tied by a requirement to VID the target before firing. This doesn't guarantee immunity from blue-on-blue engagements, but it helps.
So in that sense, the restriction of this operation to a "knife fight" was excellent training.
I dunno why people didn't expect the Indians to be pros. They inherited a good tradition from the UK and unlike many former colonial posessions didn't get in a snit about it and throw the baby out with the bathwater.
If you're familiar with the history of the IAF there are not too many surprises here.
As far as funding, this may actually hurt the IAF. My understanding is that they would dearly like to consign the -21s and -23s to gate guards and the smelter. The -21s are old, high-time, and getting harder to maintain, and still have the safety record of a 1950s aircraft, which is to say, not good. You can IRAN them to the teeth but you can't arrest metal fatigue....
d.o.l.
Criminal NUmber 18F
If the US takes on Iran,the only effect it will have on China would be to embolden it,not make them think twice as the Iranians are likely to escalate any conflict(providing that you are talking bout the US taking out their reactor at Bushehir),which will obviously lead to the end of the Mullahs,but (crucially) leave the US taking care of another country in the ME ie US forces getting tied down.The Mullahs in Iran aren't averse to escalating a conflict & with the pretty large Shia populations in Bahrein,Lebanon,Pakistan,Saudi Arabia & Yemen,you can expect a lot of trouble.Any US action on Iran,esp if it's a longterm commitment,will give the PRC breathing space to act on Taiwan.Will the US public want to see US forces go to war with a nation with the world's largest armed forces(& 350 odd nukes) when they are taking casualities in Iraq & Iran(which contrary to what folks on FR expect will not be a cake walk)??
What decade are you talking about?
Yep ,the IAF is throwing out the (lousy) Mig-23s & Mig-25s.The Mig-25s which used to have a habit of flying over Paki cities ala the SR-71,will be replaced by the new generation UAVS ,India is acquiring from Israel like the long endurance,Heron .The 21s,though,due to their large number cannot be booted out as easily-so these are being upgraded with Russian help(& with a sufficient dose of French & Israeli tech) to have a new Kopyo M radar,AA-12 missiles & ability to operate PGMs.The IAF is also upgrading it's Mig-27 & Jaguar attack jets with Israeli help ,including installing Synthetic aperature radar,air to air missiles & the Litening targetting pod.The IAF recently invited bids for over 120 multirole jets-the prime contender is the French Mirage-2005 MK2,followed by the Russian Mig-29M,while the Eurofighter & Swedish JAS-39 Gripen are the darkhorses.The IAF already operates the Mirage-2000 & Mig-29s(fighter variant),so logistics is'nt a problem for those 2.
Have you read Douglas MacGregor's latest book?
He laid out the number of air-to-air engagements in Korea, 'Nam, Desert Storm, Bosnia, and Afghanistan.
Basically, the number of air-to-air engagements has dropped precipitously the entire time.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.