Of course he did: President Obama released his FY 2009 supplemental request… asking for $83.4 billion to fund ongoing military, diplomatic and foreign assistance activities… There are programs included in this supplemental request that could other…

Yet, observers say that in a surprising number of encounters – particularly between the American F-16s and the Indian Sukhoi-30 MKIs – the Indian pilots came out the winners.

“Since the cold war, there has been the general assumption that India is a third-world country with Soviet technology, and wherever the Soviet-supported equipment went, it didn’t perform well,” says Jasjit Singh, a retired air commodore and now director of the Center for Air Power Studies in New Delhi. “That myth has been blown out by the results” of these air exercises.

For now, US Air Force officials are saying only that the Cope India 2005 air exercises were a success, and a sign of America’s growing appreciation for the abilities of its newfound regional ally.

But there are some signs that America’s premier fighter jet, the F-16 Fighting Falcon, is losing ground to the growing sophistication of Russian-made fighter planes, and that the US should be more wary about presuming global air superiority – the linchpin of its military might.

“The Sukhoi is a … better plane than the F-16,” says Vinod Patney, a retired Indian Air Force marshal, and former vice chief of air staff.

Read the rest of the interesting article about war games conducted over several years.

http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/1128/p01s04-wosc.html

The bottom line contained two ah-ha’s:
1. The Russian equipment in many cases is equal to or better than the US counterpart, and
2. The tactics employed by the Indians surprised the US pilots and they gave the Indians an upper hand in enough situations to be of concern to the US commanders.

Both of these attributes (equipment and training) are portable to countries like China, Syria, Korea, Iran, etc. The world is evolving and threats that used to be the sole province of superpowers can now be wielded by impoverished nations with the will to win.

Sorry, far too much crap flying at the time so it was lock on and squeeze. Point to be made on the F35; there may be some neutered software but the hardware will be the same…you can do the math.

dmann on April 13, 2009 at 8:28 PM

Without software, that hardware is little more than a boat anchor.

I am not opposed to America having armed forces, you slack-jawed dittohead. I am opposed to the constant barrage of reasons why we just must have this new high-tech gadget or that new plane and we must have it right now Or Else.

Dark-Star on April 13, 2009 at 6:30 PM

I love the way he says he supports the military, he’s just against letting them have any weapons that are effective. If DS were in charge of the military, we’d still be using muskets and horse drawn carraiges.

Breathtakingly simplistic and criminally ignorant. I’ll follow you and your BUFF into hostile airspace, good luck and Gods speed, you’ll need it. Please leave a forwarding address so we can send condolences and flowers to your loved ones.

dmann on April 13, 2009 at 10:07 PM

As a former B-52 crew member, we considered the B-52 to be a target.

Now why don’t we try and find out what kind of planes they’re designing, if they’re a threat and if they’ll even ever get off the ground in any appreciable numbers instead of designing a countermeasure to a boogeyman that isn’t there?

Dark-Star on April 13, 2009 at 3:27 PM

Have you ever heard of an SU-37?

FWIW, the F-35 was not going to come on line (and still may not) before a whole ton of F-16s reach the end of their service lives. One of the reasons why Gates is now throwing a ton of money in the next five years at the F-35 is precisely because of this. I’m hoping that my squadron’s jets will last long enough to see us transition to the F-35. If not, I may be “stimulated” out of a job because there’s nothing else to replace them with.

HondaV65 on April 13, 2009 at 10:22 PM

I see you fly for the Peoples Republic. The F22 will maul the F35 in the air-to-air arena. As for the more capable platform you’re attempting to compare a bird to a brick with the 35 being the brick. Strike aircraft perform their task much better when they don’t have to contend with an enemies hunter-killers. Stick to your obsolete rice burner.

Disagree.

Firstly – I disagree with the premise of spending tax payer dollars to “stimulate” the economy. Why? Because the only parts getting stimulated are the ones the political power wants stimulated.

Secondly – the Lightning is a more capable platform – and it’s not that far behind. Additionally – the F-16’s and FA-18’s currently serving in the fleet are wonderful aircraft on sturdy frames that can hold the line until the Lightning comes along.

This isn’t even close to the B-1 decision Carter made. At the time – the B-52 was an aged and dilapidated platform that simply didn’t have the terrain hugging capabilities of the B1 – even though a few hot rod B-52 pilots tried to prove that it did (wish I could have been there for that test!).

Anyway – don’t pervert a weapon system procurement for purposes of economic stimulation. We need the best out there in the F-35. Don’t spend any money on an inferior platform.

HondaV65 on April 13, 2009 at 10:10 PM

You show your ignorance of the F-22A’s capabilities and purpose right away by totally ignoring what plane it’s meant to replace – the F-15, not the F-16. You say “it’s a more capable platform”, and yet you don’t offer anything to substantiate your point. People like you fail to comprehend that the F-22A and the F-35 are not meant to replace each other, but rather they are meant to work in conjunction with each other. The F-22A is meant for Air Superiority, and the F-35 is meant for Strike Fighter.

Additionally – I believe more of our allies have signed on to the F-35? And some of them – like Norway – took some crap over that. I was in Norway and many of the Europeans thought the competition was rigged in America’s favor over some other formidable proposals from Europe. We’ve sold the F-35 concept to our allies – stick with dream here and don’t flush it for a stimulus that won’t work.

The Raptor won’t fix the economy – all of the king’s horses and all of the king’s men won’t fix that.

Pretty typical of North American and Western European Leftists. The Bolsheviks and Maoists have always shaken their heads when wondering where these wimps are coming from and have long seen them as useful (albeit well-meaning, ideologically acceptable mind you) idiots.

The correct answer would have been to do both; buy more Raptors and keep 95,000 people employed, while waiting for the Lightning IIs.

Disagree.

Firstly – I disagree with the premise of spending tax payer dollars to “stimulate” the economy. Why? Because the only parts getting stimulated are the ones the political power wants stimulated.

Secondly – the Lightning is a more capable platform – and it’s not that far behind. Additionally – the F-16′s and FA-18′s currently serving in the fleet are wonderful aircraft on sturdy frames that can hold the line until the Lightning comes along.

This isn’t even close to the B-1 decision Carter made. At the time – the B-52 was an aged and dilapidated platform that simply didn’t have the terrain hugging capabilities of the B1 – even though a few hot rod B-52 pilots tried to prove that it did (wish I could have been there for that test!).

Anyway – don’t pervert a weapon system procurement for purposes of economic stimulation. We need the best out there in the F-35. Don’t spend any money on an inferior platform.

Most of the real advances are in powerplants, avionics, and ammo… we still fly B52s. We just launch better missiles.
lexhamfox on April 13, 2009 at 9:01 PM

Breathtakingly simplistic and criminally ignorant. I’ll follow you and your BUFF into hostile airspace, good luck and Gods speed, you’ll need it. Please leave a forwarding address so we can send condolences and flowers to your loved ones.

/sarc

On a more sober (and somber) note, we need to get our heads around the fact that Obambi’s “cuts” in the military are a drop in the ocean compared to all the spending his budget (and Spendulus) provides for, which will neither create so-called “shovel ready” jobs, nor will it provide any long-term benefit to the economy.

And someone has to pay for it.

The fact that someone would willingly choose to spend billions of our future tax dollars on such noble pursuits like ACORN and HAMAS, but not on military hardware (e.g., more F-22′s, F-35′s, and various BMD systems such as ABL and MKV) demonstrates to me that the spending has no connection to reality, nor will it do anything for its intended purpose – stimulating the economy.

And the best part of all this? Liberals will continue to whine about Conservative spending on military readiness, even as Liberals create the gutted supply chain issues that required the spending to catch up to begin with. Then, when the actual threat materializes, they will blame Conservatives for not being ready for it.

Perhaps I’d just feel better if I had a full lobotomy and could join the legions of people who hang out on Kos and HuffPo…sigh.

You don’t scrap a project like this willy-nilly. Just because there “might” be new technology does not mean we’d just “switch over” to the new. It takes many years.

stonemeister on April 13, 2009 at 6:47 PM

I agree but then they seem to be have a valid reason for doing this. Also, the project isn’t being scrapped. They are cutting back on the order. Shifting priorities. Most of the real advances are in powerplants, avionics, and ammo… we still fly B52s. We just launch better missiles.

The only item in the cuts that I thought was as odds with shifting needs was the C17.

Early days… the Pentagon requests and then the politicians give them what they don’t want. Gates made the plea to let them decide priorities.

right2bright on April 13, 2009 at 7:41 PM

Sorry, far too much crap flying at the time so it was lock on and squeeze. Point to be made on the F35; there may be some neutered software but the hardware will be the same…you can do the math.

On 30 June 1977 Carter announced that the B-1A would be canceled in favor of ICBMs, SLBMs, and a fleet of modernized B-52s armed with ALCMs.

But in secret he authorized work on the B-2.
David

Nope…try again.

dmann on April 13, 2009 at 3:05 PM

I don’t get it…try again.

Ooh, didn’t know that. Was it a real dog fight or just one of those see target, kill target things?
Count to 10 on April 13, 2009 at 4:35 PM

You know count to 10, From the way you write, you must have been an ace in three wars. I think you are like those who think he could have been an ace if he was ever given a chance to fly a plane, which everybody knows it is easy, if the stew on Airplane could do it. I bet you could do a better job than the marine snipers, if only they would let you be one without going through the school.

If I were you, I would stop with these comments. There are pilots on this thread who have probably shot down flying enemy aircraft who almost shit in their pants when they engaged. I wish one of them would tell you that there is no such thing as “Was it a real dog fight or just one of those see target, kill target things” when you are at the sharp end of the spear. Boy, am I tired of you arm chair bravados! Come on, one of you pilots, ground this guy.

The F-14 was built in tandem with the 80-mile-ranged Phoenix interception missile — I think only other plane that can carry them is the interceptor version of the SR-71. I don’t know what the F-18 has to make up for that, but it worries me. I don’t think we have any carrier based fighters dedicated to interception and air superiority any more.

Count to 10 on April 13, 2009 at 3:28 PM

Yet the AIM-54 has yet to make a single A2A kill.

I never said that our air power will be #1 forever. I’m just tired of being told more of my tax money needs to go to building insanely expensive instruments of destruction to counter some boogeyman or another. The Soviet MIG-force is pretty much defunct and the F-22’s purpose with it. Redirect efforts to the F-35’s or the next generation of bombers…something we need and can use.

Dark-Star on April 13, 2009 at 4:33 PM

Who said the F-22A is meant just for the Soviet Air Force. There are other air forces out there in the world that have modern indigenous or Russian built aircraft in their inventory.

My point is NOT that the B-2, or the F-22, is obsolete…rather, the technology is so far advanced that it takes many years, even decades, to put into the air. You don’t scrap a project like this willy-nilly. Just because there “might” be new technology does not mean we’d just “switch over” to the new. It takes many years.

Dark-Star on April 13, 2009 at 6:30 PM

It is not like we are buying every gadget that some inventor or developer brings in to a military procurement office. Each year, dozens if not hundreds of weapons and systems designs are floated past the military for consideration and most never get farther than that, a portion get field tested, at developer expense, and a few more are given over to proving grounds testing by the military so they can simulate combat or field usage in a controlled environment…and render a decision as to efficacy and applicability.

For each new aircraft or new weapons system, or new combat boot, that gets as far as the acquisition agencies, there are dozens and hundreds strewn along the roadway not approved by the military,nor of use to the military.

Why don’t you just come out and admit, you don’t want the US to have a military in the first place.

You are one of those morons who actually believes that if we love everyone else enough, that they will just love us back.

MarkTheGreat on April 13, 2009 at 4:35 PM

You’ve got plenty of practice jumping to conclusions; why not enter the Olympics? Put that talent to good use.

…

I am not opposed to America having armed forces, you slack-jawed dittohead. I am opposed to the constant barrage of reasons why we just must have this new high-tech gadget or that new plane and we must have it right now Or Else.