| WIKI | FAQ | Tech FAQ | |
 http://csua.com/feed/ | |
| ||||||
| 5/25 |
| 2004/7/19-21 [Reference/Military] UID:32366 Activity:insanely high |
7/19 IAF (Indian Air Force)'s SU30 kicked USAF's F15C's arse in combat
exercise in India:
http://vayu-sena.tripod.com/exercise-iaf-usaf-su30-f15-article01.html
\_ I thought the point with an F-15 is you point the missiles from
well out of visual range and run away at high speed while the
tracking computer takes care of the rest.
\_ time to offshore the air force. W00t!
\_ dude, India has an airforce? I mean, most of the Indians I know
are so myopic that they can barely drive a car and all...
\_ Cope India '04 is old news.
\_ This is not surprising. The F-15 took to the air in 1972, the C
variant in 1979. The Su-27, on which the Su-30 is based, took to
air along with the MiG-29 in the mid-80's, while the Su-30 itself
first flew in 1989. The F-15 in all variants is widely held to be
at best equal if not inferior to the Su-30, MiG-29 and other more
modern fighters. The F-15 is less maneuverable for engagement
inside visual range and also loses BVR where the Su-30 can track
a target and launch a missle well before the F-15. --Jon
\_ did the USAF outsource their pilots? Seriously, there were
reports on the unpatriotic public tv stations about russian pilot
superiority as well. US pilots don't train that much fighting the
old-fashioned "dog fights". It costs too much. USAF depends on
firing missiles from far away to kill planes. the russian planes
were very good as well. they don't need to be pampered like
US planes.
\_ I thought I saw a statistic somewhere that BVR kills only
account for a tiny fraction of total US air-to-air victories.
In most cases, you still need to come head-to-head and
visually identify your adversary.
\_ During Vietnam, the Sparrow radar guided missle had less
than a 10% kill rate. As the Grumman F-4 II did not have
a cannon until very late in Vietnam, well, do the math.
Pilots in the F-4 were getting 2 MiG shot down for every
F-4 lost to enemy fire.
\_ I thought F-4s were getting their butts kicked by the
MiGs until the Navy instituted Top Gun school. Also,
they had short-range missles at their disposal, not
just Sparrows.
\_ ...Most of which was ground fire. -John
\_ The usual rule has been that US planes have better avionics,
such as radio/radar/location/mapping/etc compared to Soviet
and other fighters of similar range, but lose to the same
fighters inside visual range due to lack of maneuverability
and lack of pilot training on ACM. Example, the Soviet
air force had vectored thrust in 1990 -- USAF is just getting
around to using it now.
\_ The F-15C is the Air Force's "Best Fighter?" By what metric?
Sheesh.
\_ By the metric of "planes actually in service". F-22 is not
scheduled to have an operational squadron till 2005. F-35 is
even farther away. F-16 vs F-15 could be interesting. ditto
for F-14 and F-18. But, given improvements in avionics, and
its single task focus, the -C (and the two seater -D) are
the USAF's primary assets for air superiority.
\_ Yeah, F-15C is the designated air-superiority plane. If you
look at the history of the F-16 versus F-15 it's interesting.
The F-16 does seem to be basically superior except that it
can't match the speed or ceiling of F-15 for interceptions.
It seems like in theory the F-16 could be better if it had the
air-to-air focus of USAF. It's also a lot cheaper.
\_ some other numbers:
thrust/wt at max takeoff weight: F-15: .73, F-16: .77
Wingloading (lb/ft^2): F-15: 112, F-16: 85
The F-15 and F-16 are at their base excellent platforms
for air superiority, just under different conditions.
The F-15 was designed as an all-weather day/night fighter.
The F-16 as a day fighter which, to appease certain groups
within the USAF, also got pushed into air-ground strike
roles. The F-16 wins over the F-15 in maneuverability,
smaller RCS, price, and acceleration. The F-15 wins in
top speed, max altitude, range/combat persistence, rate
of climb, and combat payload. The F-16 also pioneered
fly-by-wire, HOTAS, radar/HUD integration, and negative
stability. It was in many ways a guinea pig for new
technologies, whereas the F-15 was more traditional.
F-15 pilots with the one exception of F-15E pilots
spend all of their time doing air-air scenario training
whereas F-16 pilots all split their flight training
between air-air, air-ground. The F-15 is an interceptor,
the big gun. The F-16 is the inclose knife fighter.
\_ I'm not an expert on airplanes. What exactly does the
Wingloading number mean? Is it plane weight divided by
wing area? I'm guessing the plane with the lower number
would have greater ability to climb at a given airspeed
but singe a larger wing means more drag, which plane has
better climbing ability when they don't have excess
speed to bleed off?
\_ I thought there were several models of F15 after the -C?
\_ The F-15D is the two seater version of the -C.
The F-15E Strike Eagle is the ground attack/fighter
multi-role compromise. It does well, but due to the -15's
optimization as a highly maneuverable air surperiority
fighter, it's somewhat hard to control at low altitude
highspeed due to turbulence in those conditions.
There are also export version of the -15 to countries
like Japan, Israel and Saudi Arabia.
highspeed due to turbulence in those conditions. This
is also a problem with the F-16 in certain a-g strike
roles, again at low-altitude. There are also export
version of the F-15 to countries like Japan, Israel and
Saudi Arabia.
\_ The article says that the USAF faced numerical disadvantage in
the exercises. I don't think there's a single nation that can
pose that problem in real combat. As always, numerical
superiority helps a lot. There won't be much dogfighting
against F117s supported by AWACs.
\_ Various people on former Soviet miliary:
Quantity has a certain quality all its own.
\_ Dean Ing, "Systemic Shock", Ace books, 1981. Look up
"Wall of Lenin". -John
\_ BTW Indians just signed a contract to buy Isreali AWACS systems
mounted on russian transport planes. China is also close to
signing a deal for buying Russian AWACS systems (which are
supposedly inferior to Israeli ones but US objected to the
Phacon sale to China).
\_ The Israeli should name it Phalcon instead of Phacon.
Sounds nicer.
\_ Its common knowledge that USAF sandbags these demos. It
really means very little.
\_ What do you mean by "sandbags?" I've never heard that term
before.
\_ next guy who fires on our planes gets shelled with something larger
\_ Intentionally appearing weaker than you really are. I
think the term comes from poker:
http://www.fact-index.com/s/sa/sandbagging__poker_.html
\_ I think it comes from horse racing, where you would
tie bags of sand to your horse in trials to make
it appear slower. \_ corrected typo
\_ Holy nerdfest Batman! Where did all the armchair generals come from?
\_ do you live in Little India, errr, I mean, Sunnyvale?
\_ I love how this troll was brought back sans verbal diarrea that
originally followed it.
\_ the wonders of the magic motd archive.
\_ What is a wonder is that someone is deeply disturbed enough
to invest that much energy in the motd. This means you,
kchang.
\_ You shouldn't be so hard on kchang. His thing, with
some development, could have more useful applications
than the motd. Web-based version control, for example.
-- ilyas
\_ why dont you tell us about the stars you
frigging kchang sympathizer?
\_ Uh, w00t?
\_ Do you know each other?
\_ We never met. We exchanged a few emails. -- ilyas
\_ I am surprised that their saying that an upgraded Mig-21 could be
a formidable adversary for F-15c. Can an upgrade program really
improve that much the old vintage piece of junk that Mig-21 is?
If yes, the engineers at Mig had done a pretty darn good job.
\_ first of all, Mig 21 was not a junk at first place. Secondly,
I think when they talk about "upgrade," they are really talking
about builing a new plane based upon an old design, no? |
| 5/25 |
|
| vayu-sena.tripod.com/exercise-iaf-usaf-su30-f15-article01.html A recent exercise with the Indian Air Force is causing US Air Force officials to re-evaluate the way the service trains its fighter pilots while bolstering the case for buying the F/A-22 as a way to ensure continued air dominance for the United States, according to service officials. The surprising sophistication of Indian fighter aircraft and skill of Indian pilots demonstrated at the Cope India air combat exercise Feb. The event was the first-ever air combat exercise involving the US and India and the most active bilateral military exchange in over 40 years, according to these officials. capabilities around the world and what technology is limited to in the F-15 airframe, said Col. Mike Snodgrass, commander of the 3rd Wing at Elmendorf Air Force Base, AK. about as far as we can and its now time to move to the next generation. Snodgrass, who has been selected to receive his first star, and two other wing officials spoke with Inside the Air Force June 2 Exercise Cope India 2004 - IAF Su-30 and USAF F-15C in formation The Air Force has been arguing the absolute necessity of the F/A-22 since the program began. But the performance of the Indians in direct competition against the Air Forces best fighter, the F-15C, was particularly striking evidence of an endangered US lead in air combat capability, the statements of service officials indicate. John Jumper told the Senate Appropriations defense subcommittee in March that the results of Cope India were very revealing, although he declined to elaborate in a public forum. Privately, other senior service officials have pointed to Cope India as evidence that continued US air superiority is dependent on the F/A-22. Although service officials have been reluctant to detail how the Indians performed against the six F-15Cs from the 3rd Wing that participated in Cope India, Rep. Officials from the 3rd Wing at Elmendorf did not provide specifics about how their aircraft fared, but said the experience is causing the service to reevaluate the way it trains its pilots for air-to-air operations. What happened to us was it looks like our red air training might not be as good because the adversaries are better than we thought, Snodgrass said. And in the case of the Indian Air Force both their training and some of their equipment was better than we anticipated. Red air refers to the way the Air Force simulates enemy capability in air combat training. Because the service has assumed for years that its fighters are more capable than enemy aircraft, the US pilots that simulate the enemy, known as red forces, in air combat training are required to operate under rules that constrain their combat capability. We have always believed that our technology was superior to everyone elses technology, that we would fight a somewhat inferior adversary, so we have had to supply a simulated adversary from our own resources; Exercise Cope India 2004 - USAF F-15C and IAF MiG-21 Bisons (MiG-21 Upgrades) in formation As a result, Air Force pilots are used to flying against an enemy whose combat capability is deliberately limited. There are manoeuvering limits as well as weapons employment limits, what we believe enemy aircraft may be able to do with their weapons systems, so we try to simulate that in our own airplane with our own weapons, Snodgrass explained. It becomes very complex because instead of using the airplane the way it was designed, you now have to come up with rules of thumb that limit what you do and cause you to not perform . The Cope India exercises consisted of air combat maneuvers in which pilots would practice their fighter tactics and fly against each other one-on-one, as well as simulated combat scenarios. It was during this simulated combat, which included both offensive counterair and defensive counterair scenarios, that the Indians proved the most formidable, according to the 3rd Wing officials. In the offensive counterair scenarios, a small number of F-15Cs would attempt to intercept an enemy strike aircraft en route to a target that was guarded by a larger number of Indian fighters. In the defensive counterair missions, the F-15s would attempt to defend a target against Indian fighters. In these offensive and defensive missions, four F-15Cs were usually flying against 10 or 12 of the same model Indian fighter, according to Col. Greg Neubeck, deputy commander of operations for the wings 3rd Operations Group and exercise director for Cope India. The 3rd Operations Group is responsible for the 3rd Wings flying mission. The Indians flew a number of different fighters, including the French-made Mirage 2000 and the Russian-made MIG-27 and MIG-29, but 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-30K Flanker, also made in Russia, Neubeck said. He emphasized the fact that US forces were always outnumbered in these scenarios, but said the missions proved more difficult than expected. Mirage-2000s and F-15s fly over the majestic Himalayas What we faced were superior numbers, and an IAF pilot who was very proficient in his aircraft and smart on tactics. That combination was tough for us to overcome, Neubeck said. One reason the Indian pilots proved so formidable is that their training regimen does not include a concept of red air. full-up airplane with no restrictions against somebody elses airplane with no restrictions, and that leads to more proficiency with your aircraft, Neubeck said. In addition to reinforcing the need for the F/A-22, therefore, Cope India demonstrated that the service might be able to immediately improve its air combat capability by changing the way Air Force pilots train. Neubeck said the service probably needs to take off the handcuffs that we put on our red air training aids and allow them to be more aggressive and make the red air tougher than we have in the past. Although India is a friendly nation, the lesson of Cope India is that almost any nation could surpass the United States air combat capability if the Pentagon does not continue to invest in better training and technology, the Elmendorf officials said. At last count, for example, there were over 5,000 MIG-21s active in air forces around the world, Snodgrass said. Even American fighters, such as Boeings F-15, are being sold in upgraded versions to countries around the world. I believe what this demonstrates is that the capacity exists out there for any nation with the appropriate resources and the will to acquire technology and to train their aircrews to be very, very capable, said Col. In the long term this could occur in nations outside of the Indian Air Force. The Air Force will get another chance to test its capabilities against the Indians in July, when the IAF will bring its Jaguar fighter-bomber aircraft to Eielson AFB, AK, for the Cooperative Cope Thunder exercise. The 3rd Wing officers said their pilots had not yet flown against an Indian-piloted Jaguar. |
| www.fact-index.com/s/sa/sandbagging__poker_.html This might involve a check or call with a hand that you might otherwise raise with, to lure other players into the pot who might fold to a raise, or to lure them into betting more strongly than they would if you had bet or raised. Protection that a bet or raise would give you, and it also risks losing the pot-building value of a bet if your opponents also check. It can nonetheless be profitable to do this under circumstances that include the following: * Your hand is so strong that protection isn't needed. draw poker game among Alice, Bob, Carol, and David: After anteing, Alice looks at her hand to find a pair of aces, and opens the betting for $2. David calls the $4, and Alice puts in an additional $2 to match the raise. Drawing three cards, she receives another ace, and a pair of fives. Since her aces-full is almost certain to be unbeatable, it does not need the protection of a bet (and this is the last betting round, where protection applies less anyway). Also, Bob earlier raised, and David called a raise, so they likely have strong hands and one of them will bet if Alice doesn't. Finally, since Bob and David earlier showed strength, and they know that Alice knows this, Alice betting into them would be seen as a bold move likely to scare one or both of them off, especially if they weren't as strong as they seem. Bob calls the additional $2, and David (who now realizes that he is probably beaten) folds. Bob reveals three sixes, and surrenders the pot to Alice. If Alice had just bet her hand on the second round, it is likely that Bob would just have called and David may or may not have called, earning Alice $2 to $4 on the second round. Even in games (such as California lowball) where the check-raise is not allowed, one can make other sandbagging plays such as just calling ("flat calling") instead of raising with a very strong hand and then later raising. Seven-card stud and your first three cards are all fours. An opponent with a king showing bets first, and you raise, getting two callers. On the next round, the first bettor catches another king, and you miraculously catch the last four. You suspect he has two pair or three kings, and he suspects that you have two pair or three fours (four of a kind is so unlikely that he will probably ignore the possibility, just as you can probably ignore the possibility that he has four kings). You should probably just call for next round or two, and maybe even check if no one bets, rather than raising, for several reasons. Your hand is so strong that the chance of getting beaten is negligible, so you don't need protection. If the bettor just has two pair and you act strongly, he may think you have three fours and fold if he doesn't improve. Allowing other players to continue for smaller stakes might allow one of them to catch a hand such as a straight, flush, or full house that will call your final bets or possibly even raise you back, building a very big pot. Finally, keeping as many players in the game as possible will make a bigger pot. At some point, though, you will have to "come out of the woodwork" and bet strongly; after all, the point of the exercise is to get more money in the pot, and you can't do that by continuing to check on every round. Another common sandbagging play that occurs only on the last betting round is called "fishing for the overcall". This occurs when the last card you are dealt makes you a very strong hand, a player in front of you bets, and there are more players to act behind you. While you might normally raise with your hand, just calling may encourage the players behind you to overcall when they would have folded to a raise. This play is best when there are several players behind you, and they are the kind of player likely to call one bet but not a raise. |