pmaidhof

Fort Worth Star-Telegram December 13, 2005 Greece Buying 30 More Lockheed-Made F-16s By Bob Cox, Star-Telegram Staff Writer Greece has reached agreement with the U.S. government to buy 30 F-16 fighter jets from Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Co. with an option to purchase an additional 10 aircraft. The sale, which is contingent on Greece and Lockheed signing the contract, would extend F-16 production and hundreds of jobs at Lockheed’s Fort Worth plant through 2009. But it won’t save the jobs of hundreds of other F-16 workers due to be laid off in 2006. Greece's order comes just in the nick of time for Lockheed, which had said it needed a firm sale before the end of the year to avoid a gap in the three- to four-year production cycle that would have resulted in higher costs and perhaps additional job losses. The order is worth nearly $2 billion, with about $1.2 billion of that destined for Lockheed. Lockheed officials are still hoping to land an additional order or two for F-16 jets in the next year that would extend production through 2010 or beyond. By that time, the company hopes to be accelerating production of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter. "This will give us another year to get more sales from other countries,” Lockheed spokesman Joe Stout said. Earlier, Lockheed believed that it had a firm deal with Pakistan for a sizeable F-16 order. But the Asian country’s government put the fighter plane acquisition on hold after an earthquake in the region Oct. 8 killed an estimated 70,000 people and left hundreds of thousands, if not millions, homeless. Air Force Lt. Gen. Jeffrey Kohler, head of the Defense Security Cooperation Agency which oversees foreign military sales, has said in published reports that he expects Pakistan to revise its plan to buy F-16s early next year. India, meanwhile, is also a sales prospect. The Indian government has been soliciting proposals for a fighter jet deal from a number of bidders. The U.S. government has offered India both the F-16 and Boeing’s F/A-18 fighters. The F-16 is probably not the front-runner for the India sale, but can’t be counted out, said aerospace industry analyst Richard Aboulafia of the Teal Group. "It’s arguably the most cost effective option, but in India that’s often the least likely,” Aboulafia said. After boosting production to fill a backlog of orders, Lockheed has cut some 1,500 jobs from the F-16 production line in the past two years. An additional 300 workers have been notified they could be laid off in mid-January and the company has said additional job cuts could occur next year. Total employment at the Fort Worth plant is about 15,100. Greece’s Hellenic Air Force already flies a large number of F-16s. The country decided to buy additional F-16s in July, after canceling a plan to buy Eurofighter Typhoons. Stout said the latest order from Greece represents the 50th time an F-16 customer has placed a subsequent order for the versatile, high performance but still relatively inexpensive fighter jet.

While I mostly struggle with H4, my struggles can be traced back to Gulf Strike on my parent's dining room table while in high school. I recently picked up this gem and it's back on the table, although not at my parent's.

DefenseNews.com December 12, 2005 USAF To Drop 'A' From F/A-22 Raptor By Gopal Ratnam and Michael Fabey Three years after the U.S. Air Force added an “A” to highlight the F/A-22 Raptor’s ability to drop bombs, the service is dropping the extra letter from the stealthy jet’s designator. The plane, which is expected to officially enter service in the coming weeks, will henceforth be called the F-22A — with the trailing letter indicating a first variant, not an extra role. Gen. Michael Moseley, Air Force chief of staff, who is said to have been unhappy with the F/A-22 moniker, announced the renaming in a Dec. 12 speech to a U.S. Air National Guard senior leadership conference in Baltimore, Md. The decision was made in a recent meeting of senior service officials, said Loren Thompson, an analyst at the Lexington Institute, who was familiar with the deliberations. The decision was unanimous among Air Force and senior Pentagon officials, including Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, Thompson said. An Air Force spokesman said the renaming decision will be formally announced in coming days. He also said that the service intends to continue with plans to develop the aircraft’s ability to strike ground targets. The Raptor first dropped Joint Direct Attack Munitions in tests last year. The Air Force has traditionally labeled its fighter aircraft with the “F” prefix, even ones with some air-to-ground capabilities. The Raptor had been called the “F-22” since its first flights as the prototype YF-22A in the early 1990s. In September 2002, Gen. John Jumper, then-Air Force chief of staff, added the “A” to emphasize the aircraft’s ground-attack capabilities. The switch came as the airplane was being assailed by critics inside and outside the Pentagon as too expensive for the post-Sept. 11 world. “This isn’t your father’s F-22,” then-Air Force Secretary Jim Roche said in a 2002 interview. Since then, several Air Force officials have called the aircraft even more flexible and capable than the F/A designator indicated. Classified capabilities, unknown to the American public and U.S. lawmakers alike, mean that the plane might as well have been called the FB-22 bomber, F/E-22 surveillance plane, F/EA-22 electronic attack aircraft, or even an RC-22 signals-intelligence platform, they said. In recent months, the plane once again faced criticism as part of the Pentagon’s Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR) and was expected to face some cuts in order to make way for the Pentagon’s Joint Strike Fighter. But those fears have subsided and the Air Force is likely to get its expected fleet of 180 aircraft. Thompson said Air Force officials were feeling a “little expansive” after the Raptor survived attacks during the QDR debates; they decided they didn’t need the extra “A” to persuade the administration and Congress to buy the airplane. Laura Colarusso contributed to this report.

Ah, just think of the nugget just finishing up with Pensacola, dream list...F-18, F-18, F-18.....No Son, you bet the diridgible, right over there.

http://www.defense-aerospace.com AMARILLO, Texas --- Bell Boeing delivered the first Block B version of the V-22 Osprey today to the U.S. Marine Corps in ceremonies at Bell's manufacturing facility here. The Block B aircraft has software upgrades, reliability and maintainability improvements over existing V-22 aircraft. It was accepted by Col. Bill Taylor, PMA 275 Program Manager, Naval Air Systems Command, who has responsibility for the management of the V-22 Program for the Government, and LtGen Jim Amos, Commanding General, 2nd Marine Expeditionary Force. The aircraft will enter service with Marine Corps squadron VMM 263 at Marine Corps Air Station new River, N.C. "The Osprey remains at the very soul of our Corps' ability to fight future conflicts across a widely disbursed battlefield," explained LtGen Amos, adding, "Battlefields, where the tyranny of distance is solved with speed, and where an irregular enemy who chooses to fight at an urban marketplace or at an ambush site in a wadi is faced with the dilemma...'where are they...I know they are coming...I just don't know when or where.'” "Our Ospreys will operate in the enemy's backyard; they will do it quickly and quietly. And when they come, they will deliver the deadliest of weapon systems...United States Marines," LtGen Amos added. John Lockard, Vice President and General Manager, Boeing Naval Systems, said the delivery was another significant milestone in providing a much-needed capability to the Marines. "The V-22 is revolutionary in terms of the capabilities it brings to the warfighter, yet today's success is attributed to the age-old virtues of commitment and teamwork - between the Marine Corps, Bell and Boeing," he said. "This is not only the first V-22 that will go to a combat unit, but it is the 19th V-22 we have delivered this year," explained Bell Executive Vice President and Chief Operating Officer John Bean, adding, "This is important because one year ago Bell Boeing committed to delivering 19 Ospreys in 2005. Today we delivered on that commitment." In September 2005, Bell Boeing was granted approval by the United States Defense Department for Full Rate Production (FRP) of the V-22 Osprey. Current plans include the delivery of 360 aircraft to the U.S. Marine Corps, 50 for the U.S. Air Force and 48 for the U.S. Navy. With FRP, the U.S. Government has authorized Bell, a Textron company, and Boeing to increase current low-rate production of 11 aircraft per year up to 48. The FRP decision by the Defense Acquisition Board followed the successful completion of extensive Operational Evaluation testing, conducted last summer by the USMC. The revolutionary tiltrotor technology combines fixed-wing airplane and vertical lift capabilities into one efficient and extremely capable aircraft that can take off and land like a helicopter and fly like an airplane, providing military customers with significant improvements in combat capabilities - including speeds and range two to three times more than that of conventional helicopters, as well as increased payloads, survivability and reliability. Bell Helicopter, a subsidiary of Textron, Inc., is a $1.6 billion, leading producer of commercial and military helicopters, and the pioneer of the revolutionary tiltrotor aircraft. Globally recognized for customer service, innovation and superior quality, Bell's global workforce of over 8,000 employees serves customers flying Bell aircraft in over 120 countries. A unit of The Boeing Company, Boeing Integrated Defense Systems is one of the world's largest space and defense businesses. Headquartered in St. Louis, Boeing Integrated Defense Systems is a $30.5 billion business. It provides network-centric system solutions to its global military, government, and commercial customers. It is a leading provider of intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance systems; the world's largest military aircraft manufacturer; the world's largest satellite manufacturer and a leading provider of space-based communications; the primary systems integrator for U.S. missile defense and Department of Homeland Security; NASA's largest contractor; and a global leader in sustainment and launch services.

Los Angeles Times December 9, 2005 Lockheed In U.S. Airship Deal By Reuters Lockheed Martin Corp. won a $149-million contract Thursday to build a prototype unmanned airship about 17 times the size of a Goodyear blimp that would hover about 60,000 feet above the Earth. The Pentagon's Missile Defense Agency said the High-Altitude Airship would be untethered, be able to remain in place for one month over a designated place, and be able to carry as many as 500 pounds of sensors that could detect enemy ballistic missiles. Missile Defense Agency spokesman Rick Lehner said the program was aimed at exploring the possibility of using the airship to track and detect ballistic missile launches. Under the contract, which runs through November 2010, Bethesda, Md.-based Lockheed would build and fly the prototype, to "prove its military utility," Lockheed spokeswoman Kate Dunlap said. The military has been exploring possible military uses of near-space vehicles partly because they are far less expensive to launch and operate than satellites.

Deployed AN/TPS-75, care of www.fas.org

fas.org states that most all of the AN/TPS-43's have been modified to the AN/TPS-75 standard. It also states that the "75" has a search area of about 240nm, less than what Harpoon lists for the "43" so I'd probably name it AN/TPS-75 but keep the Harpoon data of the "43" 86 other entries from google did not provide any much differing information.

Discussions on chat revolving around possible inclusion of generic radars. TPS-43 Use:3D Large:315, Medium:195, Small:126, VSmall: 57, and Stealthy:32 TPS-44 Use:AS Large:162, Medium:100, Small:65, VSmall:29, and Stealthy:16 May be dated as these apparently were employed in Falklands.

Russia Confirms Sale of Missiles to Iran By HENRY MEYER Associated Press Writer MOSCOW (AP) -- Russia has struck a deal to sell short-range, surface-to-air missiles to Iran, the defense minister said Monday, confirming reports that have raised concern in the United States and Israel. Defense Minister Sergei Ivanov didn't give details. But Russian media have said that Moscow agreed in November to sell $1 billion worth of weapons to Iran, including up to 30 Tor-M1 missile systems over the next two years. "A contract for the delivery of air defense Tor missiles to Iran has indeed been signed," Ivanov was quoted as saying by the Interfax news agency. "This unequivocally will not change the balance of forces in the region," Ivanov added. Tor M1 missiles are short-range, surface-to-air missiles already used by several other armed forces, including China. The reports last week prompted expressions of concern from the U.S administration and Israel, which considers Iran to be its biggest threat. Israeli concerns recently were heightened after Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad urged that Israel be "wiped off the map." Top politicians in Israel have ratcheted up the tough talk against Iran, led by former Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who called for a pre-emptive strike against Iranian nuclear installations. Such a strike would be similar to a 1981 attack, ordered by then-Prime Minister Menachem Begin, that destroyed an unfinished Iraqi nuclear reactor. "I will continue the tradition established by Menachem Begin, who did not allow Iraq to develop such a nuclear threat against Israel, and by a daring and courageous act gave us two decades of tranquility," Netanyahu told the daily newspaper Maariv. "I believe that this is what Israel has to do." Interfax said the Tor-M1 system could identify up to 48 targets and fire at two targets simultaneously at a height of up to 20,000 feet. On Saturday, an influential Iranian official played down the deal, telling the official Islamic Republic News Agency that Tehran has been trading arms with many countries and would continue to do so. The Russian Foreign Ministry, without commenting on the reported missile sale, also said Saturday that all Russian weaponry supplied to Iran is purely for defensive purposes. However, a senior Bush administration official, who declined to be named because he was not authorized to speak publicly on the subject, said last week that any arms sale to Iran is a source of concern. The official would not say whether Russia had advised the United States of any negotiations with Iran. The United States and Russia are supporting efforts by the European Union to persuade Iran to halt development of nuclear weapons in exchange for economic incentives, such as trade opportunities. Russia, which has a long and lucrative relationship with Iran, has offered to try to resolve a key dispute by offering to enrich uranium for an Iranian civilian nuclear energy program as a safeguard against Iran using enrichment for weapons purposes.

New York Times December 5, 2005 Navy To Expand Fleet With New Enemies In Mind By David S. Cloud WASHINGTON, Dec. 3 - The Navy wants to increase its fleet to 313 ships by 2020, reversing years of decline in naval shipbuilding and adding dozens of warships designed to defeat emerging adversaries, senior Defense Department officials say. The plan by Adm. Michael G. Mullen, who took over as chief of naval operations last summer, envisions a major shipbuilding program that would increase the 281-ship fleet by 32 vessels and cost more than $13 billion a year, $3 billion more than the current shipbuilding budget, the officials said Friday. While increasing the fleet size is popular with influential members of Congress, the plan faces various obstacles, including questions about whether it is affordable in light of ballooning shipbuilding costs and whether the mix of vessels is suitable to deal with emerging threats, like China's expanding navy. "We are at a crisis in shipbuilding," a senior Navy official said. "If we don't start building this up next year and the next year and the next year, we won't have the force we need." The officials would not agree to be identified because the plan had not been made public or described to members of Congress. The Navy's fleet reached its cold war peak of 568 warships in 1987 and has been steadily shrinking since then. Admiral Mullen's proposal would reverse that, expanding the fleet to as many as 325 ships over the next decade, with new ships put into service before some older vessels are retired, and finally settling at 313 between 2015 and 2020. "The Navy appears to be grappling with the need to balance funding for supporting its role in the global war on terrorism against those for meeting a potential challenge from modernized Chinese maritime military forces," said Ronald O'Rourke, a naval analyst with the Congressional Research Service, an arm of the Library of Congress. The plan has not been formally adopted by the Bush administration, though officials said it had been examined by senior civilians in the Pentagon as part of a larger strategic review of all military programs. The proposal is not expected to change much, if at all, before the review is made public in February, the officials said. Senator Susan Collins, a Republican from Maine, which is home to major shipyards, endorsed the Navy proposal when told about it recently and called on President Bush to finance it in next year's budget. "Military requirements should drive the budget, not the other way around," Ms. Collins said. "I hope that the Navy's requirement for a fleet of 313 ships will be matched with adequate funding in the president's budget to achieve that goal over time." But Defense Department officials acknowledged that with financial pressures mounting and the overall Navy budget not likely to increase, their plans could come apart unless they could trim costs in other areas. The Navy is planning to squeeze money from personnel and other accounts, and ask shipyards to hold down costs, even if it means removing certain capabilities. Admiral Mullen is in some ways paying for the priorities of his predecessor, Adm. Vern Clark, who improved pay and benefits during his tenure as the service's senior officer but also agreed to trim the Navy's budget in an unusual sacrifice to help pay the Army's bills in Iraq. Now Admiral Mullen is seeking a fleet that will give the Navy a greater role in counterterrorism and humanitarian operations. The plan calls for building 55 small, fast vessels called littoral combat ships, which are being designed to allow the Navy to operate in shallow coastal areas where mines and terrorist bombings are a growing threat. Costing less than $300 million, the littoral combat ship is relatively inexpensive. Navy officials say they have scaled back their goals for a new destroyer, the DD(X), whose primary purpose would be to support major combat operations ashore. The Navy once wanted 23 to 30 DD(X) vessels, but Admiral Mullen has decided on only 7, the Navy official said. The reduction is due in part to the ship's spiraling cost, now estimated at $2 billion to $3 billion per ship. The plan also calls for building 19 CG(X) vessels, a new cruiser designed for missile defense, but the first ship is not due to be completed until 2017, the Navy official said. The proposal would also reduce the fleet's more than 50 attack submarines to 48, the official said. Some Navy officials have called for keeping at least 55 of them. The choices have led some analysts to suggest that the Navy is de-emphasizing the threat from China, at least in the early stages of the shipbuilding plan. Beijing's investment in submarines, cruise missiles and other weapon systems is not expected to pose a major threat to American warships for at least a decade. That gives the Navy time, some analysts argue, to build capabilities that require less firepower and more mobility, a priority for Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld. The plan also calls for building 31 amphibious assault ships, which can be used to ferry marines ashore or support humanitarian operations. "This is not a fleet that is being oriented to the Chinese threat," said Loren Thompson, an analyst at the Lexington Institute, a policy research center in Arlington, Va. "It's being oriented around irregular warfare, stability operations and dealing with rogue states." But the Navy would keep 11 aircraft carriers, just one fewer than the dozen it has maintained since the end of the cold war. Retiring the 37-year-old John F. Kennedy could save $1.2 billion a year.

http://mediawiki.advancedgaming.biz/index....a#Beta_Download Page indicates 09c but reads b09b under help.

Sounded like a real tough nut. Thanks Herman. Pete

Source: P.36 Harpoon Naval Review 2003 by Dave Schuler Notional USMC Battalion Landing Team BLT Adjusted Ground Combat Strength: 22.8893 Broken down into: 3x Rifle Companies (each 27x M16-A2, 9x M16/M203, 9M249, 6x Mk153 SMAW, 6x M240G MMG, 3x M224 60mm Mortar) 1x Weapons Company (8x 81mm Mortar, 8x TOW 2B, 8x Javelin, 6x M2 HMG/6x Mk19) 1x Artillery Battery (6x 155mm (T) Howitzers) 1x Recon Platoon (24x M16-A2, 9x M16/M203, 9x M249, 3x M240G) 1x LAR Company (14x LAV-25, 2x LAV-AT) AAV Company (15x AAV-7A1) Tank Platoon (4x M1A1 MBT)

Herman, It definitely was odd as it only happened once, I was suddenly given the option to intercept the neutral aircraft. It definitely was neutral as there was 0 Red Aircraft in the test scenario I was toying with. Pete

Source: P.37 Harpoon Naval Review 2003 by Dave Schuler Iranian IRGC Infantry Brigade Brigade Adjusted Ground Combat Strength: 33.6478 Broken down into: 3x Infantry Battalions 1x Mortar Battery (6x 120mm Mortar) 1x Air Defense Battery (9x SA-7) 1x Artillery Battalion (18x 122mm Howitzers) 1x Recon Company (3x PT-76B) Anti-Tank Company (5x Kornet ATGM, 10x AT-4 ATGM) Air Defense Battery (8x Zu-23) A couple INTL Generic Tank Bn, Mech Bn, and Infatry Bn would be helpful for Small Wars. Thanks, Pete

Here are some rambling observation from toying around with the SE. Is the ALQ-164 ECM Pod found on the AV-8B II+ supposed to give relatively long ranged jamming support? I will double check tonight actual distances, but it was in fact “jamming” enemy radars. I had a neutral EW Su-24MR flying in a patrol status directly above a neutral Jask Iran. The Su jammed everybody, and Blue had no opportunity to suppress it. Mines were easily detected, engaged, and destroyed. Should mines be successfully engaged by helo launched torpedoes and/or surface ship anti-sub stand-off weaponry? Is their a way to tweak them so that it would require more specialized detection and means to deal with them – Mine Counter Measure Ships, etc. I seem to recall Navy personnel with old M-14’s taking pot shots at surface floating mines, not dropping torpedos. No hostile response by neutral aircraft or bases. I flew an AV-8B II+ right up to Jask with no response from it or its CAP. I even had one solitary opportunity to “intercept” a detected neutral Iranian aircraft, which I chased and finally shot down. Thanks, Pete

Brad, I believe that you indicated that most of the new units are now derived from H4.1 paper rules. I hope that this is somewhat the case for the ground units as I would like to request the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps Brigade found on page 37 of Dave Schuler's Harpoon Naval Review 2003. Do you have access to these stats? Can you work with Adjusted Unit Ground Combat Strengths (GCS)? I can list them here if need be and hopefully you can meld them into something workable in the near future. Please let me know. Forever I shall remain, the banned one, Pete

EC2003 Battleset. Nice catch Tony.

If I select a base in the SE, Jask Iran for example, am I restricted to only adding Iranian Aircraft (currently only obsolete model F-4's and F-14's)? I have an interest in exploring a militarily modernized Iran taking advantage of cash-strapped Russian companies or CIS states willing to sell high tech fighter/attack aircraft such as SU-30K (MKK, MKI) or MiG-29C/MiG-29K to the highest bidder. Thanks,

Thanks Brad, To confirm an earlier Land Unit discussion, there is no ability to transition a unit, such as a BLT/MEU from ship to shore,m thus introducing them as a Land Unit mid scenario? Thanks again, Pete

Is there a way to restrict ground unit movement by speed or waypoints? For example, I would like to keep company-battalion sized forces restricted on or close to an obviously imaginary roadway. Imaginary in the sense that no roads are depicted in HCCE maps. Setting a course, by waypoints would be an answer. How about speed, can speed now be "governed" based upon the scenario designers "plan"? The wheels are turning. Pete

Is there a way to restrict ground units movement by way of speed or waypoints? Are units such as SEAL Teams and MEU's still considered ordnance or can the landing force actually be landed? Thanks,

Thanks Brad, as my disclaimer noted it probably could already be done - I just oftentimes happen to be a knuckle dragger. I'll be sure to be on the 1 second time-rate while "planning" Thanks again,

from the November 28, 2005 edition - http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/1128/p01s04-wosc.html Indian Air Force, in war games, gives US a run Foreign fighter jets performed well against F-16s in recent exercises. By Scott Baldauf | Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor NEW DELHI - Mingling over a few rounds of golf, dogfighting a bit over the jungles of West Bengal - this month's Cope India 2005 war games were billed as a standard two-week exercise between Indian and American top guns. But in website chat rooms devoted to the arcania of fighter aircraft, there was a buzz. Arre, wa! Oh, wow! Had the Indian Air Force beat the Americans? Not exactly, according to observers and participants. The exercises had mixed teams of Indian and American pilots on both sides, which means that both the Americans and the Indians won, and lost. 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. "But we're not talking about a single aircraft. We're talking about the overall infrastructure, the command and control systems, the radar on the ground and in the air, the technical crew on the ground, and how do you maximize that infrastructure. This is where the learning curve takes place. "So let's forget about I beat you, you beat me," he adds. "This is not a game of squash." F-16s 'got their clocks cleaned' Tell that to the participants of bharat-rakshak.com (Guardian of India). On any given day, this website seems devoted to which Indian fighter plane uses which missile, with occasional grumblings about why Saurav Ganguly is still playing on the Indian cricket team. But during Cope India '05, Bharat Rakshak was a veritable cheering session for the underestimated Indian Air Force. Typical was a posting by a blogger who called himself "Babui." Citing a quote from a US Air Force participant in Cope India '05 in Stars and Stripes - "We try to replicate how these aircraft perform in the air, and I think we're good at doing that in our Air Force, but what we can't replicate is what's going on in their minds. They've challenged our traditional way of thinking on how an adversary, from whichever country, would fight." - "Babui" wrote, "That quote is as good an admission that the F-16 jocks got their clocks cleaned." Another blogger, Forgestone, advised against such "chest-thumping." "Coming out on the winning or losing side of a scorecard doesn't change their large technological edge, their resources, their experience, their talent, their geostrategic position," he wrote, referring to the US Air Force. More recently, an American pilot who participated in the exercise, added his own two cents on the blog. "It makes me sick to see some of the posts on this website," wrote a purported US "Viper" pilot. "They made some mistakes and so did we.... That's what happens and you learn from it." The point of the exercise, he said, was for the USAF and the IAF to train, learn, and yes, play golf alongside each other. "For two weeks of training, both sides got more out of their training than they probably would in two months." US fighter prowess slipping Military experts say the joint exercises occurred at a time when America's fighter jet prowess is slipping. Since the US victories in the first Gulf War, a war dependent largely on air power, the Russians and French have improved the aviation electronics (avionics) and weapons capabilities of their Sukhoi and Mirage 2000 fighter aircraft. These improvements have given countries like India, which use the Sukhois and Mirages, a rough parity with US fighter planes like the F-16 and F-15C. China, too, now has 400 late-model Sukhois. Yet, while the Indian Air Force designed the exercises to India's advantage - forcing pilots to fight "within visual range" rather than using America's highly advanced "beyond visual range" sensing equipment - both observers and participants admit that Indian aircraft and personnel performed much better than expected. The Su-30 MKI "is an amazing jet that has a lot of maneuverability," Capt. Martin Mentch told an Air Force publication, AFPN. Maneuverability is key for missions of visual air combat. If it turns out the US Air Force did, in fact, get their clocks cleaned, it will have been the second time. In Cope India 2004, an air combat exercise that took place near the Indian city of Gwalior, US F-15s were eliminated in multiple exercises against Indian late-model MiG-21 Fishbeds as fighter escorts and MiG-27 Floggers. In the 2005 exercises in Kalaikundi air base near Calcutta, Americans were most impressed by the MiG-21 Bisons and the Su-30 MKIs. Indian training surprises US Maj. Mark A. Snowden, the 3rd Wing's chief of air-to-air tactics and a participant in Cope India 2004, admitted that the US Air Force underestimated the Indians. "The outcome of the [2004] exercise boils down to [the fact that] they ran tactics that were more advanced than we expected," he told Aviation Week last year. "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." One USAF controller working aboard an AWACS (Airborne Warning and Control System) plane told reporters at Kalaikundi Air Base that he was impressed by the speed in which Indian pilots responded to target assignments given them by AWACS. The AWACS, while operated by Americans, was acting as a neutral party, feeding target assignments to both Indian and American pilots during the exercise. In most cases, the Indians responded to target assignments faster than the American pilots did - a surprising fact, given that this was the first time Indian pilots had used the American AWACS capability. Given India's growing economic and diplomatic aspirations, it's not surprising that many Indians would have the occasional outburst of jingoism. But Indian pilots know they still have a lot to learn. "Whether the Indians win or lose is crew room gossip," says Mr. Patney. "The important thing is for us to be involved with the Americans; the purpose is to fly alongside each other, to learn from each other, to see if there is any interoperability. And for the Americans, the main thing is to see