Realistic isnt such a good idea....

Shrapnel · Post by **Shrapnel** » 2004-09-06 23:06

And... they are not the best of the best. That was the whole point of the article, to show how Americans usually underestimates their enemy, and equipment.

Tacamo · Post by **Tacamo** » 2004-09-07 01:44

I thought they were going head to head. From what I've read it seems like it was 3 and/or 4 to 1 odds in favor of the Indian Air Force. If I read that wrong then disregard the comment. I'd be somewhat interested to see what the results of war games would be after the AIM-120D goes into full production. Over the years the military branches with fixed wing aircraft have probably neglected their fighter training with preference going to CAS and strike training.

Silverwolf · Post by **Silverwolf** » 2004-09-07 02:01

I seriously doubt they've been neglecting they're fighter training, that'd be a pretty stupid thing to do. If u read the whole article, it says in one of the later paragraphs that tha IAF is very prestigious and they recruit some of their smartest into it, whereas USAF pilots are usually only of around average intelligence. No offence intended to any USAF pilots in here, I'm just quoting from the article

Tacamo · Post by **Tacamo** » 2004-09-07 02:04

I meant the USAF, Navy and Marines were probably not training as much for dogfighting. A lot of squadrons which focused primarily on air to air combat changed roles to focus more on ground attack following the collapse of the Soviet Union. I also remember reading somewhere about the Indian pilots having 50 more hours of training.

Post by **DrZero** » 2004-09-12 07:26

the thing about america is that, even if their planes arent amazingly superior, they can put 15 in the sky to their enemies 1, with tanks its an even higher ratio, they have strenght both in technology and in numbers