MiG-21 & Balderdash

Cybaru · Post by **Cybaru** » 02 Jul 2000 07:11

Interesting piece of discussion on the AFM forum board. I do not know what balderdash's login is on this forum and maybe this has all been discussed in detail here, but i have seen him post quite a number of times on different forums. He may also be able to answer Rakesh Koshy's questions on the path taken by a pilot to get to Mig series or the mirage series. <A HREF="http://www.keymags.co.uk/htdocs/dcforum ... 4/105.html" TARGET=_blank>http://www.keymags.co.uk/htdocs/dcforum ... 05.html</A> [This message has been edited by cy_baru (edited 01-07-2000).]

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 02 Jul 2000 07:30

Thanks for posting the link cy-baru. The thread is a must read for all B-R aviation enthusiasts.I find the following comment by Balderdash interesting:" Why the IAF still keeps MiG-21s around- in IAF doctrine, the Fishbed is no longer primarily meant to take on the PAF- for that, there are enough Fulcrums, Mirage 2000s and Flankers around. The problem is two fold- India still hasover 300 Fishbed and buying new aircraft to replace them all at one go will be very expensive- so India's trying to phase them out slowly and keep them going with the 21-93 upgrade. Secondly, these are meant to primarily help in the quantity game v/s the Chinese. China has 3000 F-6s- one on one cannon fodder (or Archer fodder) v/s aFulcrum/Mirage 2000, but India just doesn't have enough of these to counter 3000! The 21-93 will have the Alamo/Adder BVR capability and Archer for close in, giving a decisive edge over the Chinese F-6/7, and in reasonablequantity as well. In 10 odd years, India will increasingly phase these out as (and when), the LCA comes in, or the license production of the Flanker in large quantites becomes a reality." Also this:"I have the highest regard for Yeager- but take some of his comments with a pinch of salt keeping in mind the context. In the 60s and 70s, India was regarded as a Soviet ally , and Pakistan was a loyal US ally- hence most western official and semi official records tried to portray India as the poorly trained Russian crony taking on the (obviously better trained) US ally. In truth, the IAF combat doctrine borrows much more from the West- most IAF fighter pilots were openly contemptuous of the GCI controlled Soviet tactics which made the pilot a mindless automaton- and IAF tactics emphasized individual initiative and skill (esp at the TACDE- the IAF equivalent of Top Gun)- much like the Western air forces. "[This message has been edited by shiv (edited 01-07-2000).]

Cybaru · Post by **Cybaru** » 02 Jul 2000 07:38

Shiv,Hey I have been thinking for a couple of days for starting a few threads but haven't had the time.. 1. Indian AF vs Chinese 2. Indian Navy vs Chinese navy.. I was reading somewhere that china has more than a score of diesel subs operational.. Although not very good and noisy but they may seem to have some number advantages.. 3. Indian AF 10 years hence dueto delays in inducting LCA. What path would be optimum for us to choose ?? Many russian or few Western planes ?? From the article it seems that Mig21FL seems to be the culprit that seems to falling out of the sky. How do other planes fare.. DO we have an year by year comparision of all planes that we lose. Should i open new threads for any of the above ?? Any takers ??

Calvin · Post by **Calvin** » 02 Jul 2000 08:17

Does Balderdash post here?Is that "our" Jagan over there?

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 02 Jul 2000 08:29

Calvin I'm sure that is "our" Jagan, and I think Balderdash has a guestbook entry under his real name.cy_baru - as always - all such topix are welcome - but perhaps one at a time. If you are able to make up a scenario yourself and post it as a short article (two paragraphs, perhaps) for comments - it seems to stimulate more grey cells than if you merely ask a question about what others think and ask them to post articles on essentially complex sujects requiring much background information and analytical input.

Rupak · Post by **Rupak** » 02 Jul 2000 08:31

Yes Calvin. We are all there! And Balderash has visited us!

Sunil · Post by **Sunil** » 02 Jul 2000 08:37

Curiouser and curiouser,another poster named balderdash posted some time ago on a forum about indians training thai pilots to carry out carrier landings on the Chakrinaurbet. This other balderdash also claimed to have flown with the IAF and seem very well informed about issues. might well be the same person. Upside now is atleast i know what TACDE is.

Rupak · Post by **Rupak** » 02 Jul 2000 08:40

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by sunil sainis: Upside now is atleast i know what TACDE is. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Sunil you obviously aren't reading our data pages. See <A HREF="http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/IAF/Features/TACDE.html" TARGET=_blank>http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/IAF/Featu ... DE.html</A>

vverma · Post by **vverma** » 02 Jul 2000 12:24

I don't know, did Jagan also do this?I flew with the Indian Air Force from 1968 to 1986, and was on operational duty with MiG-21 squadrons for all but 4 of those years. I flew the Fishbed in the 1971 war with Pakistan and claimed a F-6 in combat and a probable F-104.

Rupak · Post by **Rupak** » 02 Jul 2000 13:01

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by vverma: I don't know, did Jagan also do this?I flew with the Indian Air Force from 1968 to 1986, and was on operational duty with MiG-21 squadrons for all but 4 of those years. I flew the Fishbed in the 1971 war with Pakistan and claimed a F-6 in combat and a probable F-104.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>VivekWhat do you mean?

Jagan · Post by **Jagan** » 02 Jul 2000 13:49

Aw Jesus! Me....A War Hero!!!! Hell, NO!Calvin is mentioning Post no 18 in that thread...which was posted under my login...I dont think Balderdash's identity is such a mystery, anyone with half knowledge of Aircombat in subcontinent would straight away guess his identity...as Tom in that thread has already done.

Harry · Post by **Harry** » 02 Jul 2000 20:02

There's a discussion in that forum about the world's best fighter and one guy says that the worst ever is the LCA and even the cessna can down it and a puki supports him.I think a few of us need to go there and set them straight!

S Unnithan · Post by **S Unnithan** » 02 Jul 2000 20:16

>>another poster named balderdash posted some time ago on a forum about Indians training thai pilots to carry out carrier landings on the Chakrinaurbet<<Most interesting. When the Thai navy was acquiring the Chakkri. in 1996-97, i was told that they had sent out feelers for the IN Harrier pilots to train their AV-8B Matador pilots. But this was turned down by the IN.

Harry · Post by **Harry** » 02 Jul 2000 23:06

PAK attack at that forum!Ok not totally but who knows when they'll start showing off about their BS "success" against the IAF? I request BR posters to monitor that forum just in case.Thanks.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 02 Jul 2000 23:22

Have we turned down the Thai request?Where did I come across the piece that we have offered to train them at Goa?Vayu-wher it is said the Adm.Sushil Kumar himself has offered the same.

Pennathur · Post by **Pennathur** » 02 Jul 2000 23:28

Dear Jagan,We got high on Bagpiper on the road to Satyam a couple of times last year and at my apartment in Gunrock Enclave. But I didn't know that you flew that high during 1971!! Keep quiet. Nothing like mistaken fame!!!!!

Sunil · Post by **Sunil** » 02 Jul 2000 23:33

> Most interesting. When the Thai navy was acquiring the Chakkri. in 1996-97, i was told that they had sent out feelers for the IN Harrier pilots to train their AV-8B Matador pilots. But this was turned down by the IN.is it?.. but this `balderdash' claimed to have talked to `the boys' who had done the job. If i recall the link was provided by Ibothello, so perhaps he knows what i am on about. i unfortunately lost the link. If we can find the link we can probably see the discussion or aliter whoever knows this balderdash could ask him. and yes rupak.. mes apologies.. it appears i had missed that one. [This message has been edited by sunil sainis (edited 02-07-2000).]

Harry · Post by **Harry** » 03 Jul 2000 00:02

ALERT!!My prediction was correct.The puke has already posted the IAF losses - an analysis (For IAF,may is the cruelest month)at the keymags forum.We'd better do something fast! Go here: <A HREF="http://www.keymags.co.uk/cgi-bin/dcforu ... DCForumID4" TARGET=_blank>http://www.keymags.co.uk/cgi-bin/dcforu ... orumID4</A>

Harry · Post by **Harry** » 03 Jul 2000 00:57

GUYYYSSS!!!READ THISThe situation has escalated at that forum,Puke MF's are using profane language and are spreading crap at a faasst rateWE NEED YOUR HELP!!!

Pennathur · Post by **Pennathur** » 03 Jul 2000 01:04

Harry take heart. Should India bother about the Swiss Navy or the Pakistan Air Force?

Cybaru · Post by **Cybaru** » 03 Jul 2000 01:39

Philip & Sunil, The link was from warships1.com. Look there if you want more info on the chakri. Two more links and one of them with balderdash's comments. <A HREF="http://www.InsideTheWeb.com/messageboar ... 89&TPP=100" TARGET=_blank>http://www.InsideTheWeb.com/messageboar ... TPP=100</A> <A HREF="http://www.InsideTheWeb.com/messageboar ... =961026016" TARGET=_blank>http://www.InsideTheWeb.com/messageboar ... 1026016</A> Harry, just ignore them, no point in pointing the obvious would there be ??Cheers..

Harry · Post by **Harry** » 03 Jul 2000 01:48

For god's sake,the name of the IAF is being stained and someone even said that IAF pilots can't fly a kite on a warm day.Don't you people want to help your country??????

advitya · Post by **advitya** » 03 Jul 2000 01:54

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Harry: For god's sake,the name of the IAF is being stained and someone even said that IAF pilots can't fly a kite on a warm day.Don't you people want to help your country??????<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Harry relax, someone seems to have taken on Effendi!

Babui · Post by **Babui** » 03 Jul 2000 04:32

Would "Tom" be someone who is registered in this forum ? And, Rupak - if "Balderdash" has come on this forum, then we did a pretty poor job of "dissecting" his knowledge. "Tom" has found out more about IAF MiG 21's in that post than we ever have from "Balderdash". From Jagan's IAF site, I've a pretty good idea who "Balderdash" is and maybe we should invite him for a long, informed discussion. I also suggest we archive the posts on that forum.

rama · Post by **rama** » 03 Jul 2000 06:08

Except a couple of posts I was pretty disappointed by the lack on content in that thread on the AFM forum. Especially damning because it is not supposed to be a jingoistic country related forum. I mean how can anybody take a "cant fly a kite" remark about the IAF seriously?? Even if you were not Indian, you would have to commend the high altitude operations (combat and transport across half a dozen jets, turboprops and helos). Is there flying tougher than that? Perhaps carrier landings, but thats not an airforce job, *and* India does belong to that small clubs of countries that does that as well, anyway.

Rupak · Post by **Rupak** » 03 Jul 2000 08:29

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Babui: And, Rupak - if "Balderdash" has come on this forum, then we did a pretty poor job of "dissecting" his knowledge. "Tom" has found out more about IAF MiG 21's in that post than we ever have from "Balderdash".<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Babui I should clarify what I said. When I siad Balderdash visited us I meant B_R, because he had signed the guestbook. I don't believe he is regsitered on the ForumcheersRupak

Cybaru · Post by **Cybaru** » 04 Jul 2000 08:10

Here is the earlier link regarding training in thailand."At the height of the economic crisis, the Chakri was more or less reduced to being a royal yatch. Now that things are looking up- the Thai economy is set to grow +3% this year, the Royal Thai Navy is looking to make better use of this. As a first step, they're looking to improve training and tactics on the Harrier. As we chat, a team of Indian Navy pilots is here in Thailand to train Thai pilots on the Harrier (and also stay in practice, while the Viraat is in refit). I met a couple of them over beer this weekend...seem to be focusing on air to ground tactics and basic carrier operations. Balderdash " <A HREF="http://www.InsideTheWeb.com/messageboar ... =960766270" TARGET=_blank>http://www.InsideTheWeb.com/messageboar ... m=96078519 5&P=Yes&TL=960766270</A> [This message has been edited by cy_baru (edited 03-07-2000).]

ArunK · Post by **ArunK** » 06 Jul 2000 02:53

Just thought I would update you on the status of Shamyl Effendi at the AFM forum.Check out this post from a Shaukat Badami this is a message for Mr Effendi"It's exactly this kinda BS that you spew, which makes Pakistan look like a country of fools. Now who are you trying to impress ? The whites on this forum ? Which martial races do the USN fighter pilots, or the Israeli pilots belong to ?Maybe it's difficult for you to hold it back, but you idiot, for the sake of Pakistan, please don't expose your stupidity on these public forums.Do us a favor & go back to the Pakistani Defence forum & BS all you want to the kids out there. " [This message has been edited by Arun Kolal (edited 05-07-2000).]

Div · Post by **Div** » 06 Jul 2000 03:52

Things are calmer on the AFM forum...the Pukes are buggin out.

Hitesh · Post by **Hitesh** » 08 Jul 2000 02:59

Welcome to the board!! I look forward to reading your comments even though I know little about aerial combat.

rama · Post by **rama** » 08 Jul 2000 05:16

Hi Tom, Welcome to the forum. Can I be blunt in making the following observation about your high opinion of training in the PAF? Perhaps you take published accounts at face value. Without accounting for the possibility that the PAF is extremely good at PR and has managed to get in some non-objective glorification out there (eg Frickers book, and the couple of pages in Yeagers autobio). I can't accuse you of outright naivete, since obviously you have rejected some of their most egregious claims (Alam), but still I wonder if you have fallen a little for PAF's BSing.IAF - from the horse's mouth - has a high regard for its opponent. I'm no expert, however a simple "show-me-the-money" analysis of PAF's training (as documented by PIADS) seems to not hold much water in being absolutely the very best out there. Because there are big discrepancies. A couple:1) PAF's excellence, from PIADS and other sources, results from extensive weeding at every step in their training process (the standard 3 stage training also followed by IAF). If you start with an intake of 160 per year for PAF academy, and go through the claims of attrition (mentioned as "average") you end up with 32 graduated flying officers / year. PAF is an airforce with ~450 jets, and using their own 2:1 ratio needs to keep 900 pilots on it's rolls, plus the 300 or so deputies to the middle east (since 200 are deputed to the UAE alone by their claims). Well, draw your conclusions on sustaining 1200 pilots a year on an induction of only 32 flying officers a year. (Each officer flies for 40 years

) 2) Stage 2 is supposed to be based on the k-8 and each of the 80 cadets left (from the 160 original batch) apparently gets 130 hours on it. True, they weed out something like 40 at various points in stage 2, so assuming 60 pilots flying 130 hours on *SIX* K-8s (PAF inventory) implies putting *1300* hours on each airframe per year. (Four hours a day on each plane counting weekends!). Draw your conclusion on the feasibility of this.3) One of the few *hard* statistics to come out of the PAF is <A HREF="http://www.pakdefencenews.org/piads/ayaz1.html" TARGET=_blank>http://www.pakdefencenews.org/piads/ayaz1.html</A> (also from PIADS).PAF flew 110,000 hours in 19 months. Assuming all to be on combat jets, this is 6000 hours per month, and the average for their pilots is 6.5 hours a month. So, unless that was a very unrepresentative period for the PAF, their pilots received an average of 80 hours each. Imagine how much flying the rest 300 deputed outside Pakistan will have to do to make up for it. Even if you assume that your crack pilots all get their bulk of flying outside - that is *not* condusive to being able to get the best of *your* inventory. Particularly since the inventories of PAF and the middle eastern airforces are different, and getting more and more different every year. IAF pilots seem to average atleast 50% more flying time. [This message has been edited by rama (edited 07-07-2000).]

rama · Post by **rama** » 08 Jul 2000 06:24

Better at exactly what?? This also needs to be addressed in the specific Indo-Pak context. In the previous conflicts (esp 71), Pakis have alluded to better kill ratios (going into those is a different discussion) glibly ignoring the fact that a lot more IAF pilots were engaged in a lot more mud moving. Thus while PAF was mostly engaged in intercepting IAF (that too around their bases), IAF was engaged in changing the course of the war (by helping out the grunts) *and* fighting the PAF. Even if they got bested at the latter (ie hypothetically accepting the Paki position at face value), what matters is their overall contribution which undeniably includes logistics and ground support.Just being good at air combat is really only one third of the story. IAF IMHO blows the PAF out of the sky when you take CAS and transport into account. While we go round and round over BVR, dogfighting and other fighter jock glamour, this higher order bit is being completely missed!

Samir · Post by **Samir** » 08 Jul 2000 11:46

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by rama: Better at exactly what?? This also needs to be addressed in the specific Indo-Pak context. In the previous conflicts (esp 71), Pakis have alluded to better kill ratios (going into those is a different discussion) glibly ignoring the fact that a lot more IAF pilots were engaged in a lot more mud moving. Thus while PAF was mostly engaged in intercepting IAF (that too around their bases), IAF was engaged in changing the course of the war (by helping out the grunts) *and* fighting the PAF. Even if they got bested at the latter (ie hypothetically accepting the Paki position at face value), what matters is their overall contribution which undeniably includes logistics and ground support.Just being good at air combat is really only one third of the story. IAF IMHO blows the PAF out of the sky when you take CAS and transport into account. While we go round and round over BVR, dogfighting and other fighter jock glamour, this higher order bit is being completely missed! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>This post really nails it. A long time ago, (I mean, really long time ago) on rec.military aviation, a long, prolonged discussion broke out on who were the "real" pilots: the fighter jocks who got all the glamour for their air-to-air kills or the ground attack pilots who did the dirty, unglamorous work of attacking heavily defended ground targets. Everyone pitched in, and it was a lot of fun (with some inevitable flaming), but that discussion should have been archived and made available to everyone who wants to bring up the PAF-IAF thing.For all the hoo-ha made about the PAF, they've hardly done any of the latter--they've stayed largely on point defense and made a few strikes on airfields when the wars started. Ask the Su-7 pilots of the 1971 war who did the dirty work, and who really contributed to the Western Front.Every single, (and I mean, every single) bloody discussion on the PAF and IAF starts and ends at this point). "We shot down more" "Nyah-nyah- we shot down more", "No, we had better planes", "Nyah-nyah, we had better pilots". Then some fancy Western military aviation expert will come along, and try and enlighten everyone on what a better pilot is. Jesus, planes take off for a reason. They take off because there is a war going on on the ground. They don't take off because there is a manhood-display contest taking place in the sky.Low-level DPSA pilots have a certain pride in their work, because they know its dirty, dangerous and unglamourous. When the war is over, armchair enthusiasts will go back to counting air-to-air kills and forget about the reason airpower came into being: to affect the course of a war being fought on the ground. The strike pilots do a lot of dangerous work and they do it without being thanked for it. When the PAF pilots start taking some of the same risks that IAF pilots have taken on, and when they can claim some of the same success that the IAF pilots have achieved, then we'll talk. If bragging and boasting was all that made up pilot quality, the PAF would be the world's best. Plenty of people buy it, and plenty of people continue to buy it. In the pantheon of the world's pilots, everyone remembers the Hartmann's, the Bongs, the Johnsons. Sure, perhaps thats natural. But it doesn't mean that you can go around comparing pilot quality simply by air-to-air kills.[This message has been edited by Samir Chopra (edited 08-07-2000).]

advitya · Post by **advitya** » 08 Jul 2000 17:32

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Tom: However, except for PAF's units equipped with upgraded Mirages and A-5IIIs, all the other almost exclusively train aircombat. At the same time, except for Indian MiG-29 pilots, most of the IAF trains both ground attacks and air combat. That's the difference: there is no pilot on the earth who can be excellent in both tasks while going through the "standard" combat training.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Tom, I think you misunderstand. The IAF's multi-role units do in fact operate with different sets of crews. This is certainly the norm in the Mirage and Sukhoi squadronscheers

advitya · Post by **advitya** » 08 Jul 2000 20:14

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Tom: Wow, well this IS something new to me. Can you explain it somewhat closer? I mean, how is this supposed to function? Is this the practice only in units equipped with Mirage 2000s and Su-27s or elsewhere too? Thanks<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Quite simple. Mirages on AD duties fly with pilots specializing in AD and vice versa!The IAF recognizes the need for specialization in the respective areas (strike and air combat). Indeed for that very reason, TACDE runs seperate FSL (Fighter Strike Leader) and FCL (Fighter Combat Leader). The policy of equipping dul role units with two sets of crews was, IIRC, was first implemented when the IAF began taking deliveries of the MiG-21M/MF. These units, along with some MiG-21bis units are likely to have two sets of crew on hand. Of course, it should be noted that pilots in strike units also train for air-air combat, if for no other reasons of self defense.[This message has been edited by advitya (edited 08-07-2000).]

Samir · Post by **Samir** » 10 Jul 2000 15:43

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Tom: ...This is a clear situation: PAF pilots train as hard as they can in order to be able to intercept - eventuall - Indian strikers with their less capable planes before those reach their targets in Pakistan. Like Samir excellently added, only Indian pilots of Bahadurs, Vijays and Shamshers will than make the difference. However, except for PAF's units equipped with upgraded Mirages and A-5IIIs, all the other almost exclusively train aircombat. At the same time, except for Indian MiG-29 pilots, most of the IAF trains both ground attacks and air combat. That's the difference: there is no pilot on the earth who can be excellent in both tasks while going through the "standard" combat training. Many air forces and air arms (the USN too) have constant problems with this. To make some further things about me clear for you, I'm a bit too old in order to "sample" my data about the PAF only from internet. ... Samir, your point about the reasons why planes actually start combat missions is correct, up to the point that air forces operate "only" because there is a fighting on the ground. In both large conflicts of the last year, Kosovo and Kargil, air forces fought alone up to a certain point. In think this will become even more prominent in future conflicts. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>The Kosovo military operation was, I dare say, a failure. The warmaking ability of the Serbian Army remained undiminished as the attacks went on, and the Albanians who got slaughtered on the ground by Serbian tanks got no relief. To have really had a cohesive strategy, NATO would have had to abosorb some losses on the ground. But, they don't like looking at body-bags, so no go. If success depends on the way the US and NATO choose to sell their military policies, then, yes, in the future, we will see more such "successful" operations. For the rest of the world, ground support remains critical.The Kargil operation was not a failure, and it wasn't because it was fought in conjunction with the Army's desire for offensive airpower to be directed at hard-to-soften-with-artillery targets. And the PAF stayed far, far away, not daring to intervene in a situation where they could easily have tangled if they had wanted. Was it only fear of escalation that held them back? I suggest that it was for fear of suffering losses and not being able to escalate themselves. They went right back to hoping for Stinger kills. Their failure to support their men on the ground cost them pretty dearly. Indian strike pilots train at air-to-air combats (and they train bloody hard, I can assure you), and in exercises, plenty of strike pilots (that are ballsy and good pilots) have "shot down" AD aircraft (of quality comparable to lots of planes flown by the PAF) being flown by specialized interceptor pilots. If a PAF interceptor jumps a strike aircraft of the IAF, he might be in for a bigger shock than he realizes. I don't think its true that no pilot on earth can be good at both these tasks. You don't have to train to be the world's best air-to-air combat pilot, you have to be good enough to defend yourself. You can scram if you want (I challenge any PAF interceptor to catch a MiG-23 exiting at low level with full reheat on), or you can stand and defend.The PAF can carry on training for air-to-air till the cows come home. When a conflict starts, I reckon they'll find that the perceived edge they have in air-to-air skills isn't there. And when it will come to mounting strike operations, the IAF has a real edge over the PAF.And yes, my data about the IAF is not just off the Internet either.Hopefully, the PAF and its legions of fans will continue to believe in this training edge. The IAF will just wait for the action, and then do its job, and the PAF can go back to publishing its accounts of the battles.

vram · Post by **vram** » 11 Jul 2000 01:18

Tom,remember the arguments comparing Mig-29 and F-16. What if I state that the Mig-29 with the Adder is more agile, more maneoverable and deadly compared to a F-16. In fact, during exercises, the German Mi-29s consistently beat the F-16 during close-in combat. Western folks are going counter that by saying that the F-16 doesn't need to tangle with the Mi-29 in close in combat because before the Mig pilots know it they will be blown out of the sky with beyod-the-visual range AMRAAM missiles.The same argument applies in the IAF-PAF context, expect that the PAF F-16s don't have BVR capability and the IAF do. In the next war between IAF-PAF, the world will be deprived of the spectacular display of dog-fighting skills of the PAF pilots because they will be blown out of the sky 60-100Kms away by the Adder (R-77) or the Alamo. Dog-fighting skills don't mean as much today as it did 60 years ago.

rama · Post by **rama** » 11 Jul 2000 06:09

Tom had mentioned (over on the other forum I think) that the R-27's (Alamo) had a very low PoK in the recent Ethiopia-Eritrea conflict (where it seemed to a superficial "internet" observer that the Su-27 really creamed the Mig-29). My question to Tom is: Does this mean that the R-27 (or other BVR missiles) are less than effective because the enemy can execute maneovers and/or chaff/ECM to evade them or if specifically the R-27 was so bad that it couldnt distinguish east from west and north from south. If the former, wouldnt still the R-27 have served it's purpose atleast partially in the sense that while the enemy is focusing on evading the R-27, you get a few 10s of seconds to a couple of minutes to get into a favorable position/height wrt the enemy. So, if the R-27 itself missed, but the shooter went on to kill the enemy anyway - wouldnt the R-27 be atleast credited with (to use the basketball term) an "assist"? Is it plausible that this may have happened in Ethiopia-Eritrea where the Ethiopian Flanker's bigger radar may allow it off to get off an R-27 from farther out than the Eritrean Fulcrums. Close in the Flanker/Fulcrums should be evenly matched (just IMHO) since the aerodynamics of the two planes are very similar, as are the thrust-weights, and ofcourse the HMS/AA-11 are identical.[This message has been edited by rama (edited 10-07-2000).]

ehsmang · Post by **ehsmang** » 11 Jul 2000 14:40

Tom,Welcome to the forum. Since your stated objective is to understand IAF a little better , I have this to offer.The 1962 Indo chinese war left a traumatised India. The non violence etc etc of nehru was in tatters and it was time for India to rearm. Subsequent to 1962 there was a massive re armament drive , moderernisation drive, recruitment drive. In 1965 when the Indo-Pak war began the process started in 1962 had not reached its logical conclusion. The stress was on Army at the expense of the other two arms. The Air Force compared to Pakistan though numerically more was qualitatively inferioe. The PAF was well equipped with generous American support in terms of better aircraft, missiles, spares ,support etc. Officers were recruited in the period 1962-65 in a great rush (often comprimising quality called emergency recruitment) and adequate training, tactics etc had not matured till 1965. This explains the relative success of the Pakis in 1965 air war. 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. This withdrawl more or less cancelled the so called numerical superiority of the IAF. The IAF after taking the initial reverses did give PAF a hard time with its Gnats, Hunters etc.However, by 1971 the situation has stabilised , the IAF was at par in terms of technology and also numerically stronger. new aircrafts like Mig 21 were introduced. Its training, tactics etc had matured. The green horns of 62-65 had become fairly experienced. Coupled with some input from Bengali officers of PAF , IAF sustained an offensive posture throughout the war. Inspite of being the offensive force, both PAF and IAF sufferered almost equal losses give or take some. But in terms of % attrition , PAF losses were higher. Today the scene is that IAF is both qualitatively and quantitatively far ahead of PAF. And this disparity will only increase as time goes by. The 'pilot quality' factor would be about even with both the services having a healthy respect for each other. However, this is not to hide that there has been an erosion in quality of people joining up with the forces compared to the past. My father was a university topper when he joined IAF in early 1950's. My cousin was a state topper when he joined the AF in mid 70's. Now it is very rare to see such people joining up with the AF. The IT rush seems to filter away all such material. However, the economic growth of the two countries will determine the future force structure and composition.

Div · Post by **Div** » 11 Jul 2000 20:23

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Also, while I'm sure we could start a new discussion about the worth and success of the operations over Kosovo or Kargil last year...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Tom, Fyi, there is a lot of info about this and other Kargil issues in the archives. You might be interested in this particlular thread:Understanding Air Operations in Kargil <A HREF="http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/ubb/Archi ... 06202.html" TARGET=_blank>http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/ubb/Archi ... 02.html</A>