US may be facing its own F-16's in combat against Pakistan

[Naval Power]

As many as will physically fit in the fields around Bagram. And on a few carrieres. Hell, our bombers can fly in from Diego Garcia/Guam/Missouri if we need them to. Hell, the carriers alone could do the job.

Another point most people overlook because we aren't physically the largest land forces in the world is the fact that our airforce and never are second to none. The airforce has the most planes, the most operational ready to go planes (which means a lot), our pilots are among the best in the world, and we have more of them than countries with similar training. And that's just the airforce, the USvNavy probably operates the 2nd most capable and powerful air wing in the world after the US airforce. I'd hedge bets that 1 carrier group could topple most countries airforces within a short amount of time with very acceptable losses.

 

[sourboy]

apparently Pakistani soldiers had to fire into the air today to scare away US troops.... this is begining to look like it could get out of hand

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/7396366.stm

The article says the "firing" took place for hours. HOURS?? These guys fired guns into the air for hours, huh? Something doesn't sound right here.

The U.S. has a rich history of Allies turning into enemies. They sent supplies to their W.W.2 Ally the USSR, which became their biggest enemy in history. They supplied Iraq with weapons during the Iraq-Iran war and they supported Bin Laden in his fight with the USSR in Afghanistan. The U.S. must be more careful who to support.

The US has picked many sucky allies. That's because we have been constantly willing to back fascists for short term advantage.

Does the US pick "sucky" allies, as you say, or simply use them, abuse them, leave them hung out to dry -- thus molding them into enemies? I've told many people I'm not for the actions of Saddam, Osama, or others, but I can't say I don't understand. We screwed them, their fellow people, and created the spawning pool of hate that seeks us out now. I wouldn't doubt it.

 

[Naval Power]

The article says the "firing" took place for hours. HOURS?? These guys fired guns into the air for hours, huh? Something doesn't sound right here.


Does the US pick "sucky" allies, as you say, or simply use them, abuse them, leave them hung out to dry -- thus molding them into enemies? I've told many people I'm not for the actions of Saddam, Osama, or others, but I can't say I don't understand. We screwed them, their fellow people, and created the spawning pool of hate that seeks us out now. I wouldn't doubt it.

How many other nations have done the same? The US has some former friends that now hate us, but so did Germany (Prussia allied with the Russians against Napoleon for instance), the French, the Russians etc

 

[RalofTyr]

I doubt the Pakistianis would use their airforce against the US. They need those F-16s to attack India.

What most likely will happen, is an increased support of Al-Qaida and the Taliban by Pakistan, that will put pressure on the US to stop.

 

[emzie]

I am trying to think of any instance of a MIG29 victory over an F16, and can't come up with one. MIG 29s have been totally pawned any time they have come up against Western aircraft. Granted, the pilots flying them usually sucked, but all practical experiance points to your comment coming out of your anus.

Simulations with the German Luftwaffe before their Mig 29s were sold to Poland.

Apology accepted.

 

[Patroklos]

Simulations with the German Luftwaffe before their Mig 29s were sold to Poland.

Simulations?



So in other words....nothing! Now, what actually happened when REAL mig 29s came up against REAL western fighters?

You FAIL.

 

[Cutlass]

The article says the "firing" took place for hours. HOURS?? These guys fired guns into the air for hours, huh? Something doesn't sound right here.


Does the US pick "sucky" allies, as you say, or simply use them, abuse them, leave them hung out to dry -- thus molding them into enemies? I've told many people I'm not for the actions of Saddam, Osama, or others, but I can't say I don't understand. We screwed them, their fellow people, and created the spawning pool of hate that seeks us out now. I wouldn't doubt it.

No, we pick sucky ones. In many cases, we help overthrow the predecessors Set up a banana republic, and let the strongman treat his people like crap till there's a revolution and the new leaders/people hate us and we've completely screwed our selves. We've probably done that 50 times

 

[emzie]

Simulations?



So in other words....nothing! Now, what actually happened when REAL mig 29s came up against REAL western fighters?

You FAIL.

Uh, the only fights that Mig 29s have been in against western fighters was the First Iraq War. Honestly tell me that was a better representation than two western air forces going up against one another in DACTs.

(edit: Serbia might have had some old Mig 29s in 1999.)

All the modern "X plane is better than Y plane" discussions are based on DACT simulations, or paper. You don't expect the German Luftwaffe to actually fire live ammo on USAF fighters, do you? The simulated kill was enough to show that the Mig 29 was a better dog fighter.

There's a reason the USAF bought helmet displays in 2002 (2003?). It's a better tracking system.

 

[Patroklos]

Uh, the only fights that Mig 29s have been in against western fighters was the First Iraq War. Honestly tell me that was a better representation than two western air forces going up against one another in DACTs.

I will tell you that, because that is REALITY? You understand what a simulation is supposed to do right?

I will also point out to you that our Red Flag units have Mig29s that our pilots pracitce against every day, and we win.

All the modern "X plane is better than Y plane" discussions are based on DACT simulations, or paper.

No, because simulations are supposed to model reality. When reality is available, comparisons are based off that. Example, simulations said we should have lost 30K troops in 1991 (they said the same thing in 2003), yet that didn't happen, which one should we learn from for the future?

Another, simulations said the Red Army would most likely take over Western Europe in a land war, yet when we got ahold of their equipment in 90ish we were appalled at how much we over rated almost every piece of their equipment (including Mig29s), and had in consequence vastly overengineered our own to be far superior.

Remember what the simulations said about the Mig25? What did we learn when one convieniently landed in Japan?

There's a reason the USAF bought helmet displays in 2002 (2003?). It's a better tracking system.

You might not be aware of this, but there are ohhhh 100K other odd parts that make up an aircraft.

 

[pau17]

Patroklos,

I wikied Red Flag (because I was curious about the US actually using Mig-29s in practice) and all sources seem to say that the exercises emulate Migs with F-16s. Not trying to call you out, but I am curious about the idea and I just wanted to know if you had another source of information or personal experience because I haven't been able to find the US using Migs.

Edit: Ok, I just saw a Mig 29 in a Red Flag video on youtube taking off (presumably in Nevada), but it had an Italian flag on the tail. What's the deal exactly?

 

[Winner]

First Gulf War CANNOT be used to measure the quality of the equipment used by Iraqi army. If it was used effectivelly, it could have caused much bigger casualties to the Coalition forces (remember how many body bags were shipped to Saudi Arabia before the whole thing started).

Iraqi military was a typical Arab military: corrupted and utterly incompetent officer staff, poorly trained conscripts, low morale, wrong use of modern equipment etc. If Iraq had been armed with F-15s instead of Migs and M-1s instead of T-72s, it would have lost just as badly.

So, in this case, I'd rather believe in the simulations, because they at least offer level playing ground. Iraqi "reality" is just useless because the people there were natural loosers who totally sucked at everything related to military.

Would you measure the quality of a car on the basis of seeing it being driven by a 10 years old child?

 

[BasketCase]

Absolutely. A Lexus is still the exact same car regardless of who's driving it.

An untrained idiot armed with an F-16 is a good deal more dangerous than an untrained idiot armed with a spear--even though many Civ players who have had their tanks destroyed by spearmen would argue the opposite. At the very least, an untrained idiot in an F-15 could crash-land on you. Quality of equipment is definitely a factor--though in my opinion, a relatively unimportant one. The threat from Pakistan remains low, and letting them get their hands on F-16's was a worthwhile risk (the 20-20 hindsight dealie).

 

[Winner]

Absolutely. A Lexus is still the exact same car regardless of who's driving it.

An untrained idiot armed with an F-16 is a good deal more dangerous than an untrained idiot armed with a spear--even though many Civ players who have had their tanks destroyed by spearmen would argue the opposite. At the very least, an untrained idiot in an F-15 could crash-land on you. Quality of equipment is definitely a factor--though in my opinion, a relatively unimportant one. The threat from Pakistan remains low, and letting them get their hands on F-16's was a worthwhile risk (the 20-20 hindsight dealie).

Just to clear up what I am saying here: I am not saying that the Soviet equipment fielded by the Iraqi army was as good as the American.

I am saying that the Iraqis were such a losers that they would lose even if they were flying the best available American aircraft and driving the best available tanks in the world.

They lost so badly because their entire military organization (if it deserves that name) was totally inadequate. If the Iraqi army was run by, say, Germans, the Coalition casualties would be many, many times higher. They'd still lose, but not nearly as tragically as in real life.

Which is why I say that the idea that Mig-29 is utter crap compared to F-16 because some worthless Iraqis couldn't use them properly is doubtful at least.

 

[BasketCase]

I am saying that the Iraqis were such a losers that they would lose even if they were flying the best available American aircraft and driving the best available tanks in the world.

Yeah, I understood you. But they wouldn't have lost as badly as they did.

Edit: either way, kicking Saddam's sorry pathetic ass would have been equally necessary.

 

[Ecofarm]

If I could choose my enemy's equipment, whatever the arena, I would definately choose my own antiquated gear.

1. Lower league.

2. (Perhaps most important) I know the weaknesses.

Foresight 20/20? Check.

 

[GrandAdmiral]

Simulations with the German Luftwaffe before their Mig 29s were sold to Poland.

Apology accepted.

That's a strange answer considering that he was obviously referring to real combat.

 

[BasketCase]

If I could choose my enemy's equipment, whatever the arena, I would definately choose my own antiquated gear.

1. Lower league.

2. (Perhaps most important) I know the weaknesses.

Foresight 20/20? Check.

Number three in the list:

There was a rumor going around before the invasion of Iraq--err, scuse me--before the FIRST invasion of Iraq--that the U.S. sold Saddam a bunch of computer equipment. Knowingly.

The rumor is that the equipment was full of computer viruses and that the U.S. wanted to delay the initial attack until said viruses had run their course and reduced Saddam's communications network to a bunch of paperweights.

There's no way to know, but if I were Pakistani, I might want to double-check those F-16's to see what I actually got......

 

[Patroklos]

Edit: Ok, I just saw a Mig 29 in a Red Flag video on youtube taking off (presumably in Nevada), but it had an Italian flag on the tail. What's the deal exactly?

Many western countries found themselves in pocession of Soviet equipment after the Cold War either because they had been former Soviet vassels (Poland, Czech Republic), form reunification (Germany), or from buying the hardware to keep it off the open arms market (US, UK, Italy). In some cases that material was just scraped, in others some was kept around to practice against. In others it was incorporated into their armed forces, if I remember correctly Germany had and maybe still does about a dozen Mig29s in the Luftwaffe proper (which is another reason why imagining relying on simulations is not stupid).

EDIT: Germany's Mig29s were sold to Poland a few years ago, here is a pick with Luftwaffe markings.

 

[Marsden]

Plus, Iran has a squadron of F-14s. This isn't really anything new, from a hardware point of veiw.

I think the civilian gov't won't last long before another military man takes it back like Musharf (spelling) did.

 

[emzie]

I will tell you that, because that is REALITY? You understand what a simulation is supposed to do right?

I will also point out to you that our Red Flag units have Mig29s that our pilots pracitce against every day, and we win.

You practice against F-16s. Look up how many flight worthy Mig 29s the USAF has in its possession. The F-16 has many similar performance characteristics, but it's not a Mig 29.

You might not be aware of this, but there are ohhhh 100K other odd parts that make up an aircraft.

Yes... and the tracking system is one of the most important to dog fighting. As I said, there's a reason the USAF adopted it: it's better.

...

You know, this entire debate has been done thousands of times over thousands of forums. I don't think we're going to go anywhere. FWIW, I'd bet on a USAF F-4 over an Iraqi Mig 29.