MiG-21 & Balderdash

[Samir]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ehsmang:<BR><B>In fact the entire Vampire and substantial Mystere force was withdrawn from war subsequent to its mauling in the initial days of the war at the hands of PAF..The IAF after taking the initial reverses did give PAF a hard time with its Gnats, Hunters etc.<BR></B>[QUOTE]<P>A "substantial" part of the Mystere fleet was *NOT* withdrawn. They flew a majority of the ground strike missions. Where is this gen coming from?<P>The Hunters were the ones that took some beating, buts thats because all the ones shot down by Sabres were flying strike missions at the time, fully loaded with stores and drop tanks. Air-to-air between Hunters (not flying strike missions) and Sabres was more even.<P>[QUOTE]<B><BR>Coupled with some input from Bengali officers of PAF , IAF sustained an offensive posture throughout the war. <BR></B><HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>Exactly what input are you talking about? Did they fly on the Indian side? Did they provide any vital intelligence? This is the first time in my life that I've heard of IAF offensives being "coupled" with inputs from Bengali members of the PAF. What agenda is being pushed here, please?<P>

[Jagan]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Samir Chopra:<BR><B> the first time in my life that I've heard of IAF offensives being "coupled" with inputs from Bengali members of the PAF. What agenda is being pushed here, please?<P></B><HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>I think we are talking about information that we recieved from defecting East Pakistani personnel of the PAF. I dont think they ever flew missions with us, but did give us some gen on the readiness of the PAF and defences.<P>

[ehsmang]

The bengali officers only provided some intel about PAF.<P>The Vampires were withdrawn and the Mysteres operated but not to their full potential unlike other aircrafts.

[Rupak]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ehsmang:<BR><B><BR>The Vampires were withdrawn and the Mysteres operated but not to their full potential unlike other aircrafts. </B><HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>I think you are confusing Mysteres with Ouragans (Toofanis). Recall Devayya who was flying a Mystere when he shot down the F-104. Mystere units were flying until the very end. In 1971 Mysteres flew strikes against Fazilka and Air Cmde Jasjit Singh earned his VrC flying Mysteres in 1971.<BR>

[Samir]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Tom:<BR><B><BR>I wanted to ask you if you know the reasons for heavy losses of IAF Mystéres at the start of the fighting in 1965? Do you think that Mystéres were that much inferior when compared to Sabres or Starfighters, or could it be that F-86s simply surprised those formations of the 1 Sqn IAF? Wasn't the IAF command a bit too sensitive about its own losses at the time? After taking closer looks at many accounts of the war in 1965, I think that the last was the case: the offensive against Sargodha was also stopped after Hunters and Mystéres meet fierce resistance there. At the same time the PAF was actually more concerned if its units would survive just such type of rolling Indian attacks....<BR></B><HR></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>Well, one of the pilots who actually flew on those strikes said that Mysteres were inferior compared to Sabres. He should know, and he wasn't making excuses. The only escape strategy for Mystere pilots was to try and exit at low levels. Strike pilots at that time weren't as heavily trained on air-to-air combat either. The PAF pilots had Sabres, and they had had Korean war aces come and train them. Any impartial assessment of the Mystere vs the Sabres and Starfighters will tell you that the Mystere was outclassed.<P>As far as being "too sensitive", well, well. The IAF flew dawn, *day* and dusk strikes on PAF airfields, flying into AA fire and superior interceptors all the while. The reason the airstrikes were called off on the airfields was based on a simple cost-benefit analysis, something military commanders and strategists do all the time (in the Gulf war, a much richer Air Force called off low-level strikes because of similar rates of attrition on vastly superior aircraft). Perhaps the IAF should just have let the pilots carry on flying these missions till there were none left? Perhaps there were other missions that they could have flown that offered more bang for the buck? Resources were precious in those days: a commanding officer of a Mystere squadron gave a "rocket" to one of his pilots for jettisoning his drop tanks because he had been jumped by a F-104. His reason: we can't go on dumping drop tanks everytime you get jumped, try the run strategy instead: exit at low level (something that lots of pilots did use in order to escape).<P>Which accounts of the war are you reading? There does exist a middle ground between the PAF's "har-de-har, we beat those non-martial race type Hindus back" and the IAF's "geez, we really screwed up, didn't we?" accounts.<P>I find your remark of the IAF being "too sensitive" to be borderline offensive. We didn't start the war, we flew the most dangerous missions, our pilots flew inferior planes and did well, and the IAF was "too sensitive"? What should they have done? They didn't have 1000 bomber fleets like the USAAF in the Second World War that could just absorb losses that would have crippled any other air wing. They didn't have true air defense support (those giant bomber fleets often had superb fighter support). They did what they could at the time. If the IAF was too sensitive about its losses, what do you call the PAF, that doesn't come out and play ever? Scared?

[shiv]

Fellow admin bhaiyas (an bahens - just in case)- to coin a new phrase. We are looking at archive material here. Kindly brush the dust off a few personal hard disks as well.

[Peeyoosh]

Samir<P>Very well put. Add to the burden the fact that India was completely unsure of its capability to procure replacements for downed aircraft unlike the West, for which new aircraft were a matter of throwing resources at the problem. Our key supplier was the UK, which by the mid 60s had slipped into a 'hanger onto the US' status, our relations with the USSR were good, but they had virtually fraternal relations with China makng the USSR a doubtful supplier and the US was in bed with Pakistan.<P>By 1971, we had at least one relaible supplier and that itself made a world of difference.<P>A couple of points:<P>The value of pure interceptors for defending high value targets is going down quite rapidly with the introduction of ballistic and cruise missiles (hopefully) to knock those out. I am not sure how the PAF will cope with these threats.<P>If the PAF is content to be a defensive interceptor force how does that tie in with the stated Pakistani riposte doctorine that involves a deep armoured thrust into India (the logic being that the war will be short and any territory taken can be used for subsequent bargaining)? It would need extensive air support and at the very least good air cover. Or does the PAF have its own independent doctorine?<P>The PAF has jocks trained on F-15s and f-16 block Cs anfd Ds but right now its a 60s airforce with Mirage IIIs and Chinese f-7s. It has just 20 F-16s flying - and we had some research done that indicated without access to mid life airframe reworks these 20 would be reaching the end of their useful life pretty soon.<P>The Mig 21, has its flaws - tough to handle, limited fuel endurance, low offensive weapons load, too many tasks for the pilot - but it still remains a fairly competent Mach 2 interceptor - with upgraded avionics and BVR capability that definitely has a role.<P>Lastly airwars are not won based on kills, or the Germans may well have won the Russian War, but objectives met - the IAF in both 65 and 71, kept up the pressure expected of it on PAki attacks. The true indication of this is the fact there are few complaints from the IA, as opposed to the litany of material available from the Paki army on the uselessness of their air force.<P>Peeyoosh

[Nagraj]

Welcome Tom, and thanks for starting a really interesting debate. I do not claim to know the relative merits of various airforces and their pilots by I do know that Indians by nature are not boasters and self-promoters - quite the opposite in fact.<P>I look at results and not the PR hype, and by this measure the IAF has done a great job in the various wars that India has been involved in. To give an example, I had a friend in the services who told me that the IAF flew a daily supply plane into Leh, the highest airfield in the world, no matter how bad the weather conditions. No excuses!

[ehsmang]

tom,<P>There is a definite erosion in quality of people joining the IAF. Pilots are rated on a continous basis on their performance. % of pilots falling in lower categories shows a definite increase. Yes, the monetary allurements in the private sector are just too much.<P>The time between 1962 to 1965 was too little for IAF to hone its training, tactics, study enemy tactics etc etc. The initial heavy losses were also a function of this factor. <P>However in one of the Pakistani accounts of 1971 , it is said that PAF no longer had the potency of 1965 since it had lost quite a few experienced pilots in the 65 conflict!!!! <P>Inspite of that IAF did keep up an offensive posture. Finally, War is about achieving objectives. And with lot of pride I can say that we did achieve the objectives in great measure though not 100%. <P>The Paki rattle about role of PAF in 1965 is similar to what Gen Mushy parrots about Kargil, so what we inflicted lot of casualties on Indians!!!!!

[Samir]

As far as PR is concerned no arguments. The IAF often shoots itself in the foot by not publicizing what it does adequately. It doesn't do so to its own people, and certainly not to the rest of the world. We don't have an official history of the IAF yet, and war diaries of all the Ops are carefully hidden, gathering dust and falling apart in bases all over the country. Pilots retire, and have to be tracked down by amateur historians in order to find out what experiences they underwent. The IAF can't even advertise its strong points in order to enhance recruitment, so the question of advertising to the rest of the world doesn't seem to arise.<P>This whole discussion started because of pilot quality. Here is one more thing that perhaps people should think about. When judging pilot quality, one should also look at the level of stress placed on a pilot and the kinds of roles that pilots are expected to fulfil. I've already argued that since PAF pilots have hardly done any deep penetration, low level strikes, they are disqualified from making any claims to pilot quality in that area (and its a league or club of its own, ask the Phantom pilots from Vietnam). Now for another aspect of this. <P>Where, and in what kinds of airspace and environments have PAF pilots fought? Consider a pilot that takes off for point defense. What sorts of risks is he taking on? He runs the risk of getting shot down by the air defense that is escorting the strike formation. Is he dodging SAM's? No. Is he dodging other AA fire? No. If not killed with his air craft, will he parachute into hostile territory? If captured, will he face torture and beatings and imprisonment? No (he isn't parachuting into hostile territory, after all). OK. So, he takes off with one thing in mind, and that is to try and shoot down the enemy that is coming at his air base. If the air base is destroyed and rendered unusable, can he find another air base to land at? Most probably (and this last one is a bit unlikely). The mindset of such a pilot is *very* different from one that flies into hostile territory, into hostile airspace. He doesn't have the kinds of briefings that pilots who fly into hostile airspace have. Those briefings are a reminder of the extra dangers that pilots flying over hostile territory feel. Its a very intangible quality, but it can act as a real performance destroyer ("gee, perhaps I should drop that stick a bit early, pull out fast, scram back home"). Imagine what went through pilots minds as they flew the Kargil Ops last year, knowing what had happened to Ahuja and Kalia (and his men).<P>IAF pilots have put up with far more of this stress than PAF pilots have. Interestingly, ever since this discussion started, it has tended to still stay at discussions of air-to-air kills. Well, thats a bit frustrating, but I'd still like to hope that an assessment of pilot quality in Operations take into account:<P>1. Equipment<BR>2. The nature of operations mounted (there is a whole lot in here that needs to be carefully unpacked before a full assessment can be made).<P>Back to PR. Lastly, I'll say one thing about the PAF. Anyone that is a decent military historian and has any experience of reading accounts of air wars, should read PAF accounts and hold their noses at the stench of arrogance and lack of chivalry that comes from their accounts. That in itself, should make any intellectually honest historian suspicious. The Israeli Air Force on its web site provides a link to the PIADS site where an account of an airbattle between a PAF pilot and a IDF/AF pilots ends with the Pakistani pilot shooting down the Israeli and making cracks about the letter J standing for Jewish on the fuselage and the destruction of a myth and so on. This is crap, offensive crap to say the least. Read the PIADS site, and see whether you can detect a single note of recognition for their opponents. Not one. Are they so superior? I doubt it. Would they like to think they are? Sure.<P>Read Saburo Sakai's account of being an ace in WWII and see the difference between an acount like that and the garbage that the PAF puts out. I'd hope people would be able to make out that an airforce so bent on creating the kinds of histories they seem to be interested in, would have plenty to hide.<BR>

[ehsmang]

There is a hindi proverb whose rough english equivalent is <P>' an empty vessel makes more noise'<P>or <P>' a tree laden with fruits bows down'<P>This no news in West about IAF is also because till a few years ago India was considered in the Russian camp.<BR>Frankly, we dont lose sleep if Westerners dont write about IAF. No problems at all. We are quitely confident about our abilities and will deliver when called to but also alive to our enemies capability. <P>And pray that the day is not far off!!! time for vajpayee ji to show some ba...<P>

[Rupak]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Tom:<BR><B>I'll give you an example of what I'm actually doing: couple of days ago, I've sent three pics to Rupak. For example one gun-camera pic of something B-57/Canberra-like in flame and with a piper on it. I asked him if he could clear the situation, as the piper was - according to what I know - one of the Mirage, while I got the pic from Indian source. Well, I still got no answer.<BR></B><HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P><BR>Sorry Tom, I haven't recieved any pictures. Which address did you send them to?<BR>

[Pennathur]

Dear Tom,<P>The IAF has purpose-oriented crews who are cross-trained very well. And as Samir says the IAF makes you train very, very hard not only in the air but also on the ground. (Air Intelligence guys are put thru memory tests regularly!)<P>I have a good friend who commands an attack squadron these days. He's been an instructor at Air Force Academy, Flight Instructors' Trng. School and TACDE. Above all these he has been a SuryaKiran too - a member of the IAF Aerobatic Team.<P>At TACDE (check out the BR Archive) Attack, Interceptors, Ground Defences and GCIs train together on composite exercises.<P>There is a fair amount of cross-training in the IAF. Attack and interceptor teams do learn about one-another's art. And in any case in exercises, attack teams have to dog-fight to get out if their top-covers are "smoked out" by the red team.<P>The USN has a "Strike University" close to Top Gun where Intruders and F/A 18 crews learn to fight their way out of hostile territory.

[Cybaru]

From what I have heard, read and discussed.. The Arabs (Whether the saudi's or the UAE foks) are pretty mediocre. Not much cross training, very very relaxed for fighter pilots & pretty bad under stress conditions. I wish i could give concerete examples, i rather not.

[Vikram Rathore]

Japan should definitely be up there in the list- in my opinion, no 2 or 3. With close to 200 F-15s and AWACS, it is a formidable force. Add to these the second string of upgraded F-4s and F-1s for ground attack, you have a fairly sizeable and competent air force.<P>I would also put Taiwan at parity to India- or (let me put aside my patriotic hat for a while and be objective) even higher than India. Taiwan has (acc to the Intl Air Force Directory 1999):<BR>145 F-16A/B<BR>60 Mirage 2000-5<BR>250 F-5/IDFs<P>Along with E-2 AWACS, this is a formidable force- and in the context of purely air supremacy, I think it may well deserve a ranking above India. Looking purely at equipment alone, the AWACS gives an instant edge (till India gets the Mainstay). The Mirages cancel each other out- in fact, their Mirages are better (being of -5 standard and carrying MICAs v/s our Super 530), the 145 F-16s more than cancel out our total of ~85 MiG-29/Su-30s, and the second string of upgraded F-5s/IDFs are more than a match for our second string of non upgraded MiG-21s.<P>What say?

[Pennathur]

Comparing Air Forces that are unlikely to face each other serves no purpose at all. Unless the non-comparison AF is likely to help your adversary AF in some really material way.<P>So by that logic the following comparisons are pointless<P>*IAF vs.<P> IsAF<BR> Taiwan AF<BR> Japan AF<BR> Iran AF<BR> Singapore AF<BR> Aus.AF<BR> <BR>These comparisons are purposeful in descending order of utility<P>*IAF vs.<P> TSPAF<BR> PLAAF<BR> Saudi AF<BR> UAE AF<P>It is tempting to cook up a lovely scenario of wholesale transfer of hardware from UAE and Saudi to TSPAF during an all-out war. I believe we must not dismiss it off-hand. But then re-orient your entire position for such a scenario is horrendously expensive. I believe that the IAF has taken this possibilty into account and if necessary can fall back into an extremely defensive mode by spreading out the battlefront, thus stretching the TSPAF and making it very expensive for the TSPAF to undertake counter-air ops anywhere beyond the frontline airfields.<P>And then if you can't compare non-adversarial or unlikely-to-be-adversary-AFs it is equally pointless to compare how these AFs could achieve a particular objective or sustain a situation. So it makes little sense to talk of "Who's best at this? Who's best at that?" In the NATO context it makes sense, because all NATO AFs share some common objectives and are to be switched into various roles at the will and pleasure of Chacha Sam. Every AF has its own doctrine, strategy and suite of goals and objectives (rightly or wrongly) based on its threat perceptions. The USAF believes in achieving air-superiority. The Russians believe that there is no such thing as air-superiority, that it is a temporary phenomenon. While we like to make light of the Russian Air Doctrine, it can show some remarkable flexibility when the situation demands it. They wouldn't think twice about putting all air assets under the command of a land-man if the situation demands it. In fact at Kursk (the greatest land battle ever), the entire Red Air Force reported to the battlefield commanders, while the Luftwaffe took its orders from Goering (or his stenographer?)<P>So what then could be the objectives of various AFs we talk about here so often. It's probably published but then no harm speculating.<P>1. Taiwan<P>Be able to deter any Chinese combined arms assault - which has to come by sea. Deny use of air space over Taiwan. Buy time till China decides to bomb Taiwan with conventional missiles until Chacha lands up to mess up China. <BR>Achievable? YES! YOU BET! With the kind of assets that this tiny nation has it can prevent a Normandy type invasion and ho;d it back at least for 3-4 days.<P>2. Japan<P>Mysterious. This country has bought peace with just about everyone and obviated the need for warfare of any sort.<P>But this is no Costa Rica. You never know when you need to protect yourself. Long traditions of seamanship and airmanship - taught the USN all about carrier based operations - a pity if all this went waste isn't it?<P>Similar objectives as Taiwan but with 10% the threat probability and 200% the quality and capability of Taiwan. And can this AF work in other areas if called by NATO? I have no proof, but deep within I know it CAN.<P>3. PLAAF<P>Try to be capable of everything possible in the distant future. Avoid battle as long as possible. Threaten pesky neighbors like India, Vietnam etc. How well trained? Do their pilots fly at all? Probably has a core of really good people surrounded by a large mass of chalta hais. Worry for India is it can't take these people lightly. How many are those competent people? Even if PLAAF doesn't plan to use its AF against India in a war. What purpose would it serve, when you have enough missles to blank out your adversary?<P>4. Saudi and UAE<P>Equipment depots for Uncle.<P>A learned member of BR has posted an interesting piece on UAE. It's total population is barely 3 million and expats account for 60%. Threat for India still because can transfer equipment to TSPAF if push comes to shove. But then these two countries have shown that they belive in the dictum, "Trust in God. Rest in Cash!" So they aren't going to simply transfer their assets to TSPAF only to see them blown out of the sky. There will be heavy costs to all involved.<P>Given the above, the only meaningful comparisons between the IAF and the rest is the scores from gunnery and attack contests that happen once in a while in every AF for various trophies!<P>And that brings us back to IAF vs. TSPAF. Both the AFs understand these matters and are good in their own way. Only that the IAF is growing out of its earlier obsession with counter-air and has matured into a well-diversified force, capable of a variety of missions. Both the "strike" commands, SW and Western have enough resources to independently support ground troops, protect air space and carry out deep strikes. As against this the TSPAF will have to throw everything into the air to keep out the IAF. The IAF as Gen.Charles Horner put it is much like the USAF and is geared up to do battle over enemy airspace. If the TSPAF has the time and energy after all this barrage, it can take to the air and try to fight the IAF. The TSPAF knows this very well and hopes and prays that it doesn't have to choose between protecting itself and its brother arm the TSPArmy.<P>From what little filters out to the press, the IAF has trained for combined land-air battle exercises in Rajasthan, Punjab and JK. The full-scale exercises have been going on since the last three years, after 7-8 years of preparations and refinement. And these exercises are full of surprises (expectedly?) An attack mission can suddenly turn into an interception mission. Flight leader having to hold back and vector his team on to target because of sudden breakdown of link with GCs.<P>Mig27 crews have been practicing lob-tosses for over 10 years now, according to my above quoted friend the squadron commander, it's old hat by now. For all that we talk of jointmanship etc., the IAF and IA enjoyed excellent coordination during 1971. Combined ops centres with IAF+IA officers functioned right thru the '71 war on the Eastern and Western fronts.<P>