Operation Balakot: News & Discussion

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 18092
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Operation Balakot: News & Discussion

Postby Karan M » 03 Aug 2019 20:22

Yes. This time it was suited to their needs - tiny theater where they could surge all their premier assets and call it parity.

I mean, 24 aircraft including 11 F-16s against some 4 IAF aircraft and they end up on the backfoot.

Not so easy when its an all out conflict.

eklavya
BRFite
Posts: 1783
Joined: 16 Nov 2004 23:57

Re: Operation Balakot: News & Discussion

Postby eklavya » 03 Aug 2019 20:30

^^^^^
Exactly. We decide how wide and how deep the court is, when the match starts and when it ends, and we will send them five serves to their one. Their racket is borrowed, the shoes have a hole in them, and their pockets are empty.

Arun.prabhu
BRFite
Posts: 225
Joined: 28 Aug 2016 19:26

Re: Operation Balakot: News & Discussion

Postby Arun.prabhu » 03 Aug 2019 20:41

I hope he is telling the truth. A fighting army needs materiel and doctrine tested and refined under fire. One should thank the Pakistanis for this nigh continuous low intensity warfare. It allows us to test equipment, train men, refine tactics, procedures, doctrine, etc. Meanwhile, the mighty Pakistani army gets a shellacking, and the Chinese aren't seeing any action to train and hone their troops.

Karthik S wrote:
DG ISPR @OfficialDGISPR 57m
Use of cluster bombs by Indian Army violating international conventions is condemnable. No weapon can suppress determination of Kashmiris to get their right of self determination. Kashmir runs in blood of every Pakistani. Indigenous freedom struggle of Kashmiris shall succeed,IA.


gafroora claiming cluster bombs? Hope is he not being a salim feku.

Arun.prabhu
BRFite
Posts: 225
Joined: 28 Aug 2016 19:26

Re: Operation Balakot: News & Discussion

Postby Arun.prabhu » 03 Aug 2019 20:50

Karan,
I'll disagree. Firing BVRs at that range is not in anyone's playbook. PAF should have closed even more with the MKIs before launch or chosen a different site where the MKIs could be further inside the AMRAAM's engagement range when the ambush was sprung. As things worked out, it was great for IAF morale. Our pilots are now completely emboldened - they used how many missiles from their best platform and still didn't manage a kill - and Abhinandan - god bless his soul - had the guts and the gumption to close to knife fighting range and shoot one of theirs down. Couldn't ask for a better performance in the air. The one blemish was the blue on blue shooting of the helicopter by our manpad crews, but again, the IAF has done the right thing by not buying the incident but by court-martialing the officers in charge. Officers will now ride their crews to be aggressive while training them to identify our and their air assets under stress as well as create proper ROE.
Regards,
Arun

Karan M wrote:Tactics. Its not merely about firing missiles but having them count. They pulled out 1 set of their best USAF playbook on us that day. There will be others (more conventional ambush type scenarios), but they have tipped their hand.

Bhaskar_T wrote:So, if a repeat of PAF aggression happens till we have Rafale or S-400, what could IAF/GOI do for a better outcome? In a repeat PAF aggression, Pakistani F-16's would again fire their AMRAAMs before Su30MKI could and while Su30MKI's execute evasive manoeuvers, it is possible that some F-16's could drop bombs (at least one of those bomb fell quite close to important Indian Army base). Yes, one could call PAF firing AMRAAMs as premature firing or waste of precious resources but it appears in a repeat aggression PAF is likely to call the shots first until we have Rafale or S-400.

Whether the latest mijjile orders by IAF plug this gap?

Regards,
Abdul.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 18092
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Operation Balakot: News & Discussion

Postby Karan M » 03 Aug 2019 21:29

Arun.prabhu wrote:Karan,
I'll disagree. Firing BVRs at that range is not in anyone's playbook. PAF should have closed even more with the MKIs before launch or chosen a different site where the MKIs could be further inside the AMRAAM's engagement range when the ambush was sprung. As things worked out, it was great for IAF morale. Our pilots are now completely emboldened - they used how many missiles from their best platform and still didn't manage a kill - and Abhinandan - god bless his soul - had the guts and the gumption to close to knife fighting range and shoot one of theirs down. Couldn't ask for a better performance in the air. The one blemish was the blue on blue shooting of the helicopter by our manpad crews, but again, the IAF has done the right thing by not buying the incident but by court-martialing the officers in charge. Officers will now ride their crews to be aggressive while training them to identify our and their air assets under stress as well as create proper ROE.
Regards,
Arun


It is out of a playbook and if done well against an opponent can reap attendant benefits. This is a strategy the USAF has perfected with its F-22 and has been drilled for a while. It has its pros and cons. The pros are low risk, high range and long range sniping. The cons are that a sufficiently skilled crew has the ability to read the signals (as the IAF did) and take countermeasures. Closing to the NEZ of your weapons comes with its attendant disadvantages - you expose yourself to the weapons of your opponents. When you close in high, fast, you extend the range of the weapons. You launch your weapons so high they literally dive down on their opponents. Your opponents, if not aware and merely in a standard CAP may well fail to detect the missiles, as they were never locked on (as the missiles were launched in LOAL mode, with initial cue from the radar).
You also have the surprise factor - with stealth its far more, but in this case, the PAF thought that by attacking first, fast & high, it would be sufficient. It wasn't. The other thing is the USAF has the resources - scientific and $$ to make this tactic count. They'd know the exact ranges at which the tactic would fail, the alt & speed at which the launch had to be precisely done, before the Pk declined substantially, how many missiles to launch in a salvo. The PAF has the playbook but not the scientific, economic or even the tactical acumen (gathered from exercises) to deploy this tactic successfully.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 18092
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Operation Balakot: News & Discussion

Postby Karan M » 03 Aug 2019 21:37

AMRAAM can also be launched in the "inertial active mode". This is a complete fire & forget mode which means the missile guides to a pre-determined spot in space, no mid-course guidance & the missile seeker does the rest. I suspect this was the mode it was launched in, with the initial cues via RWS and the supersonic speed, plus high alt launch expected to be sufficient to place the Su-30s well within the range of the "expanded" AMRAAM envelope. By doing so, the F-16s could actually launch & leave. And would not have to remain tied down & at risk of BVR counter shots or an ambush from other IAF assets. The PAF assumption in this case would be they had the advantage of surprise & with missile salvos increase the Pk, and also missile spread - giving them a good chance the Su-30s would be caught by surprise and get hit. This would also explain the classic bow shaped contrails of the high-flying F-16s with missile trails leading away (and without them following behind the missiles for mid-course guidance).

Aditya_V
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10926
Joined: 05 Apr 2006 16:25

Re: Operation Balakot: News & Discussion

Postby Aditya_V » 03 Aug 2019 22:24

In peacetime the SU 30 did not know what F16 intentions were and on subsonic cap while 1 or 2 F16s from Sargodha used their fuel burning afterburners to achieve height and speed advantage. In war the SU30s would have immediately tried to do the same height speed and then launch BVR. AAM range is also dictated by speed and altitude of launching platform vs the adversary. Circumstances which were in the PAF favour on 27 Feb.

Arun.prabhu
BRFite
Posts: 225
Joined: 28 Aug 2016 19:26

Re: Operation Balakot: News & Discussion

Postby Arun.prabhu » 03 Aug 2019 22:43

Karan,
With all due respect to the USAF, the amraam has a burn time of about 8 seconds. Once the fuel is expended, and this happens within 8-12kms from firing point, the missile is on free flight depending on its control surfaces to manoeuvre. And exercising those control surfaces burns energy and reduces speed and range. It doesn’t matter how skilful the ****** PAF pilots or how good their sensors were, those missiles were never going to hit the target MKI, when said MKI had working ECM or RWR or a pilot who wasn’t asleep in the cockpit. The history of actual BVR kills in combat - BVR Missiles at BVR ranges - and physics dictate this outcome. A powered object manoeuvring to evade an unpowered but manoeuvrable object will always succeed in escaping unless caught unaware or too close.

Now, the F22 with it’s god mode radar can possibly sneak up on other fighters and launch without alerting the RWR, appearing on radar, etc, and can expect a reasonable probability of kill. PAF F-16s, with their old radars, piloted by men who don’t spend enough time in the air, using F22 tactics against MKIs with their humongous radars lighting up the sky, against pilots who train to western standards, who are aggressive like hell, who can fully exploit their platform’s capabilities, and who are expecting “an interesting CAP...” well, let me put it this way. PAF demonstrated in that ambush that their braintrust is seriously lacking, that they don’t push their platforms and pilots to the max in training and that they don’t run serious exercises and that when they exercise with foreign air forces, they are glad handed unlike exercises involving IAF. Remember the first time USAF exercises with us and got their asses kicked. We had inferior systems, but our pilots were well trained, aggressive, knew to exploit what systems they had and because they had trained realistically, they had developed the mental flexibility to not be bogged down by established wisdom but to think outside the box and respond to changing circumstances. That was the caliber of the IAF a decade back. We have gotten a lot better since then. Measured against that yardstick, the PAF failed miserably. Which is okay, because f*** them. IAF ALL THE WAY!



Karan M wrote:
It is out of a playbook and if done well against an opponent can reap attendant benefits. This is a strategy the USAF has perfected with its F-22 and has been drilled for a while. It has its pros and cons. The pros are low risk, high range and long range sniping. The cons are that a sufficiently skilled crew has the ability to read the signals (as the IAF did) and take countermeasures. Closing to the NEZ of your weapons comes with its attendant disadvantages - you expose yourself to the weapons of your opponents. When you close in high, fast, you extend the range of the weapons. You launch your weapons so high they literally dive down on their opponents. Your opponents, if not aware and merely in a standard CAP may well fail to detect the missiles, as they were never locked on (as the missiles were launched in LOAL mode, with initial cue from the radar).
You also have the surprise factor - with stealth its far more, but in this case, the PAF thought that by attacking first, fast & high, it would be sufficient. It wasn't. The other thing is the USAF has the resources - scientific and $$ to make this tactic count. They'd know the exact ranges at which the tactic would fail, the alt & speed at which the launch had to be precisely done, before the Pk declined substantially, how many missiles to launch in a salvo. The PAF has the playbook but not the scientific, economic or even the tactical acumen (gathered from exercises) to deploy this tactic successfully.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 18092
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Operation Balakot: News & Discussion

Postby Karan M » 04 Aug 2019 04:53

Arun.prabhu wrote:Karan,
With all due respect to the USAF, the amraam has a burn time of about 8 seconds. Once the fuel is expended, and this happens within 8-12kms from firing point, the missile is on free flight depending on its control surfaces to manoeuvre. And exercising those control surfaces burns energy and reduces speed and range. It doesn’t matter how skilful the ****** PAF pilots or how good their sensors were, those missiles were never going to hit the target MKI, when said MKI had working ECM or RWR or a pilot who wasn’t asleep in the cockpit. The history of actual BVR kills in combat - BVR Missiles at BVR ranges - and physics dictate this outcome. A powered object manoeuvring to evade an unpowered but manoeuvrable object will always succeed in escaping unless caught unaware or too close.


All AAMs (bar ramjet AAMs and the new dual-pulse ones) have relatively short powered time. They basically use a high ISP to boost themselves to high speed and each position change by the AAM causes an energy loss. Everyone knows this. What is also true is the high supersonic launch by the F-16s would easily add upto 20-30% more range effect to the baseline AMRAAM.

What also does matter is where the missile comes from, its altitude, launch aircraft speed, the aspect angle of the missile towards the target, its trajectory, targets trajectory, closing speed - multiple variables & factors come into play.

Hence, things arent as simple as you claim them to be. There have been kills at longer ranges than this using ERAAMs.

Situational awareness is not as easy as you make it out to be either. I wont post more on this for obvious reasons but the PAF knows the basics as does the IAF and there was a good reason they attacked from altitude. They know their systems, can extrapolate from that to understand our systems, and the basics on both sides don't change, only the magnitude/quality does.

Its just that the IAF had well drilled crews who were able to deduce on the fly and react accordingly.

Now, the F22 with it’s god mode radar can possibly sneak up on other fighters and launch without alerting the RWR, appearing on radar, etc, and can expect a reasonable probability of kill. PAF F-16s, with their old radars, piloted by men who don’t spend enough time in the air, using F22 tactics against MKIs with their humongous radars lighting up the sky, against pilots who train to western standards, who are aggressive like hell, who can fully exploit their platform’s capabilities, and who are expecting “an interesting CAP...” well, let me put it this way. PAF demonstrated in that ambush that their braintrust is seriously lacking, that they don’t push their platforms and pilots to the max in training and that they don’t run serious exercises and that when they exercise with foreign air forces, they are glad handed unlike exercises involving IAF. Remember the first time USAF exercises with us and got their asses kicked. We had inferior systems, but our pilots were well trained, aggressive, knew to exploit what systems they had and because they had trained realistically, they had developed the mental flexibility to not be bogged down by established wisdom but to think outside the box and respond to changing circumstances. That was the caliber of the IAF a decade back. We have gotten a lot better since then. Measured against that yardstick, the PAF failed miserably. Which is okay, because f*** them. IAF ALL THE WAY!


Yes, the IAF has invested far more in its men and equipment and it paid off in spades.

One does not need to have a F-22 to sneak up on opponents and create a favorable situation. That's the entire point. The ability to field numbers, launch multi-axis attacks.. its only that the PAF has a very healthy respect for the Su-30 and just did not want to close in to more high Pk launch envelopes or WVR, the proverbial knife in the phone booth.

Be as it may, the F-16 kit is anything but "old" - the AN/APG-68 V9 is fairly decent & a lethal system when used well, as are those AMRAAM C-5s. The F-16s are lethal. The USAF training which the PAF would have got is also not useless, nor are their exercises against the Turks and deployments to Red Flag, and the PAF will learn from their mistakes as we do.

We can expect the Pakistanis to push for more F-16s/F-16 upgrades as well. There are literally zero chances of a sale happening to India, and if India goes to more Rafales for instance or an Euro bird, the US may well release additional F-16s to Pakistan and upgrades, with C7 AMRAAMs, AESA radar, the works.

Anyhow, lets not have any more stating the obvious, kind of posts, lets restrict the thread to its focus.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 18092
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Operation Balakot: News & Discussion

Postby Karan M » 04 Aug 2019 05:28

Aditya_V wrote:In peacetime the SU 30 did not know what F16 intentions were and on subsonic cap while 1 or 2 F16s from Sargodha used their fuel burning afterburners to achieve height and speed advantage. In war the SU30s would have immediately tried to do the same height speed and then launch BVR. AAM range is also dictated by speed and altitude of launching platform vs the adversary. Circumstances which were in the PAF favour on 27 Feb.


Succintly stated. They had an intent to attack, we didn't. They had the initiative on day 2. That's not always going to be the case in Round 2.

Rishirishi
BRFite
Posts: 1078
Joined: 12 Mar 2005 02:30

Re: Operation Balakot: News & Discussion

Postby Rishirishi » 04 Aug 2019 06:25

Karan M wrote:AMRAAM can also be launched in the "inertial active mode". This is a complete fire & forget mode which means the missile guides to a pre-determined spot in space, no mid-course guidance & the missile seeker does the rest. I suspect this was the mode it was launched in, with the initial cues via RWS and the supersonic speed, plus high alt launch expected to be sufficient to place the Su-30s well within the range of the "expanded" AMRAAM envelope. By doing so, the F-16s could actually launch & leave. And would not have to remain tied down & at risk of BVR counter shots or an ambush from other IAF assets. The PAF assumption in this case would be they had the advantage of surprise & with missile salvos increase the Pk, and also missile spread - giving them a good chance the Su-30s would be caught by surprise and get hit. This would also explain the classic bow shaped contrails of the high-flying F-16s with missile trails leading away (and without them following behind the missiles for mid-course guidance).


As per my understanding, the IAF uses an israeli pod that is very effective against the BVR missiles. It basically copies the ping from the radar and sends and delayed response of the same signal. This confuses the attacking aircraft radar. Note that it does not Jam the frequencies, as the missile could home in on the jamming signal. Perhaps the missiles PAF shot all missed because of this. Or the PAF know they will miss, but sent them out any way to turn the MKI´s cold.
I think the PAFs intention was just to demonstrate the capability of hitting targets in India. This time, escalation was not in their best interest.

manjgu
BRFite
Posts: 1979
Joined: 11 Aug 2006 10:33

Re: Operation Balakot: News & Discussion

Postby manjgu » 04 Aug 2019 07:32

Rishirishi wrote:
Karan M wrote:I think the PAFs intention was just to demonstrate the capability of hitting targets in India. This time, escalation was not in their best interest.


what targets inside India? i need to know what they hit inside india... wake me up when PAF makes a real incursion into India !

Aditya_V
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10926
Joined: 05 Apr 2006 16:25

Re: Operation Balakot: News & Discussion

Postby Aditya_V » 04 Aug 2019 08:04

manjgu wrote:
Rishirishi wrote:


what targets inside India? i need to know what they hit inside india... wake me up when PAF makes a real incursion into India !

They came for many Army Brigade H0q, but South African H4 called RAAD ASM flopped. Only the F16 LGB came close. Since their gambles flopped they immediately announced Wing Co release and dragged it over 4 days . So IAF does not retaliate.

Arun.prabhu
BRFite
Posts: 225
Joined: 28 Aug 2016 19:26

Re: Operation Balakot: News & Discussion

Postby Arun.prabhu » 04 Aug 2019 08:11

Karan,
Pk of AMRAAM against non-manoeuvring targets with horrible pilots and no ECM was 46%. Many of the downed pilots had no idea they were being fired at - non-working Radar and such. That is proof in the pudding.
Regards,
Arun

ldev
BRFite
Posts: 1630
Joined: 06 Nov 2002 12:31

Re: Operation Balakot: News & Discussion

Postby ldev » 04 Aug 2019 09:17

Interesting analysis of the AMRAAM AIM-120C-5 performance. As you can see from the two excerpts given below, increasing the launch aircraft speed from Mach 0.83 at 6000 meters to Mach 1.5 at 13000 meters increases the range from 60 km to 90 kms. Both are lofted shots albeit against a stationary target and terminal velocity is down to Mach 0.9. At 6000 meters and a launch speed of Mach 0.83, the straight line range is down to 35 km. The PAF F-16s which launched the AMRAAMs on the IAF SU-30s launched at supersonic speed from about 40,000 feet i.e. 12,000 meters. And the IAF SU-30s were on a CAP at about 5000-6000 meters, just about where a maximum range AMRAAM interception is possible given the launch altitude and speed.

http://www.zaretto.com/sites/zaretto.co ... t-rev2.pdf

This is from page 31
5. Example Loft scenarios
5.1 Scenario 1 - Estimated real world scenario
The missile is travelling at Mach 0.83 and 6km above sea level. It launches and accelerates forwards
for 1s before it begins a 15o
climb, levelling off at 13km ASL (Above Sea Level). It maintained this
ballistic trajectory before angling itself down to intercept at target point at 6km ASL with a missile
speed of Mach 0.9.
See Figure 28. Below
Points about the first scenario
 The missile at a 15o
climb was unable to level off at 13km ASL in the simulation. Instead it
chose 14km ASL as the most energy efficient levelling altitude for this angle.
 It required 21o
dive in order to make the intercept altitude and speed.
 It made this intercept at a range of 60km. This is much further than the comparable 5000m
ASL straight line shot (~35km effective range).


From Page 33
5.2 Scenario 2 - Estimated maximum possible performance
Using what was learnt above, the next test examined the maximum possible range of the missile in
realistic scenarios at missile parameter limits. The missile was launched at 13km at Mach 1.5 and
began its climb to 22km. It maintains this altitude before descending at angle that causes an
intersection at 6km at Mach 0.9
See Figure 29 below
Point about the second scenario
 The ascent angle is still relatively low.
It demonstrates that the theoretical maximum realistic range of the missile on a stationary
point is approximately 90km
.

manjgu
BRFite
Posts: 1979
Joined: 11 Aug 2006 10:33

Re: Operation Balakot: News & Discussion

Postby manjgu » 04 Aug 2019 10:35

aditya...i dont buy that story. PAF for whatever its worth is not so incompetent to miss F16 launched LGB's on a Brigade HQ ( which is not like small hut or tenement but a fairly large set of structures). the idea IMHO was not to 'target' anything or cause any military casualties on the indian side ( just as India took pains to say we did not hit any military target) ..it was just to show we can drop something on Indian territory even if from far away forget making a meaningful incursion. The PAF atleast from 1971 onwards has focussed more on preserving its assets for the next war rather than truly fight the current war. So F 16 scooting away is in line with their defensive strategy.

Kashi
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3446
Joined: 06 May 2011 13:53

Re: Operation Balakot: News & Discussion

Postby Kashi » 04 Aug 2019 10:46

manjgu wrote:aditya...i dont buy that story. PAF for whatever its worth is not so incompetent to miss F16 launched LGB's on a Brigade HQ ( which is not like small hut or tenement but a fairly large set of structures).


Well to me it seems you are scratching around for reasons to excuse their incompetence, or maybe you were being sarcastic by saying- "No one can be that incompetent..."

manjgu
BRFite
Posts: 1979
Joined: 11 Aug 2006 10:33

Re: Operation Balakot: News & Discussion

Postby manjgu » 04 Aug 2019 10:59

no ..not scratching for reasons. I am saying this deliberately .. neither IAF nor PAF wanted to hit military targets. we hit what we wanted and took pains to say so ( no mil targets hit) ... PAF just wanted to land something onto indian territory to assuage their and PA hurt egos and prove to aam abdul that they are a force !

Kashi
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3446
Joined: 06 May 2011 13:53

Re: Operation Balakot: News & Discussion

Postby Kashi » 04 Aug 2019 11:15

That's your assumption, trying to ascribe sense and sensibility where there maybe none. Why is it so difficult to accept that PAF may simply be incompetent?

Are you really trying to say that the charge that hit the tree was carefully and deliberately lobbed to hit the tree and no where else?

manjgu
BRFite
Posts: 1979
Joined: 11 Aug 2006 10:33

Re: Operation Balakot: News & Discussion

Postby manjgu » 04 Aug 2019 11:24

yes... because neither IAF or PAF wanted to escalate the situation by hitting mil target on ground. This is why IMHO GOI took pains to say we did not hit military targets. Brigade HQ is not some little hut/tenement ..which was to be hit deep inside INdia ...the PAF F 16 at leisure from within their own air space could have targeted it ( knowing fully well IAF is just patrolling and not break the ROE by shooting at them if they remain in their own air space).

Kashi
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3446
Joined: 06 May 2011 13:53

Re: Operation Balakot: News & Discussion

Postby Kashi » 04 Aug 2019 11:33

Now you are clutching at whatever you are clutching at. I asked you specifically about the tree and you claim that PAF targeted the tree "at leisure" from their airspace. You are aware that even it were true, there was every bit a risk that the munition could have missed the tree and landed somewhere on the Brigade HQ (not a small hutment as you say) and that would completely undo all the "planning" that you are ascribing to the "oh-so-competent" PAF.

Are you claiming that the PAF were so "competent" that they made sure that the charge would hit the tree and nowhere else but the tree?

dhyana
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 53
Joined: 23 May 2011 10:56
Location: sindoor

Re: Operation Balakot: News & Discussion

Postby dhyana » 04 Aug 2019 11:41

manjgu wrote:the PAF F 16 at leisure from within their own air space could have targeted it


How easily can the PAF target the IA ground assets from deep within their own airspace (knowing that they have to lase the target continuously)? I am thinking of the topography of the area here? I mean, the the PAF was surprised by the Bisons emerging from mountain 'shadows', no?

I would think the terrain makes this scenario much more complicated than some stand-off strike across the Thar.

Aditya_V
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10926
Joined: 05 Apr 2006 16:25

Re: Operation Balakot: News & Discussion

Postby Aditya_V » 04 Aug 2019 11:53

PAF was feeling publicly humiliated and came will all they got. See their dying pilot leaked video. From their point of view non uniformed Jihadis with ISI personnel and huge Paki investments was a military target. If they had non changed their story to Wing Co by next day , their dominance in Pakistan was under threat. Their gambit on 27 Feb militarily failed, they needed to save H&D and yet descalate. That's why they announced release Wing Co. Please see Pakistan past behavior , they very much wanted to escalate with Pulwama. When plans became undone they wanted to find a way out. That's why can't acknowledge even their military casualties

manjgu
BRFite
Posts: 1979
Joined: 11 Aug 2006 10:33

Re: Operation Balakot: News & Discussion

Postby manjgu » 04 Aug 2019 12:02

the naushera brigade HQ is not on some steep mountain incline..it is on relatively flat ground and is a fairly big complex. M2000 bombed some PA tents on tiger hill with LGBs with missile threat etc. PAF F16 is kitted with Sniper pods which are much better pods as compared to 1990's tech on M2000. They were under no threat from indian assets a/c / missiles. they could safely lase/target the HQ from well within their air space at leisure..well in excess of 10 Km ( which is a no fly zone). Also their best would have been in air to execute such a important mission. so to believe that they ended up hitting trees with LGB's as a result of incompetence does not seem v logical to me.

manjgu
BRFite
Posts: 1979
Joined: 11 Aug 2006 10:33

Re: Operation Balakot: News & Discussion

Postby manjgu » 04 Aug 2019 12:05

i dont beleive that Pakis wanted to escalate neither did Indians want escalation.

Kashi
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3446
Joined: 06 May 2011 13:53

Re: Operation Balakot: News & Discussion

Postby Kashi » 04 Aug 2019 12:09

manjgu wrote:so to believe that they ended up hitting trees with LGB's as a result of incompetence does not seem v logical to me.


But believing that they deliberately and precisely targeted one specific tree and nowhere else, because of their advanced weapons seems very logical to you?

UlanBatori
BRF Oldie
Posts: 11763
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Operation Balakot: News & Discussion

Postby UlanBatori » 04 Aug 2019 12:23

manjgu wrote:i dont beleive that Pakis wanted to escalate neither did Indians want escalation.

The other din my 6th coujin was walking along and showing :P and :evil: at a farmer who was tilling his land, and a bison charged at him. Not Wanting to Escalate, but feeling a sudden and urgent need to go to pakistan, he dropped his Ied-mubarak and ran.
Same as PAF>

manjgu
BRFite
Posts: 1979
Joined: 11 Aug 2006 10:33

Re: Operation Balakot: News & Discussion

Postby manjgu » 04 Aug 2019 12:37

see everybody is free to beleive/interpret things their way ... it was a clear day ...the best of PAF crew was in air with their most advanced F16 with no threat whatsoever from IAF of any kind ... free to lase a ground target at LEISURE from MULTIPLE planes from well WITHIN their air space. and yet they missed a target which was size of an elephant ... is logical for the simple reason that there was no intention to hit the HQ. their best case scenario was to lure IAF and secure a kill. kind of AF vs AF thing.

Kashi
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3446
Joined: 06 May 2011 13:53

Re: Operation Balakot: News & Discussion

Postby Kashi » 04 Aug 2019 12:53

Exactly, everyone is free to believe/interpret in their own way.

No threat from IAF of any kind? How did you come to that conclusion?

manjgu
BRFite
Posts: 1979
Joined: 11 Aug 2006 10:33

Re: Operation Balakot: News & Discussion

Postby manjgu » 04 Aug 2019 13:28

Kashi wrote:Exactly, everyone is free to believe/interpret in their own way.

No threat from IAF of any kind? How did you come to that conclusion?


Fine... 1) then let me know what was the threat to PAF if flying more than 10 km inside ( or even much closer to the LOC) their own air space given that IAF respects the ROE? 2) if someone tells me our HQ was like 50 km from LOC, then i am willing to reconsider my view on the matter. that the PAF had to ingress and was under great threat to make an escape and so made poor targetting of the HQ.

Kashi
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3446
Joined: 06 May 2011 13:53

Re: Operation Balakot: News & Discussion

Postby Kashi » 04 Aug 2019 14:00

manjgu wrote:Fine... 1) then let me know what was the threat to PAF if flying more than 10 km inside ( or even much closer to the LOC) their own air space given that IAF respects the ROE? 2) if someone tells me our HQ was like 50 km from LOC, then i am willing to reconsider my view on the matter. that the PAF had to ingress and was under great threat to make an escape and so made poor targetting of the HQ.


Fine, so if there were no threat to PAF, then?
1. Why did they turn tail after firing AMRAAMS at MKI?
2. Why did their JF-17s drop the dud H4s all over the place, some in their own territory, while turning tail.
3. Why did they abandon the laser guidance and turn tail mid way around the same time as trunign tail from MKI?
4. Finally, how did they lose an F-16 in dogfight when there was no "threat"

Also, how do all these actions seem to be those of one not looking for an escalation?

manjgu
BRFite
Posts: 1979
Joined: 11 Aug 2006 10:33

Re: Operation Balakot: News & Discussion

Postby manjgu » 04 Aug 2019 14:11

IMHO the dropping of LGB, H4 etc was the bait for IAF. In fact on the preceding night, ACM Tipnis in a interview had warned about such a thing. he referred it as "AIr Defence Trap" where PAF will lure IAF ( how else can it lure IAF other than do this dummy bombing run). the point i am trying to make is ..PAF was not interested in hitting Indian army positions, it was only a red herring .. a bait to draw IAF out. kind of AF vs AF thing. u ( IAF) came inside our territory and bombed ur and this is our ( PAF) retaliation.

naird
BRFite
Posts: 225
Joined: 04 Jun 2009 19:41

Re: Operation Balakot: News & Discussion

Postby naird » 04 Aug 2019 14:33

Karan M wrote:The radar mech. ranges a target, which can be chaff as well. The missiles are then fired in inertial mode, with the range data indicating whether they are in ops range or not and when to turn active. The target can still maneuver out of the radars scan area, especially when masked by chaff itself.
The radar comes back, its computer then reads the next signal as a continuation of the first etc.


This is very interesting. Essentially what i am inferring from your statement is that - as part of BVR countermeasures pilots are also taught to do whatever it can to get out of the radar scan area. I know it depends on the scan area - if the radar is setup to scan 20 degress for elevation of 10,000 feet , so if the IAF jet can vector out of the 20 degrees OR scoot to a higher elevation then PAF pilot wont detect it. How do pilots even calculate this kind of stuff or they just maneuver aggresively and pray ?
In a ideal situation for complete situational awareness they would set the range as 140 degrees and 40000 altitude at 60,80 miles etc. Then they would zone in.

Karan M wrote:So, a chaff "line" / "cloud" can end up appearing on the MFD screen and the pilot breaks off thinking he has done what he came for, whereas in reality the opponent has maneuvered out of the radar scan area.


Keep in mind that - controllers will know and should vector the PAF jet in a ideal situation. So they should have provided complete awareness to pilot unless their comms were comprised.

manjgu
BRFite
Posts: 1979
Joined: 11 Aug 2006 10:33

Re: Operation Balakot: News & Discussion

Postby manjgu » 04 Aug 2019 14:40

1) the best case scenario for firing the LGB's was to lure IAF and score a kill failing which PAF can always claim we bombed India and save its face. This is how i read the events. there was no deliberate attempt to target IA installations. 2) the idea behind firing AMRAAMs was to score a chance kill with IAF chasing PAF over Paki airspace ideally. 3) however, a hypothetical question remains which will always remain unaswered ..would GOI have escalated if a IAF plane had gone down inside Indian territory? with a election looming I have my doubts if GOI would have escalated. Maybe this was pakistani calculation too and so they took their chances with AMRAAMs.

manjgu
BRFite
Posts: 1979
Joined: 11 Aug 2006 10:33

Re: Operation Balakot: News & Discussion

Postby manjgu » 04 Aug 2019 14:46

i think breaking the radar lock is precisely this. how to get out of en radar scan? by maneuvering aggresively and ECM . Well the Indian controllers would also be giving suitable guidance as well to defeat that. a cat and mouse game...

manjgu
BRFite
Posts: 1979
Joined: 11 Aug 2006 10:33

Re: Operation Balakot: News & Discussion

Postby manjgu » 04 Aug 2019 14:51

Kashi...to answer u more specifically..there was no threat to PAF planes IF their sole objective was to bomb IA installations from within their air space ( which was in their capabilties) ..its obvious once u shoot ur AMRAAMs then a fight is on ... that was the whole idea to lure IAF... to set up a bait so that IAF chases their planes so that they can ambush IAF ( since they had element of surprise, planning etc).

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 18092
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Operation Balakot: News & Discussion

Postby Karan M » 04 Aug 2019 15:53

naird wrote:
Karan M wrote:The radar mech. ranges a target, which can be chaff as well. The missiles are then fired in inertial mode, with the range data indicating whether they are in ops range or not and when to turn active. The target can still maneuver out of the radars scan area, especially when masked by chaff itself.
The radar comes back, its computer then reads the next signal as a continuation of the first etc.


This is very interesting. Essentially what i am inferring from your statement is that - as part of BVR countermeasures pilots are also taught to do whatever it can to get out of the radar scan area. I know it depends on the scan area - if the radar is setup to scan 20 degress for elevation of 10,000 feet , so if the IAF jet can vector out of the 20 degrees OR scoot to a higher elevation then PAF pilot wont detect it. How do pilots even calculate this kind of stuff or they just maneuver aggresively and pray ?
In a ideal situation for complete situational awareness they would set the range as 140 degrees and 40000 altitude at 60,80 miles etc. Then they would zone in.


They crank if they are already having a missile in play (and the opponent missile is deemed to be sufficiently far away) or take radical evasive maneuvers. Depends on altitude, height, multiple factors. In Desert Storm, the first kill was attributed to a Raven EW aircraft which had an IrAF fighter smack into the desert floor in an attempt to chase it. Bottomline, risk cuts both ways.
What I am also noting is that in MSA (mech scan arrays) because of the radar's revisit rates being relatively slow, the computer extrapolates position from scan to scan and the errors can build up. If by the time the radar revisits, the fighter moves out of the track area, its place is taken up by the chaff - the radar can either reject it and place the chaff as a new contact or mix up the two.
Stuff happens, which is why the 2 sets of eyes in the Su-30 is a force multiplier. With 3 MFDs in the front, the pilot can figure out RWR indication, weapons launch ranges and focus on aggressively keeping out of harms way or getting proper engagement geometry back on the target. The back seater continues to work the radar,WCS for a good shot using his 4 MFDs. The Bars being a PESA paints a target several times very quickly while scanning around allowing it to be more accurate with its estimates.

Karan M wrote:So, a chaff "line" / "cloud" can end up appearing on the MFD screen and the pilot breaks off thinking he has done what he came for, whereas in reality the opponent has maneuvered out of the radar scan area.


Keep in mind that - controllers will know and should vector the PAF jet in a ideal situation. So they should have provided complete awareness to pilot unless their comms were comprised.


There are two things here:
The problem is assuming an ideal situation. In such situations, its anything but especially if the AWACS itself also saw the chaff bloom and the fighter disappeared from their screens for a while. Plus, the position of the 2nd platform, the AWACS can be compromised due to a bunch of factors including the fact that it too has to think of which fighter package to support, terrain in-between, and also scan rates. In this case, the F-16s were merely vectored in by fighters, I suspect they were given a freer hand and less support because they were CCS/Vipers hence deemed capable of dealing with a mere 2 Su-30 CAP on their own. The AWACS controllers were busy monitoring the other frontage, and even the claims of post event RT calls etc came up for propaganda (which is BS because the Su-30s have encrypted radios).

Other fact is that a surveillance radar is basically going to take several seconds to scan a wide area, especially if it is a lower power system like the Erieye - it has to then put out more peak power, and spend more time in each area to maximize range (a more powerful Phalcon can get by with less time in comparison and move its beam faster). Plus its scan angle limitations. All this adds up, and it's in between all these, that a lot of leeway exists for things to change.

This is the reason why USAF F-22s/F-35s train to operate as a screen forward of the AWACS - using stealth, LPI systems to add info back to the AWACS which can then be shared back to the wider formation. Their X-Band systems are more precise, they fill the gaps the AWACS has (scan angles, look down coverage in specific areas).

In this case, the PAF F-16s were vectored in, launched missiles, lost an idea of where the Su-30 was, jumped to a conclusion they had won!
Fun part is we don't even have to figure out that this happened. They themselves revealed it, and then hid the info once they realized their bragging showed them in a poor light and that it explained why they got conned.

And this is the 2nd issue - the above is assuming we have the PAF ever admit its mistake!

Even if AWACS footage later showed them they had screwed up, that info is not going to come out to the lay public or even beyond higher brass. That's the fun part of the propaganda effort and how it ends up keeping their own people in the dark. I suspect only their top CCS guys will be given access to the real information to devise new tactics while Siddiqui is given a medal and shushed up. He'll know he didn't have a confirmed kill, and his superiors will know, but to the rest he will be a mascot. This is the same Alam case all over again!

Every bit of the PAF-ISPR response has been tailored to cover up deficiencies - from their initial brouhaha over claiming multiple kills, firing multiple AMRAAMs (so the claim by Tufail only one was fired, yup because we found the wreckage of one), their attempt to use the F-16 pilots misinterpretation (and subsequent "disappearance" of that bit), the Mirage 2000s outfighting the JF-17s which couldn't push the attack through to "the indians were cowards and claimed their radars failed".. the list of fakery goes on and on.

Indians claim the lady fighter controller would be given a medal - Tufail: she was an excitable woman, screaming in a high pitched voice
Indians, 6 AMRAAMs likely. Tufail: only 1 fired (why admission of 1, because we have the wreckage, otherwise even there he'd sing a new tune)
Indians, 2 Su-30s held off a superior force. T: 1 shot down (oops, got caught, lets edit that out, and other ran around... err.. he wasnt running around he was remaining in the fight)
Indians, Mirage 2000s couldnt be suppressed by 13 JF-17/M-V; Tufail: cant fight the obvious correlation the French kit is superior to PRC.. so magically, both radars fail, ha Indian cowards ran off..

The list goes on and on and on. DG ISPR controlling the narrative.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 18092
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Operation Balakot: News & Discussion

Postby Karan M » 04 Aug 2019 16:07

manjgu wrote:1) the best case scenario for firing the LGB's was to lure IAF and score a kill failing which PAF can always claim we bombed India and save its face. This is how i read the events. there was no deliberate attempt to target IA installations.


The safe miss distance for these munitions is in several km range (2 km per AVM Subramaniam) due to the off chance of fragments and shrapnel. Can't see how the PAF would be so stupid and blase.. but then again, Pakistanis, cocksure and arrogant.

2) the idea behind firing AMRAAMs was to score a chance kill with IAF chasing PAF over Paki airspace ideally.
3) however, a hypothetical question remains which will always remain unaswered ..would GOI have escalated if a IAF plane had gone down inside Indian territory? with a election looming I have my doubts if GOI would have escalated. Maybe this was pakistani calculation too and so they took their chances with AMRAAMs.


Could be. They are too stupid and arrogant for their own good.

manjgu
BRFite
Posts: 1979
Joined: 11 Aug 2006 10:33

Re: Operation Balakot: News & Discussion

Postby manjgu » 04 Aug 2019 16:14

historically, Porkis have calculated with no escalation from indian side...this plays into their psyche and hence actions.

Khalsa
BRFite
Posts: 1551
Joined: 12 Nov 2000 12:31
Location: NZL

Re: Operation Balakot: News & Discussion

Postby Khalsa » 05 Aug 2019 15:35

manjgu wrote:aditya...i dont buy that story. PAF for whatever its worth is not so incompetent to miss F16 launched LGB's on a Brigade HQ ( which is not like small hut or tenement but a fairly large set of structures). the idea IMHO was not to 'target' anything or cause any military casualties on the indian side ( just as India took pains to say we did not hit any military target) ..it was just to show we can drop something on Indian territory even if from far away forget making a meaningful incursion. The PAF atleast from 1971 onwards has focussed more on preserving its assets for the next war rather than truly fight the current war. So F 16 scooting away is in line with their defensive strategy.


I back you a 100 % on that story and have many people who have agreed..

Pakistanis claimed that we murdered dozens of mature pine trees and dozens of saplings.
Infact Jokes aside, Pakistan PM: IK said you came, killed trees, we went , ruptured stones. Can we please talk like civilised folks and discuss peace ?
Catch the part you should catch above
you came, killed trees, we went , ruptured stones

If PAF takes Brigade HQ in broad daylight under peacetime for two dozen pine trees.
What do you think is going to happen ?

They had what I believe were the following aims.
Primary: Conduct Stand off strike on ground near HQ to show strike at will capability.
Allow the above to be conducted in sanitised bubble created by AMRAAMs which mud movers moving behind AMRAAM carriers.
Collapse the bubble after stand off weapons hit the targets (open grounds).

Horse shoe ambush around the collapsing bubble to suck in an Indian craft near the LoC to kill threaten any aircraft locking from across LoC.
Abhinandan was never expected. He seriously jeopardised the whole situation for them.
It was akin to putting your hand in the pit hoping to catch a rabbit and finding a cobra in your hand.
They destroyed his a/c all right but escalated the situ far too much.

But on the Brigade HQ theory .... I back you 200 %


Return to “Military Issues Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest