Military junkies may have heard about a recent training exercise b/t a US Air Force fighter wing against the Indian Air Force. The Americans apparently got their buts whipped.
One of my favorite military blogs – Strategypage.com – has more of the backstory on what really went on (quoted in full here cuz Strategypage’s permalinks don’t work) –
October 6, 2004: More details have come out about the “losing” performance of U.S. F-15Cs (from the Alaska-based 3rd Wing) against India’s air force in the Cope India air-to-air combat exercise earlier this year. The Air Force and some members of Congress have used the “failure” to justify the need for new F/A-22 and F-35 fighters. Some are calling the results a demonstrated weakening of American air combat capabilities
Two factors have been cited as major reasons why the 3rd Wing took a drubbing. None of the participating American aircraft had the latest long-range AESA radars, although some of the F-15Cs of the Wing had this equipment. A decision had been made beforehand not to send the AESA equipped planes to India due to the additional maintenance package required to support them. A total of six F-15Cs were sent to India, each equipped with a fighter data link, short-range AIM-9X heat-seeking air-to-air missiles, and the U.S.’s helmet-mounted cueing system. Secondly, at India’s request, the U.S. agreed to mock combat at 3-to-1 odds and without the full range of capabilities of simulated long-range radar-guided AIM-120 AMRAAM missiles. U.S. fighters could not use the active on-board radar capability of the AMRAAM, and the missile was limited to around 32 kilometers range and required the use of the F-15C’s onboard radar to target Indian aircraft. In standard use, AMRAAM has a range of over 100 kilometers and is a fire-and-forget missile that doesn’t require additional guidance from the F-15. Practiced tactics by the F-15 crews mix two AESA-equipped F-15Cs with two stock aircraft. The AESA aircraft take long-range missile shots to thin out and disrupt the formation of a numerically superior force before the two sides close up for closer fighting. The F-15s flew in groups of 4 against packages of 12 Indian Air Force aircraft consisting of a mix of Mirage 2000, Su-30, Mig-21, and Mig-27 aircraft. The Mirage and Su-30 aircraft were used in the air-to-air role, while the Mig-27 was used as the strike aircraft with the Mig-21 providing escort to the Mig-27s. The Indians also had a simulated AWACS platform and the use of simulated active radar missiles such as the AA-12 and the French Mica, unlike the F-15Cs. This gave the Indian Air Force a fire-and-forget air-to-air missile capability that the U.S. fighters didn’t have, a heavily unrealistic assumption in actual hostilities. However, the U.S. pilots admitted that they did have problems with the simulated active missile threat and don’t normally train against launch-and-leave threats. They also admit they underestimated the training and tactics of the Indian pilots. Indian air force planners never repeated failed tactics and were able to change tactics as opportunities became available, mixing things up and never providing the same tactical “look.” Some of the Indian aircraft radars had different characteristics than U.S. pilots had seen on stock versions of the aircraft, including some of the Mirage 2000s.
Secondly, at India’s request, the U.S. agreed to mock combat at 3-to-1 odds and without the full range of capabilities of simulated long-range radar-guided AIM-120 AMRAAM missiles…The F-15s flew in groups of 4 against packages of 12 Indian Air Force aircraft consisting of a mix of Mirage 2000, Su-30, Mig-21, and Mig-27 aircraft.
Somehow this crucial fact was left off the headlines…I don’t think the Indian Air Force will be on the same level as the US Air Force on 1:1 basis in the near future, or ever for that matter.
GC, I hate to tell you this but in one aspect you are off. It is true that American airplanes will be more technologically advanced that Indian airplanes for the forseeable future. Their pilots however will be equal in skill level. Why? Because within about 25 years all aerial combat will be taken out of pilots hands and be automated or flown via virtual reality machines on the ground. While purist pilots like myself hate the thought of that, its gonna happen. Technology is the great equalizer.
GC: why did you think there would be a persistent gap? 10 years ago, somebody might have said the same thing about engineers, now any claims of a persistent gap in engineering quality are demonstrably untrue. Is it the equipment they train on? Is it something genetic about eye-hand coordination? Is it something cultural about martial values?
Do tell.
Their pilots however will be equal in skill level. Why? Because within about 25 years all aerial combat will be taken out of pilots hands and be automated or flown via virtual reality machines on the ground.
Abhi, you think the technology to do that is going to be equally available all over the world? I know quite a bit about machine learning and guidance/control myself…
If you are talking total automation of aerial combat, we are talking about the most sophisticated pattern recognition capability yet developed integrated with an extraordinarily sophisticated control & sensing system…not something every country will be able to afford.
Even if you just mean remote control, it is hardly going to be a step-function jump from remote-control planes to USA-caliber Predators, after which point “all pilots are on the same level” from then on out.
Think about it: everything from sensors to weapons systems to more advanced VR systems to the full on brain machine interfaces being developed for DARPA at Stanford & Duke will continue to tip the balance in favor of the US of A for the foreseeable future.
why did you think there would be a persistent gap? 10 years ago, somebody might have said the same thing about engineers, now any claims of a persistent gap in engineering quality are demonstrably untrue. Is it the equipment they train on? Is it something genetic about eye-hand coordination? Is it something cultural about martial values?
Because India will never be as rich per-capita as the US. China might be, but India will probably top out around Malaysia levels for reasons we’ve discussed before (basically, India doesn’t have 100% contributors to the economy like China does. Look at the caste distribution in the tech sector).
The comparison to individual engineers is not apropos, because you need a HUGE, technologically advanced economy to build jet fighters. If subsistence farming is the bottom of the technological/economic pyramid, jet fighters are at the very top. You need advanced supply chains, plastics, computers, satellites, robotics, and all sorts of stuff to put together a jet fighter.
Fighter aircraft really is at the top of the economic/technological food chain, along with aircraft carriers and spacecraft.
India isn’t going to have an economy capable of sustaining an aircraft program on par with the US for the foreseeable future. I mean, they don’t even have consistent power or water or phone connections. The only way India and the US could be equalized on an economic/technological basis would be for us to continue our current merit-blind immigration policy indefinitely.
China is another matter entirely, because their economy will be large in both absolute terms and capable of sustaining really capital intensive high tech projects. But India’s caste situation means it will always be an also-ran relative to China & possibly the US.
Layer on top of that the fact that India’s martial tradition consists of losing war after war and being invaded time and again. In recent memory they’ve lost to Muslim invaders, British colonists, and Chinese communists. Nuclear weapons have changed that to some extent, but India has no martial tradition to speak of – and that matters too.
GC: Most free marketeers would say that most countries shouldn’t try to build fighter jets, they ought to buy them.
Do you think that Indian fighter pilots will be no good even if India can buy large numbers of jets?
Second, from people I’ve spoken to, the Indian army is quite good. As for martial tradition, they fought quite hard in WWI and WWII. As for states within India, many did and do have martial traditions ….
Most free marketeers would say that most countries shouldn’t try to build fighter jets, they ought to buy them.
1) We don’t have a free market when it comes to national security. We don’t sell nukes, for example. There are sales which have enough collective impact that we don’t just allow private companies to sell at will (aka export controls). Fighter aircraft certainly fall into that category.
The market is useful insofar as it produces worthwhile results. It is not an end in and of itself. We didn’t wait for private companies to raise money to put a bounty on bin Laden, for example – the market doesn’t and shouldn’t handle everything, especially when it comes to national security issues: borders and critical military technology.
2) More directly, you neglect the question of where that money will come from. A country incapable of building fighter aircraft will never be in the technological lead by definition. At max they will be #2 and their reliance on technology will come from that which is handed out by #1.
And you’d have to be a pretty foolish #1 to allow all your military tech to be sold/declassified to #2.
As for Indian fighter pilots, they are only as good as the jets they fly in and the training time they receive. US pilots can afford to train hundreds of days per year, despite the massive cost in jet fuel, logistical support, air traffic control, etcetera, because of our powerful economy.
You just can’t take economic strength out of the equation. It is a necessary component of military strength.
As for the Indian army being good…who have they ever beaten? Pakistan? It’s still on the map, still launching attacks on India…and it has only 1/10 the population. Not exactly a peer rival. The Indian military isn’t a global power. They aren’t even much of a regional power, as all three (India, China, and Pakistan) have nukes and China is much stronger conventionally as demo’d in 1962. And of course Russia is influential there.
I’d put India’s military as probably the best in the third-world (alongside North Korea, which is sort of a weird comparison). But that’s not close to being a global power.
Quality of the Indian armed forces:
You wouldn’t judge the US army from 1962 either, nor would you judge it by the fact that they haven’t occupied North Korea yet.
Read Janes or other sources where people make assessments of military quality.
Honestly, this isn’t a personal matter to me, I just think that this is a factual area where most of the military types I know disagree with you.
As a mil-junkie, it’s probably time I chimed in here. My predictions –
1) mano-a-mano, the creme of the crop of the Indian military will eventually achieve parity with the mid tier of the US military (for ex., the IAF vs. USAF competition was b/t standard US deployed forces vs. India’s top guns).
2) Training is ridiculously expensive (as in thousands of $$$ per MINUTE) and is lavished on most of the middle of the US military but reserved only for the top of the Indian military. Training – at the mano-a-mano level – is actually a bigger differentiator than armament quality.
3) SYSTEMIC advantages will continue to flow to the US military. For ex., even though Nazi tanks were WAY WAY better than US tanks in WWII, it was the effectiveness of US combined arms / artillery / air tactics that did in most German tanks, NOT Shermans. Similarly, US edge in intelligence, stand-off weapons, coordination, maintenance, logistics, consistency of deployment, etc. mean a huge qualititative advantage for a long time.
For ex., Vietnam-War era Mig-21’s still make up a large proportion of the deployed Indian Airforce (they’ve nicknamed them “flying coffins”.)
UCAV’s of diff sorts will make up some of this ground but not all. (the tech that makes UCAV’s cheap makes missiles cheap too!)
Overall, I think India has a rather high quality military and it’s a compliment to the country that they’ve achieved this (possibly on par with 2nd tier European nations at this point). BUT, comparisons to the US are apples/oranges.
Why don’t you try invading us instead of some moth-eaten military in West Asia and you’ll find out how good we are.
Why don’t you try invading us instead of some moth-eaten military in West Asia and you’ll find out how good we are.
Why not beat the other moth-eaten military in South Asia that keeps killing people in your country and funding terrorists…and then you can talk about taking on China, let alone the USA…
Also, I agree with Vinod that India could go toe to toe with, say, Poland or Spain. (Though it’s a hypothetical question given the lack of force projection on both sides). But all the following countries have stronger militaries:
US UK Japan Germany France Italy Australia Russia China
Probably even Israel would give India a serious fight, just because they are so good on a pound-for-pound basis.
Ennis: I would really like to see an article that talks about the Indian military’s competence.
Here’s an analysis of the Indian navy from Jane’s, slightly dated (2001-02). Scroll down to find the India subheading:
Iyer -Why don’t you try invading us instead of some moth-eaten military in West Asia and you’ll find out how good we are.
GC -Why not beat the other moth-eaten military in South Asia that keeps killing people in your country and funding terrorists…and then you can talk about taking on China, let alone the USA…
this is a real sad thought process talking about invading countries to show military power of country when we should be talking about peace and how to spread peace in these tough times with so many US soldiers, ordinary poor people in iraq and afghanistan are losing lives due to war and terrorism. It almost feels like a prolonged third world war already started. sad that so many countries are trying to acquire nuclear power ( abhis later article about nuclear power), whether its india or iran or US or korea , this is just not right.. wish all the countries realise this and stop spending money on acquiring nuclear power or in building armies/military capabilities
Can’t we all just get along?
I’ve also read that India’s military is quite capable and highly regarded by other nations. Don’t underestimate its strength.
Indian soldiers fought very bravely for the British military during WWII and won many important battles against the Axis forces.
” Because India will never be as rich per-capita as the US. China might be, but India will probably top out around Malaysia levels for reasons we’ve discussed before (basically, India doesn’t have 100% contributors to the economy like China does. Look at the caste distribution in the tech sector). “
Indian civilization has been one of the most advanced in the world throughout much of history and has generally been comparable to Chinese civilization. It has made significant contributions to mathematics, science, literature, art, architecture, philosophy, religion, astrology, and medicine. The ancient Greeks, Persians, Muslims, and Western colonialists admired India’s long history of achievement. Indian civilization may have been the most advanced in the world during the Maurya empire, Gupta empire, and Mughal empire. India also had one of the world’s largest economies just a few hundred years ago.
India was certainly comparable to China in the past. Why couldn’t India compete with China now?
“As for the Indian army being good…who have they ever beaten? Pakistan? It’s still on the map, still launching attacks on India…and it has only 1/10 the population. Not exactly a peer rival. The Indian military isn’t a global power. They aren’t even much of a regional power, as all three (India, China, and Pakistan) have nukes and China is much stronger conventionally as demo’d in 1962. And of course Russia is influential there.”
Indians don’t believe in engaging in war unless their nation is in danger. This has kept India out of many conflicts.
India could’ve destroyed Pakistan in the past, but chose to negotiate. Even today India is easily far more powerful than Pakistan and most of the surrounding nations.
India was only defeated badly by China because it did not give sufficient support to the military in the past, wanted to be a peaceful nation, and didn’t anticipate a Chinese invasion. Today India’s military is strongly supported, equipped with sophisticated technology and weapons, and respected for its strength. The Chinese military is most likely more powerful, but they couldn’t easily defeat India now.
“Layer on top of that the fact that India’s martial tradition consists of losing war after war and being invaded time and again. In recent memory they’ve lost to Muslim invaders, British colonists, and Chinese communists. Nuclear weapons have changed that to some extent, but India has no martial tradition to speak of – and that matters too. “
India would’ve been more successful in wars in the past if the country was united under a strong leader.
The Sikhs have a proud military tradition.
“China is another matter entirely, because their economy will be large in both absolute terms and capable of sustaining really capital intensive high tech projects. But India’s caste situation means it will always be an also-ran relative to China & possibly the US. “
India has developed nuclear weapons, satellites, missiles, and sophisticated computers without any significant assistance from outside countries. If India makes it a priority, they can compete with China in technology.
India already has done much better than China in producing software.
^That was me.
when we should be talking about peace and how to spread peace in these tough times with so many US soldiers, ordinary poor people in iraq and afghanistan are losing lives due to war and terrorism
Somehow I doubt this appeal would be directed to the bin Ladens, Kim Jong Ils, Palestinians, and Talibans of the world. It is only the democracies who should disarm!
In an earlier era you would have been part of the “nuclear freeze” movement, the guys who opposed any Western defence against Soviet/Chinese aggression.
(And I love the way that you elevate the “ordinary poor people” in Iraq over the “ordinary people” in Iraq. Victimology really is a cult: 5 points for being of the right class, another 5 for being of the right race, and +100 for not being American.)
PMC:
Look, India certainly has some high points because it has millions of highly intelligent people. But it’s spin and wishful thinking to believe that it’s going to be a peer competitor with China – let alone the US – in the near future.
I’ll take India seriously when it has an interstate highway system, consistent electricity, and potable water. Till then, it is an also ran, especially in the military arena – and especially in the ultra-capital intensive area of fighter aircraft. “Best in the third-world” is not really good…
5 points for being of …..
ROTFL !! 🙂
“Best in the third-world” is not really good …
Err, is China first-world now ?
Anyway, for a more nuanced take on the entire issue, check out this discussion over at FR :
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1237790/posts
Err, is China first-world now ?
Not all of it, but some parts definitely are (not just Hong Kong – many of the Eastern coastal cities). I can’t say the same for India. Have you been to both countries recently? India has improved a lot since the mid 90’s, but China is light-years ahead, especially along the Eastern seaboard.
Shenzhen’s another HK, the rest of the cities are close. Well, yeah, India sucks pretty hard, but atleast we don’t forcibly keep ’em poverty-stricken farmers out of our cities to keep them pretty. Anyway, GC, I know you have an affinity for the yellows, but it’s kinda disingenuous to suggest that China’s anywhere close to being first-world. With 50% of the population working in farms, it’s hard to have a first-world economy, na ?
PS : If you’re an upper-middle-class Indian, it would make sense to choose democratic India over
a China-style authoritarian setup here. Why should I when I live rather well right now, don’t give a rat’s ass about the vast underclass becoming better-off, and yet get the freedoms of a democratic nation. I have more to lose by way of restricted freedom than I have to gain by way of a few $$ more.
Ah – after all the posts about books, film, art shows – good old war makes an appearance on the board.
First off, we need to distinguish between the willingness of Indian troops to fight, and the tools and equipment they are given. Indian soldiers, pilots, seamen have shown extraordinary bravery on the battlefield. In Kargil, you had Indian troops climbing at heights of 14,000 feet and higher, while being fired at from firmly entrenched Pakistani gunners. A Pakistani soldier interviewed by Time magazine at the time said something to the effect that no matter how much they kept shooting, the Indians did not pull back. But, Indian troops did not have proper high-altitude, cold-weather gear. The boots wore out quickly, and many supplies were delivered by donkey – once again demonstrating why India needs a modern interstate system.
But, the Indian military at the time realized that the battle could be won away from Kargil – namely by blockading Karachi. By the time Nawaz Sharif went to meet with Clinton on the July 4th weekend, Pakistan would be out of oil in six days. The Indian navy had pretty much shut down all commercial shipping to Karachi. Since India is surrounded by water, it would be in India’s interest to modernize its navy to move many and material quickly.
The use of air power was patchy. The MIGs were not all that useful at such a high altitude, but the newly purchased Mirage 2000 proved to be quite adept at high altitude, quick targeting, and excellent nightime navigation.
So, the lesson learned was that India definitely needed to modernize its equipment. But, a strong military without a strong economy will not give you that much protection. The Soviet Union demonstrated that. Here GC has point – unless India as a whole can advance economically, and not just the higher caste segments, then India will not be able to have a military and economy on par with China.
But GC may be making a mistake by being dazzled by the bright lights of Shanghai. Without a doubt, what is happening along China’s eastern seaboard is impressive. But, you now have around 70 million Chinese on the move at any one point – moving to the east. China may become like Mexico – a large landmass with the population centered around urban areas. India’s population is still rural, although it is urbanizing quickly. For things not to get too out of hand, it is imperative to spread economic development around. By some estimates, Bombay will have more people than Australia in 20 years.
As for whether India could take on a European nation in war – nations have historically gone to war with their neighbors – India/Pakistan, Germany/France, Japan/China. Going to war with faraway lands is the exception – not the rule. India may not have the power projection to go into Europe, but no European nation can now project into India. Even the Chinese realize that a traditional war with India makes no sense – cause they do not have stable supply lines over the Himalayas.
An intersting article on Kargil can be found here:
CCC Research: Asymmetric Conflict in South Asia — The Cause and Consequences of the 1999 Limited War in Kargil http://www.ccc.nps.navy.mil/research/kargil/index.asp
GC:Somehow I doubt this appeal would be directed to the bin Ladens, Kim Jong Ils, Palestinians, and Talibans of the world. It is only the democracies who should disarm!
All these above people/groups who are trying to spread terrorism in the world should be condemned and disarmed too just as countries which try to wage wars or acquire nuclear powers. Loss of human life is sad doesnot matter to which country people belong to whether its US citizens in sep11th attacks, citizens of iraq or afghanistan or indian citizens in punjab constantly victims of terrorist attacks. And people who are rich/middle class who have bank savings dont suffer so much as poor people who dont have yesterdays savings to live on and can eat their one day/two day meals on todays earnings and not on yesterdays savings. Their lives are real hard specially in the times of war.There are so many kids all over the world now who are orphans because of events happening all over the world the last three years and its scary to see countries and terrorist groups acquire nuclear weapons at this time. Though nuclear weapons and military can be put to good use too,but in todays world chances of them being used in a wrong way are more..
The Indian military has some advantages over the US military.
Seriously, man, you live in a fantasy world.
Indian troops are tougher than American troops? Please – the toughest South Asians are the Sikhs or the Gurkhas (who are Nepalese), and they’ve got nothing on US Special Forces. The Hindus who make up the bulk of India are massively underrepresented in the armed forces and in athletic endeavours in general.
Furthermore, whatever genetic factors favor lean muscle mass, athletic ability, endurance, and hand eye coordination seem to be at least partially lacking among the bulk of the Indian male population, judging from the results of the Olympics. Surely it’s not entirely nonbiological when a country of a billion – with millions who are wealthy enough to train, run, etc. – gets a total of one medal.
The comparison to US troops is ludicrous and delusional.
I mean, when has India ever won a war? Who writes stories about Indian Navy Seals or Army Rangers? The biggest victory for India in the last century was a nonviolent one, if you will recall. I can’t even think of any territory that India has gained, offhand – they lost the whole country to the Brits, they lost Pakistan during partition, they lost the border area to China in 1962, and if the leftists in the current government have anything to say about they’ll lose Kashmir as well.
Note that I don’t count those skirmishes with Pakistan as “winning”, given that Pakistan is still on the map, still exporting nukes, still bombing and killing and funding jihad inside India. Nothing has been won against Pakistan.
The Indian President can think coherently. So if America attacks India, India will not attack Mozambique in retaliation looking for weapons of mass destruction
I seem to recall that Pakistani jihadis bombed the Indian Parliament…yet India is fencing off the Bangladeshi border rather than the Pakistani one. And of course India is strategically fixated on Pakistan to the neglect of China.
So tell me again about how they’re fighting the “real threat”? While Manmohan is a solid enough guy, the majority of the government in power is composed of leftists and dozens of outright Communists who can’t get enough of those zany, misunderstood Muslim fundamentalists.
They can’t even acknowledge that Pakistan is a threat or that many Muslims within India sympathize with Pakistan…
to moderate my position a little bit…
I agree with the following points made by KXB and randombrownguy:
India is a nicer place to live than China for upper middle class Indians, not least because of press freedom and so on (as well as cultural things, which may be more important to others than me…though a good idli or two always hits the spot).
India’s military is good enough that it would extract a fairly substantial cost for China to invade, and that it wouldn’t be a step China would take lightly.
I do think the economic outcome for India will be Malaysia-like rather than Taiwan-like, but that’s still a fairly well developed and comfortable country…with a nontrivial military capable of defending itself against Chinese aggression, if not going on the offensive or being a global power.
Compare the Indian diaspora, of which most of us are member. Many of the achievements here have been impressive, but are company or individual scale. That is, we have IIT and M. Night Shyamalan and successful diasporas in the UK/Uganda/South Africa/US/Canada/etc., but it’s not like the South Asian dominated countries (Fiji, Mauritius, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Nepal, and India) are predictably wealthy, unlike the predictable wealth of East Asian dominated countries.
The sole exception – the potential South Asian Singapore – is the UAE. If I was enjoined with debating the other side of the argument, namely that India will become a true first world country and not a pseudo-first-world country like Malaysia, I’d use the UAE as an example. Only about 20% of its economy comes from oil and it has quite a diversified trading sector…and the economy is dominated by South Asian Muslims. Even if you subtract oil from GDP entirely, it has a GDP-per-capita around that of Greece or Spain.
I’ve searched around for the caste distribution of the emigrants to the UAE (or, more appropriately, the caste distro of their ancestors before they converted) but I couldn’t find anything. However, if you want to have hope that India could seriously become a 1st world country, the UAE would be the model to investigate.
GC:
Your analysis of Indian military prowess leaves me well…underwhelmed. You ask “when has India ever won a war..,” Ummm…well lemme see: 1971, dismembering of Pakistan ? Does that count?
And, no, GC I don’t buy your suggestion that victory in war counts only if one thoroughly eliminates and/or reforms the opponent. But dismembering one’s enemy isn’t all that bad a substitute. In any case, winning a war means just that, i.e., victory on the battlefield. Not elimination and/or reform, or even dismembering one’s enemy.
More importantly, you neglect the history of warfare in South Asia. There’s no need to go back to Asoka’s empire-building. Just go back to the 18th century, and read the contemporary, approving, British accounts of Indian soldiers.
The Sardars aren’t the featured players in these accounts. They were talking about low-caste as well as dalit troops. What you’ll find especially interesting in these accounts is the physical strength of these soldiers. Any examination of Indian history shows that the identity of the ‘martial races’ have changed.
But all of the above is a (rather long) digression. I think you’re mistaken in believing that India will probably be Malaysia-like, at best.
You cite the contrasting examples of Indian vs. Chinese diasporas. Bracketing the question of whether your examples are too narrow (example: why not count the influential Indian diaspora in medieval SE Asia in your examples ?), your inference will be undercut if anything like LaGriffe du-u-know-who’s idea of a ‘smart fraction’ is correct.
In other words, you’re speculating on the nature of the IQ distribution in Indian groups as well as the effect of a skewed IQ distribution. I’d think the data-at-hand underwrite only agnosticism about India’s ultimate destiny.
It is interesting that so many people have such misinformed notions about military, military strategy, and ideas of superiority.
The best post was Vinod’s who clearly and consisely stated WHY the US military trumps the Indian Military respectfully. Being a Military nut and involved with Military as a civilian I would second Vinod’s assesment.
The support structure, logistics, training hours, infrastructure is the key to maintaining a top notch military.
Do you folks know that India still procures a significant portion of its armament from foreign sources. Despite the rapid modernization and turnover being conducted by the Indian Military, there have always been massive spare parts issues (Russian Hardware)This means your effective fighting force is not as deployable. For example 155 artillery is always on order with other countries (BOFORS, South Africa, Isreal). Air Defence is soviet style SAMs and similar networks. Lack of spare parts has hampered Indian helicopters, MIGs, Ships, etc.
Lets pick this service by service:
1) Army: US is numerically smaller. Equipment: Hummers, M!A2 Tanks, Apache Helicopters, Stryker vehicles, Bradley Vehicles etc. Each Soldier is also much better equipped. Contrary to popular belief, the more comfortable a Soldier is, the performance increases drastically. No Jawan or American is stronger than the other. Provided the same equipment and training, both do well. THERE ARE Punjabis in the US military and they do about the same as their white, black, asian, etc. counterparts.
Numerically in terms of hardware, the US has MUCH more. Thousands of Modern M1 tanks compared to Indias backone which is the T72 (these were chewed up in the first Gulf War). Again, electronic integration changes the speed at which war is fought, this is the primary advantage.
2) Navy: No competition. The US naval air fleet is the size of the Indian Airforce. 11 Air Craft carriers Vs. 1 for the INS. The Viraat is OLD OLD OLD and supports Sea Harriers. The US Marine Corps has AV8-B Harriers that are newer than the Sea Harriers. Essentially a vessal like the USS IWO JIMA compares directly to the Viraat (former HMS Hermes, Falkland War era, ex Brit). Also Nuclear submarines including ballistic and attack. India does not operate nuclear subs and has a small fleet of diesel electric Kilos.
Also, what CHINA fears the most is the Aegis system on the US fleet. When Taiwan was supplied with destroyers, China made it clear if Aegies was supplied it would be VERY upset. Indian systems are generic/Russian vintage and currently being upgraded by Isrealies, but no where near Aeigis.
3)Air Force: The competition as many have stated here was not setup for parity. The specific test was designed to overwhelm US forces for reason, its a war game and data needs to be collected. f-15C’s are approaching their end. India’s current top fighter is the SU 30MKI which by the end it will have approximately 150 or so in the years to come. This is a 4th generation aircraft. The F22 Raptor is 5th generation. India is currently developing. The US pilots on the average have significant greater training hours and a diversified fleet from small fighters to massive bombers. Again, numerically, support, overall quality (aircraft and training) the US comes clearly ahead.
4) Marine Corps: India has NO EQUIVALENT. The Marine Corps is arguably the US military’s most potent weapon. Advanced Infantry, armor, air fleet (F-18’s and Harriers) all together forms a very potent fighting force.
Special Forces: Indian special forces have primarly gained new training from US NAVY SEALS and RANGERS! Earlier, a few Indian Marine Commandos (not Marine Corps) trained up with SEALS and brought back some training and techniques.
India has no equivalent to Green Berets and CCT’s (Combat Air Controllers, they call in airstrikes and are very devastating). India’s Army Special forces are the Para Commandos which are more equivalent to Army Rangers (Advanced Airborne Infantry) Numerically US Special Forces outnumer Indian forces too.
Missles: The Tomahawk has a range of hunderds of miles. The newly promoted Brahmos missle though supersonic, has a very very limited range. Plus the US has thousands of Tomahawks with every navy ship loaded up with them.
In CONLCUSION
THe Indian Military has significant assents for regional projection of power and defense. However in a full fledged open war with the US it would not win. The Indian Army has always been the traditional strength, with the obvious reason of Pakistan.
Godlesscapitalist:
India hasn’t just had SOME eras of accomplishment. India was one of the most advanced nations in the world throughout much of history and was more advanced than China at times. Travelers from around the world were amazed by India’s high level of civilization and achievement.
Overall India has generally been comparable to China. If India could compete with China in the past, it can compete now.
Many of the Chinese living in Hong Kong, Taiwan, Singapore, and Southeast Asia are from Fujian merchant clans. They’re as representative of China’s general population as Gujarati merchant castes are of India’s general population.
Parts of Bangalore are comparable to Western cities.
India could progress far more quickly if it had stronger leadership.
I also want to add that India is far ahead of China in producing software.
GC is a simpleton who is obsessed with genetics. For her information, Sikhs are basicaly Punjabis – genetically no different from Punjabi Hindus or Punjabi Muslims. Many families have brothers – one Sikh, one Hindu.
It is courage and not genetics that make Indian jawans stronger. We Indians are not afraid to die. Amercians get a little scratch on their hand and they check themselves into hospitals and get awarded Purple Hearts. Some 2000 Americans die in 2001 and Americans start quivering in their boots everytime the firealarm goes off.
Btw, when was the last time the US wiped a country from the map?
NO ONE is saying India cannot achieve things in the future, but currently it is comparing apples to oranges when bringing up Military Parity. One cannot rely on past glory, maybe pride, but not past accomplishments to line up the future. I know the past very well since I was educated in India.
Main problem facing India has always been a lack of cohesive leadership, corruption, and the lack of infrastructure for support. What good is a gun if the bullets are not good and what good is a MIG aircraft if it does not have good parts to keep it running. The logistical side is one of the key elements.
Obviously the software side is far ahead than China. But software alone cannot help dig India out of the problems mentioned above. By the way, India is taking a more rapid CAPITALIST approach (see software) and is heading in that direction.
The comparison made previously was to highlight a few weapons does not paint a complete picture. For every soldier out there, there are quite a few in the background on support, logistics, and training.
India not only has some accomplishments, it has MANY. But one must get over the glory of the past to focus on the future. Historical achievements can only take you so far.
There is a reason India and the USA are cooperation, and one of them is the fact that USA can see India as an emerging regional power that is the worlds largest democracy. No point in fighting each other when most of the goals are quite common. From the Malabar straights to Air excerises and Special Operations training (US military sent some guys to improve upon Mountain assualt techniques poinnered by the Indian Army from experience in Kashmir). For Cope India, India wanted f-16s but the US sent f-15Cs instead (Pakistan objected since they have f-16)
Many of the Chinese living in Hong Kong, Taiwan, Singapore, and Southeast Asia are from Fujian merchant clans. They’re as representative of China’s general population as Gujarati merchant castes are of India’s general population.
Okay, here’s a little challenge. Find a SINGLE example from the Chinese diaspora where the community is poor. Here’s a post from GNXP on the Chinese community in Russia, put up ages ago. It’s worth a read.
It is courage and not genetics that make Indian jawans stronger. We Indians are not afraid to die
Umm, buddy boy, that’s pretty reminiscent of the deranged General Ayub Khan’s loony 1 Muslim = 10 Hindus theory. What’s it Iyer, 1 Desi = 10 American Whiteys ?
GC: The US army takes in many foreign officers for training. The way to see if Desi soldiers are not as strong, or fast, or nimble, is to check to see whether they systematically do worse at special forces training. Near as I have heard, they don’t. That would be a simple controlled experiment.
Similarly, Desi soldiers formed an important part of the British army, and fought in both theaters. They were highly decorated. I have never heard a British officer claim that these soldiers were somehow inferior, quite the opposite.
When you find a simple basis for comparison, your racialist assertions that the subcontinent, despite its amazing genetic variation, produces inherently inferior soldiers goes out the window.
I agree that India has to make signficant progress in eliminating corruption, educating the general population, raising the literacy rate, building infrastructure, creating a more favorable environment for economic growth and investment, and more efficiently operating the government. If it doesn’t address these problems, it won’t be able to compete with China.
I brought up India’s long history of advanced civilization to demonstrate that India is probably CAPABLE of competing with China if it has STRONG LEADERSHIP.
China is currently doing very well because its leaders have reduced the size of government, invited in foreign investment, and reformed the government.
Indian soldiers fought very bravely for the British military and were important to winning many victories. That’s indisputable.
I’d like to add that China was humiliated by the British during the Opium Wars.
“Okay, here’s a little challenge. Find a SINGLE example from the Chinese diaspora where the community is poor. Here’s a post from GNXP on the Chinese community in Russia, put up ages ago. It’s worth a read.”
The Chinese community in the U.S. was quite poor until educated Chinese began to migrate to the U.S. in the 1950s.
I believe the Chinese community in Latin America and the Carribean is poor. Also, I think the relatively large Chinese community in France is generally low income.
How do you know that the Chinese people starting the businesses in the far east were former laborers? There’s a strong possibility that they were businessmen from China that decided to invest capital in the region and start businesses.
Don’t people get the leaders they deserve? Maybe that argument is valid within a snapshot, but surely not after 57 years of independence.
“We Indians are not afraid to die.”
You may want to remember your Patton. There is nothing glorious in dying for one’s country, it is glorious to make the other son of a bitch die for HIS country.
If the American polity is sensitive to casualties, that does not translate into cowardice. It means that they realize soldiers are a valuable, finite resource. One month of fighting in Okinawa cost 10,000 American troops. We have lost 1,000 in Iraq over the course of a year and half – that’s progress.
How many Indian troops have been killed in Kashmir? As Kargil showed – bravery does not make up for shoddy equipment and poorly guarded supply lines. No one is suggesting that when push comes to shove that Indians cannot fight. But right now, due to poorer equipment, poor infrastructure, and comparatively poorer health conditions – the Indian military is not as good as it can be.
It’s difficult for an extremely diverse DEMOCRACY like India to produce strong leaders that make difficult decisions.
China benefits from relative cultural and racial homogenity. China also is a one-party state with leaders that can make difficult decisions without being voted out of office.
Of course India has always been a free, open, and democratic nation that has respected human rights. China is undemocratic and suppresses dissent.
Additionally, millions of Chinese people were killed by famines and the government during the 1950s and 1960s. India may have weak leaders, but they NEVER killed millions of their people and and created chaos in their country. Indians haven’t ever had to suffer as much as the Chinese.
” Err, is China first-world now ?
Not all of it, but some parts definitely are (not just Hong Kong – many of the Eastern coastal cities). I can’t say the same for India. Have you been to both countries recently?”
That’s ridiculous. Parts of Bangalore, Hyderabad, Pune, Chennai, and other cities are comparable to a major Western city. Have you been to India recently?
PMC “Of course India has always been a free, open, and democratic nation that has respected human rights”
Are you kidding me? India has respected human rights? For sure as hell when I was growing up not to long ago there, it had a pretty shoddy record.
ON TOPIC: Factually speaking there is no comparison between the US and Indian Militaries. Albiet the Indian military is good, it still has much to learn and work through to get anywhere close to the US.
Iyer: Stereotypes have no place in a factual argument. If you see a reason why Americans are bad Soldiers, bring examples out of cowardice. As far as I know, US Soldiers, Marines, Sailors, and Airmen have served very honorably. Check the videos taken by several news agencies.
Abu Gharib.
Abu Gharib is Club Fed when compared to an Indian or Middle Eastern prison. Keep in mind, Arab governments kept their criticism of Abu Gharib muted (their people and state-run are another matter), because conditions in their prisons are far worse. And, the U.S. is actually prosecuting its own – when was the last time any of America’s holier than thou critics engaged in such self-reflection?
As for India’s respect for human rights, did we all forget Sanjay Gandhi’s brilliant forced sterilization scheme?
Btw, when was the last time the US wiped a country from the map?
Uhhh, the Soviet Union? Nazi Germany? Imperial Japan?
(not to mention the CSA, Vichy France, Taliban Afghanistan, and – eventually – Saddamite Iraq).
Ummm…well lemme see: 1971, dismembering of Pakistan ? Does that count?
India took advantage of a civil war – bully for them – and weakened their opponent. But Pakistan is still on the map. It’s still launching terrorist attacks. Still packed with Islamic fundamentalists, still hostile to India, still proliferating nuclear weapons around the ummah, still bombing the Indian parliament and still fomenting insurrection in Kashmir. One shouldn’t confuse a victory in a battle with a victory in a war. And clearly India has failed to end the threat posed by a country less than one tenth its size.
Just go back to the 18th century, and read the contemporary, approving, British accounts of Indian soldiers.
Perhaps you don’t grasp the irony, but the Indians who fought for Britain were mercenaries and second class citizens. They were fighting for Britain, not India, because Britain had conquered India. I’d hardly hold that up as an example of valor. If they were really valorous the Sepoy Mutiny would have been successful. Instead they lost to a few thousand Brits with a ten-thousand mile long supply line. Not exactly a stellar example of martial virtues.
In other words, you’re speculating on the nature of the IQ distribution in Indian groups as well as the effect of a skewed IQ distribution. I’d think the data-at-hand underwrite only agnosticism about India’s ultimate destiny.
The data at hand include this survey of SES and education by caste. Combine that with:
1) Known genetic differences between castes in two independent large scale studies (Majumder 2003, Bamshad 2001) 2) Existence of caste quotas in India, observed in places all around the world where IQ differences exist (USA, Brazil, Malaysia, etc.) 3) Observed caste distribution in the hi-tech sector, IITs, South Asian expats, etc.
Is agnosticism more warranted than for, say, the fate of modern South Africa? Sure. But let’s not be unrealistic here…
Many of the Chinese living in Hong Kong, Taiwan, Singapore, and Southeast Asia are from Fujian merchant clans. They’re as representative of China’s general population as Gujarati merchant castes are of India’s general population.
Somehow I doubt this. The individuals who came to Singapore were poverty-stricken Hakka peasants. They were hardly the elite. In any case, East Asian success appears to be pretty deterministic. It seems you have to have unbelievable civilizational madness (i.e. communism) to retard it. Given Japan, South Korea, etc. I doubt that we are seeing a selection effect in Singapore, Shenzhen, Hong Kong, and Taiwan.
I also want to add that India is far ahead of China in producing software.
Great, but one scalar does not make a vector. If you conceptualize the relative states of India and China as high dimensional vectors (e.g. one entry for GDP-per-capita, one for # of superhighways, and so on) of course one will be able to find individual entries in which India beats China.
That doesn’t change the fact that China is way ahead in most metrics, and will only enlarge their lead in the future. And it also doesn’t change the fact that India will never catch the US militarily, and taking this 3 on 1 exercise as evidence of Indo-American parity is wishful thinking.
Let me also say that I’m not saying this just to be an “India basher”, but rather to bring a reality check to some of the RSS saffronism I see here (for ex., PMC seems verrrry fond of the “STRONG LEADER” provided by China’s 1 party dictatorship).
I’m willing to grant all of the following facts:
1) India has many millions of highly intelligent people. Even if only 10% are internationally competitive in IQ terms, that’s still 100 million people.
2) Indian civilization has stretched back for thousands of years, and many great things have been accomplished by Indians in that time (from the Taj to the modern IT movement).
3) India is now flexing its muscles and shrugging off socialism, and has not yet come close to its economic potential. Much growth potential exists.
4) The Indian military is probably the best in the third world. It’s capable of defending India against assaults by most outside powers (including China) and, if the final provocation ever happened (e.g. a Pakistani jihadi taking out the PM rather than futilely bombing Parliament), it’s capable of taking Pakistan out once and for all.
That said…
1) It is foolish to imagine that India is going to catch China, let alone the US, in economic development. It’s more than foolish…it’s wishful thinking of most damaging Hindi-Chini bhai bhai kind. Unfortunately, both saffronists and Arundhatist leftists agree on one thing: that nothing should be said about the likely caste-IQ distribution’s implications for India’s technological development.
Caste reservations are the elephant in the room. If caste reservations are implemented in the private sector as Maharashtra is considering, say goodbye to the Indian economy. Even if they are only partially enforced, mandating hiring of incompetents solely because of their caste will result in a resurgence of bribery and corruption as employers pay off the officials in charge of compliance.
Such a resurgence will not only raise the cost of doing business, it will undermine the rule of law. The US economy groans under the deadweight of the “diversity” mongers, but it can afford it to an extent as the preferred classes form only about 25% of the population. When they are 75% there is a qualitative difference in effect.
2) It is REALLY foolish to compare the strength of Indian “jawans” to that of US Special Forces or even regular troops and pronounce the former stronger (!!) The most material evidence we have as to comparative strength and endurance are the results of international athletic competitions and military campaigns…and let’s just say that India hasn’t done too well for herself in either category.
3) For the above two reasons – lack of athleticism/martial culture, and economic weakness relative to China & the US – India’s military will never be a peer competitor of either. They might be an important regional ally, but never a world power capable of force projection.
I believe the Chinese community in Latin America and the Carribean is poor. Also, I think the relatively large Chinese community in France is generally low income.
Be more specific. Where in Latin America ? Where in the Caribbean ? For example, the Chinese in Jamaica dominate the Jamaican mercantile class, and are part of the economic cream. I’ve not found anything substantial on the Chinese in France, but whatever little I found indicated that even the children of illegal immigrants did as well as Whites.
Here’s an excerpt from a typical article: There are no official figures for the Chinese population in France. Some estimated the Chinese population at around 150,000 to 200,000. About 60 per cent of them live in Paris while most of the rest are living in metropolises like Marseilles and Lyons. Some French Chinese are still working in areas such as restaurants, grocery stores, garment, leather goods and furniture factory. As the second generation Chinese generally have far higher education, they usually get better careers in medical services, computer technology and other service sectors. Their lifestyles are similar to the local French.
And clearly India has failed to end the threat posed by a country less than one tenth its size.
Dude, I’ve seen you peddle that figure to gullible ABCDs ealier, too 🙂 Anyway, it’s 1/6th if you’re looking at population, and 1/4th if you’re looking at area. Your point stands, though.
Japan still exists. Germany still exists. (The Red army played a far greater but underappreciated role in the defeat of Germany). When did the war with the Soivet Union occur?
When was the last time America picked a fight with a nuclear weapon state? Why don’t you go attack North Korea?
What could we do with a defeated Pakistan anyway? Kill all Pakistanis? Drop a nuclear bomb on Karachi and Islamabad?
Indian prison conditions are terrible, but they are not run by the Indian military. The Indian military has the highest standards of honour and integrity. Abu Gharib would never happen in a prison run by the Indian military. Abu Gharib was no surprise to many of us, given the American image of arrogance and macho swaggering. Bunch of bullies! (If Abu Gharib had been a British prison, certainly I would have been surprised.)
And let me remind you of American defeat at the hands of a third world country in the 60s, notwithstanding your napalm and your carpet bombings and superior technology and training.
I admittedly was wrong to say that India has always been democratic and respected human rights. The government had a poor human rights record during the Emergency and suspended democracy. That was an unfortunate era in India’s history. However, that two-year era isn’t representative of India for the last 57 years.
While India’s government has made MANY mistakes over the years, India has a generally good human rights record and fundamental respect for democracy. The government has tried to respect all minorities, give everyone the right to vote, ensure good relations between Hindus and Muslism, have an impartial judiciary that respects the rights of the common people, and promote human rights overseas. International observers have praised India for decades.
I don’t think there’s any comparison between the Indian government’s record and the Chinese government’s record.
Also, Indians don’t have as much experience with self-governance as Westerners. It’s not surprising that India would make some mistakes over the decades.
It is surprising that a nation like India was able to stay a democracy with all the problems the nation has faced in the last 57 years. What major third world nation is comparable to India?
Here is an argument that India stands a very good shot of overtaking China. For one thing, China’s numbers are cooked — their GDP reveals promised FDI not actual FDI. For another China’s growth is being driven by external investment while India’s is being driven by internal investment. Thirdly, China started its reforms earlier, but India is catching up fast. Finally, China’s State Owned Enterprises are a huge, unspecified drag on the economy.
Some economists argue that if you could get real numbers of both India and China, and control for time since reform, that India may even be growing at a faster rate than China at a similar point in its cycle.
“India took advantage of a civil war – bully for them – and weakened their opponent. But Pakistan is still on the map. It’s still launching terrorist attacks. Still packed with Islamic fundamentalists, still hostile to India, still proliferating nuclear weapons around the ummah, still bombing the Indian parliament and still fomenting insurrection in Kashmir. One shouldn’t confuse a victory in a battle with a victory in a war. And clearly India has failed to end the threat posed by a country less than one tenth its size. “
India could’ve easily destroyed Pakistan in the past. It chose not to destroy Pakistan because India is not an aggressive and militaristic nation. India has always been a pacifistic nation that believes in negotiation instead of military action, consulting the U.N. and the international community, and taking action only in self defense.
Why do you think Nehru and other leaders went to the U.N. instead of destroying Pakistan?
” Perhaps you don’t grasp the irony, but the Indians who fought for Britain were mercenaries and second class citizens. They were fighting for Britain, not India, because Britain had conquered India. I’d hardly hold that up as an example of valor. If they were really valorous the Sepoy Mutiny would have been successful. Instead they lost to a few thousand Brits with a ten-thousand mile long supply line. Not exactly a stellar example of martial virtues.”
The Indian soldiers that fought for the British were unpatriotic, but they were tough. The British empire recognized they were good soldiers and used them frequently in wars. Also, Indian soldiers played a significant role in WWII.
The Sepoy Mutiny was unsuccessful because the Sikhs, Pathans, and others allied with the British empire. If all Indians had rebelled, the British would’ve been defeated.
I don’t think lower-caste Indians have the same access to education as upper-caste Indians.
” Somehow I doubt this. The individuals who came to Singapore were poverty-stricken Hakka peasants. They were hardly the elite.”
The Hakka were only 7% of the Chinese population of Singapore according to 1989 data.
The largest group of Chinese in Singapore are Hokkien. They’re over 40% of the Chinese population. They’re from the trading port of Xiamen in the southern part of the Fujian Province and were mainly traders or merchants. The Hokkien are a very entrapaneurial group of people and dominate trade in much of southeast Asia.
Virtually all the Chinese in Singapore are from the coastal southeastern part of China.
I’m not an expert on Singapore’s history, but I would guess that the opportunities for international trade disproportionately attracted those from the Chinese merchant clans. I do know that many of the Tamils in Singapore are from the Chettiar trading caste.
Japan and South Korea are distinct from China. Ask any Japanese-American or Korean-American.
“Great, but one scalar does not make a vector. If you conceptualize the relative states of India and China as high dimensional vectors (e.g. one entry for GDP-per-capita, one for # of superhighways, and so on) of course one will be able to find individual entries in which India beats China.
That doesn’t change the fact that China is way ahead in most metrics, and will only enlarge their lead in the future. And it also doesn’t change the fact that India will never catch the US militarily, and taking this 3 on 1 exercise as evidence of Indo-American parity is wishful thinking. “
Given that India has been as advanced as China throughout much of history, it’s not impossible for India to reach parity with China on most metrics.
China is currently ahead because its strong leaders have made it a priority to bring in foreign investment, build infrastructure, reform the government, and create economic growth. India’s leaders can’t make important decisions without the support of many political parties in their coalition and therefore are unable to act as decisively.