U.S. Questions Turkey's miltary exercise with China

S

Scratch

Captain
Well, those # always depend on a lot of circumstances under wich a specific engagement took place, but are hardly ever reported.
Maybe in this engagement they simulated a situation were the Flankers were already defensive or in some other way in a position of disadvantage, just for the sake of training.
Then again, the TuAF operates extensively upgraded Phantom IIs with new and really capable avianocs all around, wich easily make up for a slight kinematik performance disadvantage.
20yrs ago a F-4 with a competent pilot at the controlls could take out an Eagle. These turkish F-4s have a lot better avionics. And if the adversaries were indeed russian Su-27, or maybe even J-11A wich are probably not yet up to modern avionic standarts, those # can be right.
If they simulated active radar AMRAAMs vs. semi-active Alamos, it would also make a big difference.
Training also is indeed a big player. Trained and experianced (old:)) pilots with a huge bag of tricks can achieve even higher ratios against line pilots in the same aircraft wich are well trained themeselves.

But as I said, those # may or may not be correct, without the rules and parameters that were set and simulated, they basicly mean nothing to us.
 
siegecrossbow

siegecrossbow

General
Staff member
Super Moderator
Scratch said:
Well, those # always depend on a lot of circumstances under wich a specific engagement took place, but are hardly ever reported.
Maybe in this engagement they simulated a situation were the Flankers were already defensive or in some other way in a position of disadvantage, just for the sake of training.
Then again, the TuAF operates extensively upgraded Phantom IIs with new and really capable avianocs all around, wich easily make up for a slight kinematik performance disadvantage.
20yrs ago a F-4 with a competent pilot at the controlls could take out an Eagle. These turkish F-4s have a lot better avionics. And if the adversaries were indeed russian Su-27, or maybe even J-11A wich are probably not yet up to modern avionic standarts, those # can be right.
If they simulated active radar AMRAAMs vs. semi-active Alamos, it would also make a big difference.
Training also is indeed a big player. Trained and experianced (old:)) pilots with a huge bag of tricks can achieve even higher ratios against line pilots in the same aircraft wich are well trained themeselves.

But as I said, those # may or may not be correct, without the rules and parameters that were set and simulated, they basicly mean nothing to us.
Click to expand...

Good luck finding the rules and parameters though. According to a Turkish friend of mine everything that happens during the Anatolian Eagles are usually strictly kept confidential. The only one who could've leaked this news is PLAAF. That isn't too likely though.
 
P

Pointblank

Senior Member
Bltizo said:
If the Turks were flying something more modern, like F-16s then I'd concede a kill ratio favouring them, but even then an 8:0 kill ratio is... very questionable.
We obviously don't know how well PLAAF pilots are trained, but they have their own red flag type exercises and I'm pretty sure they would have some competent doctrines worked out. Perhaps nothing as comperhensive as western equivalents of course, but flanker pilots should have some basic requirements.

8:0 with F-4s vs Flankers... something just doesn't add up.
Click to expand...

The Turkish F-4's have been heavily upgraded along the lines of the Israeli Kurnass 2000 upgrades, which include a brand new radar derived from the one planned on the IAI Lavi fighter, and all of the avionics have been changed. It's essentially a new fighter in an old airframe.

Performance-wise, even older fighters can be very competitive in combat when in the hands of a excellent pilot. I will note that the Taiwanese training squadron at Luke Air Force base does and continues to do extremely well with their older generation F-16's armed only with AIM-7's and AIM-9M's against their more advanced USAF, USN and USMC counterparts, who had aircraft armed with more advanced weapons like the AIM-120 and even the AIM-9X. And their performance got better when they got AIM-120's instead of AIM-7's.
 
plawolf

plawolf

Lieutenant General
Bltizo said:
If the Turks were flying something more modern, like F-16s then I'd concede a kill ratio favouring them, but even then an 8:0 kill ratio is... very questionable.
We obviously don't know how well PLAAF pilots are trained, but they have their own red flag type exercises and I'm pretty sure they would have some competent doctrines worked out. Perhaps nothing as comperhensive as western equivalents of course, but flanker pilots should have some basic requirements.

8:0 with F-4s vs Flankers... something just doesn't add up.
Click to expand...

Considering that reports coming out are suggesting that the PLAAF only sent 4 flankers over for the excercise, an 8:0 scoreline seems pretty improbable.
 
solarz

solarz

Brigadier
siegecrossbow said:
Now here is the "fun" part. There is a rumor running on the Chinese BBS that the Turkish side was able to achieve 8-0 kill ratio against Chinese flankers, with F-4s!!! This is extraordinary to say the least. Could anyone find reliable sources of info either proving or disproving this? Thnx.
Click to expand...

Sounds to me those making the claim should be providing the source. If they can't, then you can consider it to be unsubstantiated rumour.
 
P

Pointblank

Senior Member
plawolf said:
Considering that reports coming out are suggesting that the PLAAF only sent 4 flankers over for the excercise, an 8:0 scoreline seems pretty improbable.
Click to expand...

Easy, under exercise conditions, a 'killed' aircraft can be respawned in a different location under different conditions.
 
plawolf

plawolf

Lieutenant General
Pointblank said:
Easy, under exercise conditions, a 'killed' aircraft can be respawned in a different location under different conditions.
Click to expand...

Air combat exercises are not conducted as if you were playing a computer game.

Normally you go up with a specific mission and scenario, fly it, and then come down for a lengthy debrief and analysis of how the mission went while it is still fresh in your memory so you can get the most benefit from the experience.

For pilots to fly multiple air combat scenarios in one sortie is highly unusual as there is a high risk and likelihood that a lot of the details from the first fight will not get a chance to sink in as the mind is too busy focusing on the next fight. The exercise would then loose much of its training value.

In addition, you cannot plan missions and scenarios based on the assumption that X number of planes will be 'killed' and will loop around and come back as a second wave in Y minutes. And sending planes back into the fight as and when they are 'killed' serves no useful training purpose.

So far there has been zero credible reports to give any indication of how the exercise went. To get overly hung up on a baseless figure is pointless.
 
P

Pointblank

Senior Member
plawolf said:
Air combat exercises are not conducted as if you were playing a computer game.

Normally you go up with a specific mission and scenario, fly it, and then come down for a lengthy debrief and analysis of how the mission went while it is still fresh in your memory so you can get the most benefit from the experience.

For pilots to fly multiple air combat scenarios in one sortie is highly unusual as there is a high risk and likelihood that a lot of the details from the first fight will not get a chance to sink in as the mind is too busy focusing on the next fight. The exercise would then loose much of its training value.

In addition, you cannot plan missions and scenarios based on the assumption that X number of planes will be 'killed' and will loop around and come back as a second wave in Y minutes. And sending planes back into the fight as and when they are 'killed' serves no useful training purpose.

So far there has been zero credible reports to give any indication of how the exercise went. To get overly hung up on a baseless figure is pointless.
Click to expand...

Under Red Flag, respawning of units happens frequently, often with surprising results. For example, there was a case that a F-22 was 'shot' down by a F/A-18 that respawned behind it after it was shot down.
 
C

ccL1

New Member
Pointblank said:
Under Red Flag, respawning of units happens frequently, often with surprising results. For example, there was a case that a F-22 was 'shot' down by a F/A-18 that respawned behind it after it was shot down.
Click to expand...

Yup, an EA-G18 Growler did shoot down an F-22, but I don't know if it was due to the Growler's electronic warfare capabilities or F-22 pilot error.

Just comes to show that no matter what the generational jumps in fighter jets, nothing is invincible. Anything and everything can be shot down under the right circumstances.
 
P

Pointblank

Senior Member
ccL1 said:
Yup, an EA-G18 Growler did shoot down an F-22, but I don't know if it was due to the Growler's electronic warfare capabilities or F-22 pilot error.

Just comes to show that no matter what the generational jumps in fighter jets, nothing is invincible. Anything and everything can be shot down under the right circumstances.
Click to expand...

It was a 'mulligan', where the Growler got a second chance to shoot down the F-22 after it supposedly was shot down first.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top