[ads11]

On a slight tangent from air warfare philosophy, an interesting rumour (though since shot down).

Intelligence Online reported that since the announcement in December 2021 that UAE was buying 80 Rafales from France, the entourage of Emirati president Mohamed bin Zayhed Al Nahyan "has been letting it be known that he is ready to put his fleet of Mirage 2000-9s on to the second-hand market."

Indonesia's Defense Minister, Prabowo Subianto, "who is trying to strengthen his country's air force and has in recent years become a key figure on international defense markets, has indicated that he is interested, as has the Greek government, which would like 36 aircraft," according to Intelligence Online. "In any case, any change of ownership of the Emirati aircraft will have to be approved by France."

The plan "currently taking shape would see Indonesia buy 40 or so of the Emirati aircraft while the others would be recovered by France or an allied country, like Bulgaria,” Intelligence Online reported. “If the war continues to intensify, those aircraft would be used to equip the Ukrainian armed forces."

“The info is wrong,” the French official said about any French plan for purchasing those jets to give to Ukraine.

Not sure about the overall health of the IAF Mirage fleet but wonder if even as a hypothetical there could've been a case to be made to weigh in on these second hand UAE Mirage's.

It's interesting to me though that India never seems to be linked with any rumours regarding used kit - every once in a while there'll be a solid low mileage (so to speak) well maintained platform being put up on the stump by a budgetarily constrained force somewhere (often a country with friendly ties even, and I'm not talking some post Soviet used items here, instead ones from say Japan or the UK for eg where it's likely to have had a much more pleasant maintenance history), thus presenting a low cost option to supplement numbers in the domestic fleet. I wonder if that's a cultural issue, in terms of Indians being averse to second hand or hand me downs because of the thrift connotations (this is a massive generalisation I know, one I'm basing mostly anecdotally). Just seems odd to me that the IAF happily got those Mig-29 airframes when they came on the block but there's nary a word when the JASDF moots retiring parts of their rotary wing airlift fleet or say the RAF prematurely deciding to cull their C-130 fleet. I feel like there's a window for some wheeler dealing success to be had. But I guess the main constraint is the reticence on the part of the obvious opportunity for grift that presents itself in such a scenario. I guess it becomes a lesser of two evils equation there: do you accept the potential risk of some skimming off the top in such a rapid deal to plug much needed gaps or do you ensure robust water tightness for the tax payer through a meticulous process that comes at the cost of huge time delays that have snowballing ancillary impacts on the capability gap that needs addressing?
(Without realising I've posited another philosophical quandary here, sorry folks).

Anyway, the more pertinent point to me here is how that enormous UAE Rafale order highlights how as a customer, India isn't in the driving seat with trying to get preferential delivery slots for any additional Rafale orders of its own (that horse has well and truly bolted). If it weren't for the strong ties with France across the defence spectrum, I imagine India could be all the way at the back of the queue (with no recourse for jumping a spot or two in the order book - of course it's likely that any order placed now for IAF or IN Rafale's should be at the back of the queue).

[directinjection]

Originally Posted by ads11

Not sure about the overall health of the IAF Mirage fleet

If the Mirage fleet weren't in good health, the IAF wouldn't spend over USD 2 billion on upgrading them! IAF had a large fleet of Mig 23BN/27 which weren't particularly old by IAF standards but the same was disbanded completely, owing precisely to health issues!

Originally Posted by ads11

It's interesting to me though that India never seems to be linked with any rumours regarding used kit - every once in a while there'll be a solid low mileage (so to speak) well maintained platform being put up on the stump by a budgetarily constrained force somewhere.

But there have been such reports in the past, and not necessarily rumours! This is from The Tribune dated April 16, 2005:

India and Qatar have decided to establish a “strategic partnership” and as a testimony to this, Qatar has agreed to sell 12 used Mirage 2000 planes to India, the Gulf country’s visiting Deputy Prime Minister Sheikh Hamad Bin Jabur Al-Thani said today.

https://www.tribuneindia.com/2005/20050416/nation.htm#6

But the deal failed to materialize due to disagreement on price:

https://zeenews.india.com/news/natio...rt_232987.html

The 12 Qatari planes were eventually bought by a French company:

https://www.aerotime.aero/articles/2...-2000-fighters

Another report (quoting the Air Chief) talked about India purchasing 40 second hand Mirages; 12 from Qatar and 28 from France:

India wants to buy about 40 second-hand fighter jets from France and Qatar to bolster its air defenses, the air force chief said.

https://www.hindustantimes.com/india...91OHIwmFJ.html

There have been speculations about India buying second hand Mirages even from Taiwan!

https://eurasiantimes.com/why-india-...s-from-taiwan/

Originally Posted by ads11

I wonder if that's a cultural issue, in terms of Indians being averse to second hand or hand me downs because of the thrift connotations (this is a massive generalisation I know, one I'm basing mostly anecdotally). Just seems odd to me that the IAF happily got those Mig-29 airframes when they came on the block but there's nary a word when the JASDF moots retiring parts of their rotary wing airlift fleet or say the RAF prematurely deciding to cull their C-130 fleet. I feel like there's a window for some wheeler dealing success to be had. But I guess the main constraint is the reticence on the part of the obvious opportunity for grift that presents itself in such a scenario. I guess it becomes a lesser of two evils equation there: do you accept the potential risk of some skimming off the top in such a rapid deal to plug much needed gaps or do you ensure robust water tightness for the tax payer through a meticulous process that comes at the cost of huge time delays that have snowballing ancillary impacts on the capability gap that needs addressing? (Without realising I've posited another philosophical quandary here, sorry folks).

Thanks to bureaucratic red tapism, when the buyer is India, even tiny transactions involving old stuff take years to materialize! We've been hearing about the additional Mig 29 purchase for 3 years now, isn't it? And even when we follow what you call "a meticulous process that comes at the cost of huge time delays," there's no guarantee that the deal will be clean. Every major defence deal that I have come across has been mired in allegations of corruption, although apparently, each one underwent due process and procedure - the Jaguar purchase, HDW submarine purchase, Mirage 2000 purchase that scuttled the Jaguar deal, Bofors, and now the Rafale! Incidentally, we purchased the Sukhoi to please Boris Yeltsin and apparently, the IAF was against it, at least initially!

This is from The Tribune dated February 12, 2000:

Was the Indian Air Force (IAF) committed to buying a non-existent fighter aircraft in the Sukhoi-30MKI, the over Rs 6,300-crore contract for which the Cabinet approval was given at the time of the United Front government?

The question which had been bothering defence experts became relevant today after the Chief of Air Staff, Air Chief Marshal A.Y. Tipnis, said the multi-crore deal was likely to come under scrutiny in the probe ordered by the Defence Ministry.

Air Chief Marshal Tipnis said the deal would “certainly come under scrutiny and that the IAF would comply with whatever was asked for by the Central Vigilance Commission and the CBI.

More from the same report:

A recent study carried out by a joint team of the IAF and the DRDO has pointed out that not only were there design deficiencies in the aircraft but in times of war it could actually be a sitting duck. The report points out that its platform was too large and that it had not been tested for its war capabilities before the contract was signed.

Full report here:

https://www.tribuneindia.com/2000/20000212/main4.htm

Originally Posted by ads11

Anyway, the more pertinent point to me here is how that enormous UAE Rafale order highlights how as a customer, India isn't in the driving seat with trying to get preferential delivery slots for any additional Rafale orders of its own (that horse has well and truly bolted). If it weren't for the strong ties with France across the defence spectrum, I imagine India could be all the way at the back of the queue (with no recourse for jumping a spot or two in the order book - of course it's likely that any order placed now for IAF or IN Rafale's should be at the back of the queue).

We aren't in the driver's seat because we have chosen not to be! The MRCA tender for 126 planes that Rafale won had an option clause whereby India could order 50% (i.e. 63) additional planes. Considering the obduracy of the vendor, we could have offered to increase the deal size to 189 and extracted better terms but instead we contracted the order from 126 to 36! Isn't it a basic rule of business that you get better terms when you buy more?

[ads11]

Thanks for the detailed response! Must've taken a while mining through all these old links. It's interesting though that at least going by the date stamps it seems most of the stories are from the middle of the aughts, nearly 2 decades ago. I haven't done any searching but anecdotally though I can't remember a similar frequency of stories to the same effect in the recent past. I wonder what changed? I guess if even deals for second hand platforms end up taking that long, might as well go through the rigmarole of getting the new stuff.

I'm just trying to recall that new provision for leasing of platforms required on an urgent basis, as a mechanism for bypassing the traditional labyrinthine and long drawn out acquisition process. Has that actually been used at all? I wonder then if there's a possibility to utilise that mechanism for taking advantage of potentially fortuitous developments in the market.

In any case, I agree, it's hard to fight against the institutional inertia of Indian defence procurement processes.

Do find the anecdote about the Su-30MKI interesting though! That the platform became something the IAF learnt to live with over time. One wonders if forcing some of the domestic platforms on the end users despite the obvious compromises might be a tough love approach that is needed to just force recalcitrant programmes into gear. For eg, just bite the bullet and field the Tejas in numbers and iron out the kinks whilst using it over time, rather than kicking the can down the road in terms of having the finished product with all the bells and whistles.

Feel like there's all sorts of random anecdotes that'd be available from the Yeltsin years. I wonder what other areas there might be overlap with Indian defence. Do share if you know any.

[SmartCat]

Pakistan bought their 20 Chengdu J-10 fighter aircraft from China for $1.5 billion on a 11 year EMI scheme at 4% pa interest. China has thrown in free accessories like 240 PL-15 air-to-air missiles and 10 spare engines.

https://idrw.org/pakistan-obtained-t...4-15-interest/

[Foxbat]

Originally Posted by SmartCat

Pakistan bought their 20 Chengdu J-10 fighter aircraft from China for $1.5 billion on a 11 year EMI scheme at 4% pa interest. China has thrown in free accessories like 240 PL-15 air-to-air missiles and 10 spare engines.

They are basically given for free to keep India in check. Pakistan doesn't have the means or intentions to ever pay back all the loans from an endless list of countries it owes.

If friendly countries and the IMF( it has bailed out Pakistan 22 times!) had stopped bailing it out it would have gone bankrupt decades ago:

[mpksuhas]

Came across these pics online, seems like the ones which are part of the air exercise mentioned in news article below.

The images are from Bangalore International airport.

Though the dates are not matching fully, it seems like the only probable explanation.

The bilateral drills commenced on April 10 and will continue until April 21. The ‘Exercise Cope India 2023’ in Kalaikunda involves two B1 heavy bomber jets, a fleet of F-15E fighter jets, and C-130 and C-17 transport aircraft from the United States.

News link





Image source - Received through whatsapp groups, guess initially posted on Instragram

[SmartCat]

Originally Posted by mpksuhas

Came across these pics online, seems like the ones which are part of the air exercise mentioned in news article below.

EurAsian Times is an extremely low quality defence site. Most of the time, articles are written by a bunch of guys sitting at home, rather than defence journalists. This is more obvious when you read their "analysis" type articles. However, IDRW.ORG has lots of chatter on IAF's future acquisition of a bomber and it is a reputed publication. Some recent articles:

Pentagon believes that India will need a cruise missile carrier
https://idrw.org/pentagon-believes-t...ssile-carrier/

Veteran IAF pilots support India's acquisition of Bombers, but is this even possible?
https://idrw.org/veteran-iaf-pilots-...even-possible/

Indian P-8I fleet could be the first to be equipped with American Long Range Missiles
https://idrw.org/indian-p-8i-fleet-c...-ship-missile/

The last article says "anti-ship" missile, but all anti-ship missiles have a "land attack" mode. That is, they can be used to attack land based targets.

[V.Narayan]

Originally Posted by SmartCat

EurAsian Times is an extremely low quality defence site. Most of the time, articles are written by a bunch of guys sitting at home, rather than defence journalists. This is more obvious when you read their "analysis" type articles. However, IDRW.ORG has lots of chatter on IAF's future acquisition of a bomber and it is a reputed publication.

Very well put.

Pentagon believes that India will need a cruise missile carrier
https://idrw.org/pentagon-believes-t...ssile-carrier/
Veteran IAF pilots support India's acquisition of Bombers, but is this even possible?
https://idrw.org/veteran-iaf-pilots-...even-possible/
Indian P-8I fleet could be the first to be equipped with American Long Range Missiles
https://idrw.org/indian-p-8i-fleet-c...-ship-missile/

My guess is as a very very high possibility - at least of cruise missiles being fitted to the P-8I's and maybe to the new Scorpene class over time. The B-1 will be politically explosive but who knows. Uncle Xi is working hard. The days of a Rs 1000 crore fast jet overflying the target are fast receding except in low air defence threat situations. Stand off guided weapons are going to be/ already are the order of the day. Don't think of the budgets though.

[skanchan95]

With regards to the B-1B, there was similar chatter back in the mid-2000s that India was looking to acquire a handful of Tu-22M3s from Russia as part of the Admiral Gorshkov/MiG-29K package deal. But it never materialised.

Even when the B-21 comes into frontline service, I doubt US will ever give away such a strategic bomber asset as the B-1 to NATO, let alone India. I feel this B-1 deployment for the exercises is more of a signal to rile up China, nothing else.

[ads11]

I definitely think if anything is going to become a bomb truck for India, it'll be the P-8I. As soon as someone presses the button on equipping the platform with something like the NSM operationally, it's going to become standard to have these P-8Is assigned some naval long range strike component beyond the primary ASW mission set.

I mean given India is clearly using their P-8I's overland for ISR, like Smartcat says, nothing to stop the logical progression in terms of equipping them with land attack cruise missiles. However, I will say this, I doubt the IAF is particularly lacking in cruise missile carrying platforms along the continental frontiers. The utility for a long range strike mission P-8I for me lies in policing the IOR. With it's ISR capability, and long legs, pod mount a few anti ship missiles and then you add another vector to the IN's restrictive capabilities in the region against not just the PLAN but the PN too I should imagine (though weighted in favour of the former for obvious reasons).

The B-1B taking part in Cope India is absolutely more a signal from the USAF towards the PLAAF than part of some sales pitch. Look at the fact that Bones are being rebased back towards the Pacific theatre and you can see this. See below a relevant passage from TWZ article on the same:

As well as the obvious signaling potential of the B-1B in exercises of this kind in the region, their presence also suggests the Lancers and supporting assets are training for long-range strike scenarios, too, with the drills apparently having a more offensive nature than in the previous rounds of the exercise. Giving the IAF the opportunity to practice defensive tactics against long-range strikes, of the kind that could potentially be launched by China, in a future large-scale confrontation, may be one of the scenarios being played out. But equally important for India, without any long-range bombers of its own, is likely the chance for IAF fighters to provide escort to the B-1s.

I find the bit on the IAF getting an opportunity to train defensively against long range precision strike rather telling. Much more so than acquiring the Bone (which is very much a nice to have capability currently in face of all the myriad other requirements), the much more salient takeaway from Cope India should be the recognition by someone on either the IAF side or USAF side that this presents an excellent opportunity for India to get adversary analogue training in the form of the USAF B-1Bs whilst the USAF gets in the form of IAF Su-30MKIs their own adversary proxy for what they might face against the PLAAF.

I think that's the really promising thing here. More collaborative training exercises such as these, on a more regular basis will provide heaps of useful learning for all parties. If the Japanese formally get involved, there too you're increasing the shared learnings. All for a fraction of the cost and the circus of a strategic bomber acquisition news cycle that we all know is unlikely to come to fruition. Like skanchan95 notes, it's hard to imagine the USAF giving up a strategic bomber to even a NATO partner, forget India. If they do, it would be consequential in the same way AUKUS was for the subsurface domain.

On a lighter note, some of the photos released from Cope India sure are enticing. Seeing the Tejas alongside the Rafale in IAF colours. Makes you wistful thinking of how these two really could represent the high-low mix in numbers that could go a long way towards padding out the airframe shortfall facing the IAF.

[dragracer567]

Originally Posted by skanchan95

Even when the B-21 comes into frontline service, I doubt US will ever give away such a strategic bomber asset as the B-1 to NATO, let alone India. I feel this B-1 deployment for the exercises is more of a signal to rile up China, nothing else.

Originally Posted by ads11

The B-1B taking part in Cope India is absolutely more a signal from the USAF towards the PLAAF than part of some sales pitch. Look at the fact that Bones are being rebased back towards the Pacific theatre and you can see this. See below a relevant passage from TWZ article on the same:


I find the bit on the IAF getting an opportunity to train defensively against long range precision strike rather telling. Much more so than acquiring the Bone (which is very much a nice to have capability currently in face of all the myriad other requirements), the much more salient takeaway from Cope India should be the recognition by someone on either the IAF side or USAF side that this presents an excellent opportunity for India to get adversary analogue training in the form of the USAF B-1Bs whilst the USAF gets in the form of IAF Su-30MKIs their own adversary proxy for what they might face against the PLAAF.

Calling this a sales pitch is certainly a stretch but I wouldn’t say that this is in a realm of impossibility. Given the frequent chatter about India yearning to operate a small but capable fleet of strategic bombers & America’s (rather publicly) stated desire to entice India away from Russian weaponry using carrots, I really do believe the Americans wouldn’t be beyond offering the B1s if India tries to lease/purchase the Tu-22s. These things were unimaginable but so was the AUKUS deal. We really have to keep in mind that India is the only real US ally who actually has the scale to operate a strategic bomber, none of their NATO partners really require one. Also from an American perspective, India is a much more useful partner in the Indo-pacific than its European allies who increasingly seem disinterested in another superpower showdown. You’d never hear an Indian official making comments in the line of Macron, not even from our outspoken EAM.

The Ukraine war & the rise of China as an aggressive superpower post-COVID really has changed calculations that large scale wars are impossible outside the Middle East & Africa while Ukraine has demonstrated that just a handful of advanced western weaponry with western intel (which India seems to be benefitting from as well) when used wisely and judiciously can be really potent defensive weapons - an important lesson for India to take away from.

The way I see it, the Americans have learnt the lessons of 1962 as much as we have. They understood how their lack of support then caused a whole generation of Indians to distrust the US and I don’t think they will make this mistake again (they’ve publicly stated this as well).

Coming back to the exercise, I don’t think it’s just a case of adversary training. We have to keep in mind that such exercises contain teams with mix of aircrafts from both sides (rather than countries pitted against each other like some seem to think), moreover, India’s exercises with the west has become increasingly complex. So I’m pretty sure the scenarios must’ve included American strategic bombers conducting deep penetration strikes while being escorted by IAF jets (to ensure that USAF fighter capacity can be concentrated in the pacific in a multi-front war) - I’m no expert, just an opinion. The world is really uncertain at this moment, everyone is training for the worst case scenario except the Middle East which feels strangely tranquil now!

Edit: wrote this before reading the TWZ article

[ads11]

Originally Posted by dragracer567

Calling this a sales pitch is certainly a stretch but I wouldn’t say that this is in a realm of impossibility...These things were unimaginable but so was the AUKUS deal.

I think that's the crux. AUKUS was consequential precisely because it took a jackhammer to some pretty set in stone rules when it came to such matters. In a post AUKUS world, you really have to admit that previously outlandish proposals, however slim the chances, could very well see the light of day. I mean who'd have ever thunk the Abraham Accords eh? I bet that old goon Kissinger thinks it's probably the onset of dementia rather than an actual rapprochement amongst the Arab powers and the Israelis, all done under the aegis of the most right wing Israeli PM ever. Can't help but chuckle at how ludicrous it sounds yet it's true.

The way I see it, the Americans have learnt the lessons of 1962 as much as we have. They understood how their lack of support then caused a whole generation of Indians to distrust the US and I don’t think they will make this mistake again (they’ve publicly stated this as well).

Good, in which case they must know you're going to need decades of good faith dealings with India to counteract the generational misgivings that the Indian public at large harbour towards the USA from a geostrategic POV. It's going to take bushels of carrots and a lot less stick, and dare I say it, consistency from the US body politic, for these changes to start taking hold in Millennials and younger (think the ship has sailed for older Millennials and above in India, and even still one need only look at the enthusiastic uptake for some of the more outlandish pro Russian drivel from the early stages of the Ukraine war to see what an uphill battle it will be to convince large segments of the Indian populace to see otherwise when it comes to global affairs). On a philosophical level I can't help but wonder if in the unparalleled reach of Modi, not since the days of Nehru, does India have a leader who can drive the national thought direction. We've seen him do that in making India adopt a more muscular posture and discourse in geostrategic dealings but I wonder if there's an opportunity therein for him to once more instil on the public the virtues of a pragmatic and non aligned national philosophy. Again, this is looking very big picture and is probably more a discussion for policy wonks and historians down the line but it bears thinking about I reckon.

You’d never hear an Indian official making comments in the line of Macron, not even from our outspoken EAM.

Right so this gets my goat massively and I have to go off on a tangent here. I can't believe all of the Anglosphere had it's knickers in a twist in what I'll charitably call the equivalent of a GCSE level French translation. I could've made that same hackneyed inference, if I was willing to totally ignore long standing traditions of French subtlety when speaking.

Here's a good thread from a diplomatic translator, rather than just chucking the text of Macron's speech in Google translate:
https://twitter.com/ericgarland/stat...613431298?s=20
(Rant over)

_wrote this before reading the TWZ article _D

Was going to say, haha. A good blind test of the articles thesis if you could arrive at the same judgement independently.

Quick question: has the IAF ever conducted exercises with the RuAF Tu-22 or Tu-160 in the past?

Also if the IAF deal for Tu-22s had gone ahead, you could've had an Indian spin on Red Storm Rising, where instead of them coming out the GIUK Gap, you'd have IAF/IN Tu-22s flooding through the Malacca Strait at PLAN CBGs. There's fodder for some military fan fiction!

[PGA]

A S : At the outset I will apologise to Narayan Sir, the author of the thread, for hijacking it to tell a story not exactly connected with the subject. But it is a story connected with aviation history, may be it has not come to the fore because it can raise some very uncomfortable questions and can influence some minds. My intention of bringing it here is in no way to glorify anyone associated with it, for they were part of evil that stalked the earth during those times.

If someone asked names of top fighter aces ever, names which would probably come out are Manfred 'Red Baron' Richtofen, Douglas Bader, Chuck Yeager, James Dolittle and maybe Erich Hartman. Please have a look at the table below.

Top 230 Aces in terms of confirmed kills are from Axis powers with first Allied forces ace Lev Shestakov coming in at rank 233 with 66 confirmed kills. Top 30 pilots, all from Luftwaffe have 6090 kills amongst them. Hopefully there will not be another war like WW2 but Erich Hartman's record of 352 seem unbreakable ever, infact record of these top 30 seem unbeatable.

What made them such incredible warriors? How did they imbibe this unbeatable skill. Were the tactics of Luftwaffe so superior to the Allied Air Forces. Was it Pervitin, the methamphetamine. While Wehrmacht had to contend with fanatical Waffen SS, Luftwaffe did not seem to have much of an overhang of SS besides the top leadership of Goering and ilk was not really inspiring, still how did they get this far. Was it that due to paucity of pilots, Germans kept on utilising their aces till the end and Allies took them out of the war and assigned them training and motivational roles. What ever it was, its is a stupendously one sided record.

Some answers to the above questions can been got from the last interview of Erich Hartmann, given in a little before his death, requires some patience to go through.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j_Q6CQKnvsw

or one can go through the transcript here

https://migflug.com/jetflights/final...rich-hartmann/

But its a history from which a lot is to be learnt from.

[V.Narayan]

Originally Posted by PGA

A S : At the outset I will apologise to Narayan Sir, the author of the thread, for hijacking it to tell a story not exactly connected with the subject. But it is a story connected with aviation history, may be it has not come to the fore because it can raise some very uncomfortable questions and can influence some minds. My intention of bringing it here is in no way to glorify anyone associated with it, for they were part of evil that stalked the earth during those times.

Thank you for sharing this interview of Erich Hartmann. Without a doubt his record may remain unbeaten for decades if not centuries. What a pilot he must have been. Phew!!! The credit for this wonderful thread goes to none other than member @SmartCat but hey I'm always glad to steal the credit.

Hartmann must have been a man with a spine of steel not only for his aerial achievements but also surviving 10 years in the gulag in Siberia and returning relatively intact in body, mind and spirit. Can't help but compare that to US soldiers ex- Iraq and ex-Afghanistan who almost all seem to suffer from PSTD. My father and both his brothers served in the armed forces and served through '62, '65 and '71 and never seem to have PSTD. But I have no service experience so should not express my prejudice any further.

Hartmann as some on this thread like @skanchan95 and @Foxbat know objected to the modern Luftwaffe purchasing the widow maker Lockheed Star fighter F-104 as being unstable and unsuitable. But the deal was pushed through under political pressure by the Yanks and Hartmann resigned in 1970 or rather was encouraged to go as his objections were becoming an embarrassment to the establishment. His concerns were well founded. Of the 607 procured by the Luftwaffe 35% were lost in crashes! - read that slowly thirty five percent.

[PGA]

Originally Posted by V.Narayan

The credit for this wonderful thread goes to none other than member @SmartCat but hey I'm always glad to steal the credit.

Can't help but compare that to US soldiers ex- Iraq and ex-Afghanistan who almost all seem to suffer from PSTD. My father and both his brothers served in the armed forces and served through '62, '65 and '71 and never seem to have PSTD.

His concerns were well founded. Of the 607 procured by the Luftwaffe 35% were lost in crashes! - read that slowly thirty five percent.

Ohh that was me again relying on memory than rechecking, transferring my apologies to Smartcat

My salute to your father and your uncles, that generation had been tempered with times, I feel the youth today has been hollowed out by social media and general hyperbole, willing to be proved wrong though. So what the future hold for us may not be much different.

They procured 916 Starfighters and 292 crashed with 116 pilots killed, their Chief had to resign following the controversy.

But my focus is not on Hartmann alone but the whole bunch of them and what made them achieve what they did.