It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Indian AF breaks USAF record

page: 3
0
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 19 2004 @ 12:59 AM
link   
^^^^ twice the altitude of 7600m would be 15200m and Everest is only 8500m high!!But the US are welcome to try a land a heli on the peak of Mount Everest!!




posted on Nov, 19 2004 @ 01:13 AM
link   
That must have been an interesting landing.
I noticed a lot of comments on themerits of the USAF. I wouldliketo point out that the USAF is fast approaching a point where fewer of its pilots have airto air combat experience. Technology can always be countered and there comes apoint where we are back to guns. How many AMRAAMS canone fire before they run out or the country becomes bankrupt. In A2A combat experience is an immeasurable factor. (And Top Gun and Red Flag dont count here because no one dies). Airforces with a larger quantity of pilots with this experience are alwaysin an advantageous position initially. Look at the German Condor Legion pilots from the Spanish civil war or the way that the USAAF demanded that all US pilots serving with the British be absorbrd into USAAF units in 1942.
India, Pakistan, Israel and others have airforces with a higher ratio of combat experienced pilots. (I mean combat, not bombing hovels) these countries therefore have the initial advantage. History shows us that it is the forces that capitAlise on the lessons they have learnt that eventually win out if those lessons are learned in time.



posted on Nov, 19 2004 @ 02:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by Daedalus3
^^^^ twice the altitude of 7600m would be 15200m and Everest is only 8500m high!!But the US are welcome to try a land a heli on the peak of Mount Everest!!

Ok then,i used the word twice loosely,but whats the point of this record anyway?For fun or what?



posted on Nov, 19 2004 @ 05:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by W4rl0rD

Originally posted by Daedalus3
^^^^ twice the altitude of 7600m would be 15200m and Everest is only 8500m high!!But the US are welcome to try a land a heli on the peak of Mount Everest!!

Ok then,i used the word twice loosely,but whats the point of this record anyway?For fun or what?



The same point that any record making/breaking feat has. Thatway most records have no reason to be made/broken. Also this record was broken as a direct result of a rescue attempt. Read the pilot post.



posted on Nov, 19 2004 @ 07:12 AM
link   
Sad. Instead of spending money on stuff like "being the best" on something, provide the people with food first.

I know that someone said this already but if Pakistan or some other country attacks India, the UN is always there to back them up.

Airforce? Whatever, man. For me, the only countries that should boost their military force are those countries that can already feed their people. Don't tell me that you're going to blame the obscene population in India for having insufficient food. That's just really pathetic.



posted on Nov, 19 2004 @ 08:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by Unnamed_One
Sad. Instead of spending money on stuff like "being the best" on something, provide the people with food first.

I know that someone said this already but if Pakistan or some other country attacks India, the UN is always there to back them up.

Airforce? Whatever, man. For me, the only countries that should boost their military force are those countries that can already feed their people. Don't tell me that you're going to blame the obscene population in India for having insufficient food. That's just really pathetic.



I was searching for the correct info on the "food aid" bit so i was a little hesitant to reply to that taunt initially. But I found what I thought was true. India does not receive food aid from anybody let alone the US. It is self sufficient vis a vis food. Infact it donates food to other need countries. The problem lies in distribution. No infrastructural capabilitities even those possesed by "developed" countries can distribute food to a poulation of over a billion people.A small population is the trump card you jerks hold when you shoot off about feeding one's brethren.

Also the U.N can't do squat to protect anyone. Did they penalise Pakistan for conducting cross-border terrorism for the last 10 years? NO!!
We have the right to defend ourselves as we see fit. Infact Most countries esp. Europe and Russia didn't have a problem with India taking ouut terror camps on the other side of the border. But the nuke factor complicated things and thats why everybody was all worked up.
Infact the U.N. is so impotent that it couldn't even stop a superpower from unlawfully invading a sovereign country which was in a $hithole for the last 15 years due to that very same superpower. THe US itself has tarnished the credibility of the UN.

And again for the last time, its not like we diverted food funds to break this record.
It was a direct result of a successful rescue attempt at high altidude
.!!!!
Doesn't that hold any dignity Unnamed_One..??!!

Why don't you guys read the pilot post ever before posting??!!



posted on Nov, 19 2004 @ 09:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by Unnamed_One
Sad. Instead of spending money on stuff like "being the best" on something, provide the people with food first.

I know that someone said this already but if Pakistan or some other country attacks India, the UN is always there to back them up.

Airforce? Whatever, man. For me, the only countries that should boost their military force are those countries that can already feed their people. Don't tell me that you're going to blame the obscene population in India for having insufficient food. That's just really pathetic.


Okay then I guess the US should be one of those country's to provide food for the people first. After all the US has the Largest poverty and crime rate in the developed world.

[edit on 19-11-2004 by Killak420]



posted on Nov, 19 2004 @ 09:05 AM
link   
The UN is there to back who up India or Pakistan?



posted on Nov, 19 2004 @ 11:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by Killak420
The UN is there to back who up India or Pakistan?


well i think unamed_one meant India but IMHO the UN can to $hit to stop an Indo-pak conflict becasue India has every right toattack teror camps in PoK and PAkistan has every right to defend its territory if it claims the non-existence of these camps



posted on Nov, 19 2004 @ 05:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by Killak420

Originally posted by Unnamed_One
Sad. Instead of spending money on stuff like "being the best" on something, provide the people with food first.

I know that someone said this already but if Pakistan or some other country attacks India, the UN is always there to back them up.

Airforce? Whatever, man. For me, the only countries that should boost their military force are those countries that can already feed their people. Don't tell me that you're going to blame the obscene population in India for having insufficient food. That's just really pathetic.


Okay then I guess the US should be one of those country's to provide food for the people first. After all the US has the Largest poverty and crime rate in the developed world.

[edit on 19-11-2004 by Killak420]


That is a lie - the UK has a higher violent crime rate then the US and the US poverty rate is a higher standard of living then that in Europe. Get your facts staight buddy



posted on Nov, 19 2004 @ 10:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by American Mad Man

Originally posted by Killak420

Originally posted by Unnamed_One
Sad. Instead of spending money on stuff like "being the best" on something, provide the people with food first.

I know that someone said this already but if Pakistan or some other country attacks India, the UN is always there to back them up.

Airforce? Whatever, man. For me, the only countries that should boost their military force are those countries that can already feed their people. Don't tell me that you're going to blame the obscene population in India for having insufficient food. That's just really pathetic.


Okay then I guess the US should be one of those country's to provide food for the people first. After all the US has the Largest poverty and crime rate in the developed world.

[edit on 19-11-2004 by Killak420]


That is a lie - the UK has a higher violent crime rate then the US and the US poverty rate is a higher standard of living then that in Europe. Get your facts staight buddy


Number of murders in USA in a year - 15,586

Numbers of murders in Germany in a year - 300+

Numbers of murders in UK in a year - 250+

Numbers of murders in Japan in a year - 60+

Get your facts right buddy,i got the Bowling for Columbine VCD at home right now



posted on Nov, 19 2004 @ 11:16 PM
link   
I have seen Mr. Moores films as well, but i wouldn't use that to back up any figures that I was going to use. I have the tendancy to think that we should worry about what's going on in our own country before we go police the world

God Bless the USA



posted on Nov, 24 2004 @ 01:44 PM
link   
So, which is it, you hate everything about us and what we stand for, or you want to be just like us, or even "better" than us?

Your own 'logic' betrays you. You don't get to have it both ways.

Plus, I really like the 'feed your people first' thread to some of these comments. Hard to argue that the world would be a much better place if there were less, but better fed and educated people in a lot of these countries. Instead, they concentrate on playing military catch-up just so their leaders can wear fancy uniforms and threaten their neighbors over who owns the nearest wasteland. Beat your swords into plowshares, bring your people into the 21st (OK, 20th is fine, also) century and then let's talk about your military.



posted on Nov, 24 2004 @ 02:03 PM
link   
Also, if the U.S.A. is so bad and fading fast, why is it that I'm sitting in my office surrounded by Chinese and Indian tech workers? Someone said that 25% of NASA was Indian. If true, it only proves my point that the U.S.A. is where the opportunities exist to really learn new science and accomplish something great. Otherwise, that 25% would be back home working on the Indian starfleet, right?

We're so bad, but everyone else in the world seems to still want to leave their wonderful countries behind and come here.

Just doesn't make any sense - unless you're wrong.


[edit on 11/24/2004 by centurion1211]



posted on Nov, 25 2004 @ 06:34 AM
link   
Im not saying that the US is abd, or inferior or anything nof that sort.

Infact the "feed your people first" rhetoric doesn't apply to India anymore because we don't get any food aid. We are self sufficient in taht aspect. Infact we donate food to other third world countries. The problem lies in infrastructural facilities to distribute such surplus stocks.
And be thankful for those 25% of Indians who work in NASA because whatever you may say you benefitted due to them.


IBM

posted on Nov, 25 2004 @ 06:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by W4rl0rD

Originally posted by American Mad Man

Originally posted by Killak420

Originally posted by Unnamed_One
Sad. Instead of spending money on stuff like "being the best" on something, provide the people with food first.

I know that someone said this already but if Pakistan or some other country attacks India, the UN is always there to back them up.

Airforce? Whatever, man. For me, the only countries that should boost their military force are those countries that can already feed their people. Don't tell me that you're going to blame the obscene population in India for having insufficient food. That's just really pathetic.


Okay then I guess the US should be one of those country's to provide food for the people first. After all the US has the Largest poverty and crime rate in the developed world.

[edit on 19-11-2004 by Killak420]


That is a lie - the UK has a higher violent crime rate then the US and the US poverty rate is a higher standard of living then that in Europe. Get your facts staight buddy


Number of murders in USA in a year - 15,586

Numbers of murders in Germany in a year - 300+

Numbers of murders in UK in a year - 250+

Numbers of murders in Japan in a year - 60+

Get your facts right buddy,i got the Bowling for Columbine VCD at home right now


You have to look at murders per CAPTIA, not murders, because countries may have a higher population than others:

Map & Graph: Crime: Murders (per capita) (Top 100 Countries)
View this stat: Totals Show map full screen

Country Description Amount
1. Colombia 0.63 per 1000 people
2. South Africa 0.51 per 1000 people
3. Jamaica 0.32 per 1000 people
4. Venezuela 0.32 per 1000 people
5. Russia 0.19 per 1000 people
6. Mexico 0.13 per 1000 people
7. Lithuania 0.10 per 1000 people
8. Estonia 0.10 per 1000 people
9. Latvia 0.10 per 1000 people
10. Belarus 0.09 per 1000 people
11. Ukraine 0.09 per 1000 people
12. Papua New Guinea 0.08 per 1000 people
13. Kyrgyzstan 0.08 per 1000 people
14. Thailand 0.07 per 1000 people
15. Moldova 0.07 per 1000 people
16. Zambia 0.07 per 1000 people
17. Seychelles 0.07 per 1000 people
18. Zimbabwe 0.07 per 1000 people
19. Costa Rica 0.06 per 1000 people
20. Poland 0.05 per 1000 people
21. Georgia 0.04 per 1000 people
22. Uruguay 0.04 per 1000 people
23. Bulgaria 0.04 per 1000 people
24. United States 0.04 per 1000 people
25. Armenia 0.03 per 1000 people




THe United States is much lower. So GET YOUR FACTS STRAIGHT.



posted on Nov, 25 2004 @ 07:09 AM
link   
^^^Funny I though we were taking about planes...What happened?



posted on Nov, 25 2004 @ 09:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by American Mad Man
Wishfull thinking by yet another US hater. The US economy is growing faster in both % and in GDP then the UK, Russia, France, Germany - hell, any major country really.

We are still expanding faster then China as well. China might be making the largest improvement in % growth, but since the US economy is soooooo much bigger, even if we have half the % growth the total growth is still higher, which means we still increase our budget lead over China.


I really dont want to get into a slagging match about who is better than who here, but I think that you do need something pointing out about the US economy which you seem to have conveniently glossed over. The past four years of this administration have seen a Clinton gained budget surplus eroded into a $500 billion dollar a year budget defecit. In fact, Mr Bush has just approved the borrowing of a further $800 billion dollars!!!

Now that obviously has massive connotations with regards to the relative strength of the dollar which has seen a general weakening over the same period, but also has ramifications for us all (due to the US's undoubted influence on the world economy). Should the dollar crash, we are all pretty much screwed.

But I would draw your attention to something just slightly more disturbing in your eyes, many US posters on this thread, and many others, repeatedly and very proudly state that the US spends in excess of $400 billion dollars a year on its defence budget, however, I beg to differ. If you look at these undeniable figures, it seems that China, Japan, Mexico and the European trading block (the major investors in the US), are the ones that are spending the money so that you can have your shiny new F-22's.

Check out these links if you want, then you can come back and say how strong the US economy is.
news.bbc.co.uk...
www.washingtonpost.com...
www.epinet.org...
www.atimes.com...

Please dont get all uppety saying that I am anti-us, I really do like you guys, and you have some of the best skiing in the world, but the motto Here is deny ignorance, so I had to point this out.



[edit on 25-11-2004 by Argus]



posted on Nov, 26 2004 @ 06:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by jetsetterAs I said, if you know the specifics. The Indians flew with AWACS. That is advantage that is very hard to beat. The US did not.


Come now man! Don't be foolish.

The IAF doesn't even have an AWACS inducted yet! The Phalcons are still two years off, and the indigenous AWACS are three years off.

The IAF used as An-32 transport aircraft as a SIMULATED AWACS; i.e. it was used as the 'target' in red v. blue escort/intercept missions.

I had just reposted my post that debunked those inane excuses that a prorogated by a select number of people here in this thread:
www.abovetopsecret.com...




Originally posted by just_a_pilotIf I am not mistaken, we ( U.S.A.) feed your people first.


Then you are obviously mistaken.

India has been a net food exporter since the 70s green revolution. India does has not accepted US aid since the 60s, barring the Gujarat earthquake disaster.

And don't give India bunk on its military expenditures. As a percentage of GDP, India has among the lowest expenditures in the world, and handily the lowest of its neighbors and enemies.




And Daedalus3, why must you be so combative here? Quite frankly, you do not speak for Indians, and I would infinitely rather see the current and exponentially growing India-America and India-Russian friendship than some inane 'India-Russia-China' axis
Mind you China and India are greater enemies than even China and America….

And your 'dream' of siding with a dictatorship that occupies Indian territory, has attacked India in violation and flying in the face of friendship treaties, and, worst of all, has proliferated nuclear weapons technology and delivery systems to every tinpot dictatorship in the planet INCLUDING the terrorist state next door, borders on the repulsive. Screw China. India's friendship lies with likeminded countries with likeminded ideologies of freedom, democracy and pluralism… NOT on some bull***t pan-Asian nostalgia that Nehru himself got suckered into, which resulted in the 1962 war!

Have some respect to the soldiers and the CIVILIANSwho have died and ARE DYING thanks to your fast friend's arming coward terrorists next door!



Anyway, regarding the incident, I don't see how this breaking of a record or whatever became grounds for a d**k comparing contest.

India is arguably the country with the most experience in ultra-high altitude warfare. It is engaged against Pakistan in the worlds highest battlefield, Siachen glacier, for almost a decade. Since the Siachen battle started, over 150,000 individual troops have been trained for, seen combat in and have been rotated out of that battlefield. If you want to include other ultra-high battlefronts India is deployed in, over 600,000 Indian troops have had this experience. Furthermore, India has over 300,000 dedicated mountain troops, in the army alone, not to mention over 150,000 more mountain-based police, border security and paramilitary force.

India's high-mountain warfare school in Ladakh plateau of the Himalaya is reputed to be the best mountain school in the world. Even American (not to mention British, Russian, and a load of other countries) are trained there. Recently US Special Forces exercised with their Indian counterparts in a COPE-India-like red v. blue force engagement in Ladakh.

What a whole lot of you fail to grasp is that these exercises are mutual exercises done by friends, not hostile engagements for internet message board trolls to stew and flame over, manufacturing hostility and conflict when there is patently none!


So, chill, people, really....

Regards,
Raj


[edit on 26-11-2004 by rajkhalsa2004]



posted on Nov, 26 2004 @ 03:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by Argus
...The past four years of this administration have seen a Clinton gained budget surplus eroded into a $500 billion dollar a year budget defecit. In fact, Mr Bush has just approved the borrowing of a further $800 billion dollars!!!

Argus, sorry but I disagree with your analysis. The so-called Clinton surplus was a projected surplus over 10 years. The Clinton administration never actually ran a surplus. A historical review of the US National Debt will show this very clearly. IIRC, the last actual surplus we ran was in 1969.

Yes it's true that the current projections show a projected $500 Bil. deficit over the next 10 years. But those projections include 100 Billion spent in Iraq for every one of those 10 years, because that's the rule when these projections are made. The current spending levels are projected out. It's highly unlikely that the US will spend 100 Billion a year in Iraq for the next ten years. If you subtract this $1 Trillion dollars, the $500 Mil. deficit becomes a $500 Mil surplus.

Furthermore, Bush did not approve borrowing 800 billion dollars. Congress only raised the legal debt limit, it didn't borrow the money. Bush can only ask for expenditures, Congress has to approve them and allocate the funds.

Finally, defence spending has to be measured against GDP for the numbers to be meaningful. The current US defence budget sits at 3.6% of GDP, down from a high of 6% during the Reagan years.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join