MiG-21 Bison shoots down F-16 in Kashmir

Zynda · Post by **Zynda** » 01 Apr 2019 22:09

Karan, what exactly are "Up Snap" & "crank" refers to?

Also, this question is more of a curiosity. What could be done to mitigate the comm jamming threat, at least in theory? Lets say if Unkil is facing similar comm jamming threats, what steps would they take to mitigate?

Skanda · Post by **Skanda** » 01 Apr 2019 22:09

ISPR Official

Reference repeated Indian claims about shooting down of Pakistani F-16 by India and use of F16 in air battle on 27 February. The event of 27 Feb is part of history now. No Pakistani F16 was hit by Indian airforce. As regard PAF action for strikes across LOC it was done by JF17 from within Pakistan airspace. Later when 2 Indian jets crossed LOC they were shot down by PAF. Whether it was F16 or JF17 which shot down 2 Indian aircrafts is immaterial. Even if F-16 have been used as at that point in time complete PAF was airborne including F16s, the fact remains that Pakistan Airforce shot down two Indian jets in self defence. India can assume any type of their choice even F-16. Pakistan retains the right to use anything and everything in its legitimate self defence.

Finally, some acknowledgement that F16 may have been used. Their english is as bad as their lies

parshuram · Post by **parshuram** » 01 Apr 2019 22:12

Lalmohan wrote:wonder if they knew that the IAF AWACS was not around. previous reports mentioned 'change of shift' timing of 1000...

Change of shift at high alert ?? Creating a hole knowingly for Aggressors ? That is good . They can A2A refuled IMO ...

Sridhar K · Post by **Sridhar K** » 01 Apr 2019 22:14

Karan Saar
You should be on twitter if not already. Considering that we were expecting a PAF retaliation after Balakot, did PAF catch us by surprise but our superior training helped us to handle it and unfortunately F16 go shot after crossing the loc,?

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 01 Apr 2019 22:17

Zynda wrote:Karan, what exactly are "Up Snap" & "crank" refers to?

Snap Up is when you/your missile, needs to go nose up (your opponent is higher than you) and hence you are fighting from a height differential. From the fighter perspective, you may occasionally get an advantage. You have an opponent located above you, full planform visible if he's not turned away and receding, and you get to point your radar at that "easy target" and take a shot. Of course, its not easy from the perspective of your missile, which has to climb and get to the target, especially if its at range.

Crank - means you try to turn away from the threat but not fully, not a full 180 degrees for example, but you go 90 degrees or lesser to the direction of threat, you want to "arrest" your forward velocity so you don't go nearer your target but maintain the distance between you and your target (esp. in BVR). This gives the opponent missile more distance to travel, and you more time to deploy countermeasures (chaff etc). Also, by cranking (and not taking a full turn), you can move back into the fight by going "nose on" to your target quicker, (or your mechanically positioned radar antenna can, by gimbaling to its extreme limit and still looking at your opponent, not possible with most AESA bar EF/Gripen, or the PESA Bars radar) even as you are going away from the target and not towards it.

Zynda · Post by **Zynda** » 01 Apr 2019 22:20

^^Understood. Thanks for the lucid explanation man.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 01 Apr 2019 22:25

Zynda wrote:Also, this question is more of a curiosity. What could be done to mitigate the comm jamming threat, at least in theory? Lets say if Unkil is facing similar comm jamming threats, what steps would they take to mitigate?

Fast frequency hopping, wide bandwidth & high power radios. F/H allows you to shift rapidly from jammed frequency to another. Wide bandwidth basically means you have so many frequencies to play around with, and the jammer has to constantly spread its power over all bands. High power allows you to still get through despite the jamming. Then of course there are all sorts of tricks you can play with the radio signal itself and the receiver can be programmed (in software defined radios) to kick out spurious signals. Or you go another path and rely on intermittent, randomly allocated, low power signals which can't be picked up by the opponent at all, for them to figure out which bands to jam. This is the LPI approach, and if you combine with FFH, WB etc it can be very effective too.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 01 Apr 2019 22:32

ks_sachin wrote:Karan, What exactly is a kinematic profile?

Not very good with jargon.

Aditya V wrote:Speed and altitude of the aircraft and flying away in Directions to get out of range of missile and seeker, i.e change direction altitude which will burn energy , make the missile loose energy and be to far away for the missile seeker to lock on

Exactly what Aditya said.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 01 Apr 2019 22:33

points to a need for some Growla version of Su30. the space and power budget is there and if necessary ram air podded turbines ... just saying.

even mighty australia has purchased 8 growla no doubt to embed with their regular F-18s in colonial wars.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 01 Apr 2019 22:38

parshuram wrote:
Sridhar K wrote:One more thread on the battle by Sameer Joshi on twitter shared by Rohitvats
Clicky
Sameer is a Former IAF fighter Pilot says

1. PAF surprised IAF by launching AAM’s from their side of border and there AAM’s did outranged ours !!

2. No IAF AWACS was station and they had ERIEYE posted only 100 from battle zone who was driving the battle

3. MKI never got a chance to go BVR

Intresting

Kindly understand the context.

1. AMRAAMs launched from a height at speed, towards targets located below and defeated by Su-30s staying out of the AMRAAMs expanded engagement envelope even so. If our missiles (MKI) were launched in a similar manner, they too would "outrange" PAF missiles.. but thats only half the story. They need to be guided in, till seeker goes active. And launched at closer range (no escape zone). Which the PAF just would not risk because as they moved forward and then cranked to guide their missiles in, they too were exposed to Su-30 BVR shots. We too could have launched RVV-AEs in a similar manner as the F-16s, with similar results. And wasted our missiles.

3. MKI could have got a chance to go BVR if the F-16s had not run off and the IAF chased the F-16s into their territory (which they couldn't per ROE and also brought more risks of further ambushes and SAM traps, even).

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 01 Apr 2019 22:45

Singha wrote:points to a need for some Growla version of Su30. the space and power budget is there and if necessary ram air podded turbines ... just saying.

even mighty australia has purchased 8 growla no doubt to embed with their regular F-18s in colonial wars.

We can and should actually put a few real HP jammers on a couple of Bizjets. More coverage, bands, power than fighter based solutions.

sudeepj · Post by **sudeepj** » 01 Apr 2019 22:48

Karan, so basically, the AMRAAM shots by the PAF were to force the Sukhois to stay away and not turn into the striking F16s, and not to actually shoot down the Su30s. But the Mig21s launched from the shadow the Pir Panjal ranges and surprised the strike package.

Also, the PAF is sticking to its claims of two fighters going down. Which means they did lose an F16.

Aditya_V · Post by **Aditya_V** » 01 Apr 2019 22:52

sudeepj wrote:Karan, so basically, the AMRAAM shots by the PAF were to force the Sukhois to stay away and not turn into the striking F16s, and not to actually shoot down the Su30s. But the Mig21s launched from the shadow the Pir Panjal ranges and surprised the strike package.

Also, the PAF is sticking to its claims of two fighters going down. Which means they did lose an F16.

I disgagree AMRAAM shots were to get the Su30 for H&D purposes. PAF did not expect Su30 to defeat the AMRAAM's.I suspect this preplanned hence as soon as news of Aircraft down came DGISPR and PAF grou d crews were claiming 2 Su30s down

saip · Post by **saip** » 01 Apr 2019 22:56

I know about we complying with ROE. But how could the Pakis be sure that we will not break the ROE and fire BVRs at Pakis especially considering they did fire BVRs at us? Looks like the Pakis created a target rich environment but we did not get a BVR lock on any of the Paki assets?

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 01 Apr 2019 23:05

sudeepj wrote:Karan, so basically, the AMRAAM shots by the PAF were to force the Sukhois to stay away and not turn into the striking F16s, and not to actually shoot down the Su30s. But the Mig21s launched from the shadow the Pir Panjal ranges and surprised the strike package.

From what Sameer Joshi is writing, the 2nd set of F-16s were set to turn into the Su-30s and again fire off another bunch of AMRAAMs. This would have been decided by the onboard fighter controllers on the SAAB Erieye. 2x of this group of 4x F-16s was bounced by the Bisons, ending up in a complete withdrawal by the PAF.

Of course, these 2nd set of F-16s would have been detected on the Su-30 RWR and since first set of F-16s didn't stay to duel with the Su-30s, the Su-30s were free to maneuver and avoid the 2nd set of AMRAAMs and engage the 2nd set of F-16s in turn.

This is why I meant the PAF's so called audacity was a half-way house, they lacked the willingness to take casualties by closing in. They had the opportunity to really pit a large group against our 2x Su-30 MKIs. Lose a few of their F-16s in return for the Su-30 loss. But the first group boxed the Su-30s in place for a period and then skedaddled. If they had stuck around (and risked losses) and the 2nd group emerged to ambush, it would have been a far closer run thing. If both groups had stuck around, it was still 8x F-16s vs 2x Su-30s and 2/4x MiG-21s. And the PAF still disengaged.

Also, the PAF is sticking to its claims of two fighters going down. Which means they did lose an F16.

PAF is just a propaganda house.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 01 Apr 2019 23:18

saip wrote:I know about we complying with ROE. But how could the Pakis be sure that we will not break the ROE and fire BVRs at Pakis especially considering they did fire BVRs at us? Looks like the Pakis created a target rich environment but we did not get a BVR lock on any of the Paki assets?

Again, read the whole account. The Pakis ran before we could target them with our missiles after firing first.
Target rich environment? We are speaking of 12x PAF fighters, JF-17s and Mirage 3/5s dueling with 2x Mirage 2000s and breaking off their A2G attack, because they couldn't be sure they were not going to be missile'd and the 8x JF-17s failed in their mission to box up the 2x Mirage 2000s. Those Mirage 2000s would have been EW active, evading JF-17 radar and painting the JF-17 for a weapons fix in turn. The JF-17, Mirage 3/5 fleet decided to cut and run and not guide their PGMs in.

And then 4x F-16s launching 5x AMRAAMS against 2x Su-30s, seeing the AMRAAMs fail, and running before a counter salvo came from the Su-30s (which they'd have anticipated as Bars pinged their RWR), then 4x F-16s attempting to ambush the 2x Su-30s and getting ambushed by 2x Bisons.

This is hardly some static turkey shoot!

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 01 Apr 2019 23:58

KaranM, So Battle of Rajouri was a defeat for the larger PAF force that did not achieve any of its objectives.

In essence its like the Battle of Jutland.

I think USAF will be studying this battle for a long time.

I alos think we will see more powered AAMs as any of them wont have energy to engage at long range.

I don't know about surprise. Pakistan by any other name is perfidy.
Shooting BVR from their side of LOC is expected behavior.

My big grouse is why couldn't Indian experts write in simple English without using silly argot?
Snap and Crank. Are they talking to their fan boys only?

So your next assignment begins now.

Explain the Battle of Rajouri just like you did and in simple English without argot.
one week time

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 02 Apr 2019 00:21

Will definitely do R sir!

My big grouse is why couldn't Indian experts write in simple English without using silly argot?
Snap and Crank. Are they talking to their fan boys only?

Once a fighter pilot, always a fighter pilot, he would have been living, breathing these terms, strategies.

Also, I guess the argot really helps with the twitter character limits. I guess we really owe him one also for also bunker buster-ing the PAF/DDM claims in 1 fell swoop.

nachiket · Post by **nachiket** » 02 Apr 2019 00:22

Karan saar, thanks for the wonderful posts explaining Sameer Joshi's article further. It seems clear that the IAF's superior training and skill nullified the significant numerical advantage that the PAF managed to achieve locally.

Now the question arises as to how to avoid the PAF obtaining a similar advantage in future engagements, especially over Kashmir. If the engagement had taken place over or closer to the IB in the south the situation would be different because the IAF has several forward air bases from which to scramble fighters (and I'm guessing better radar cover thanks to flatter geography).

But up north, the aggressor seems to have an unavoidable advantage (from either side I should think). You can't have 20 fighters on CAP all the time and availability of airfields is limited. The scrambled Mig-21's must have been on ORP at the time and hence were able to get into the air very quickly but the whole engagement happened too fast for the IAF to get any more aircraft involved. I don't see an easy way around this except perhaps having an AWACS in the air 24x7 which is impractical due to the low numbers of AWACS in the IAF.

V_Raman · Post by **V_Raman** » 02 Apr 2019 00:26

Cant we have aerostat style radars for 24/7 coverage?

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 02 Apr 2019 00:27

Thanks for the kind words nachiket boss.

It seems clear that the IAF's superior training and skill nullified the significant numerical advantage that the PAF managed to achieve locally.

In a nutshell.

But up north, the aggressor seems to have an unavoidable advantage (from either side I should think). You can't have 20 fighters on CAP all the time and availability of airfields is limited. The scrambled Mig-21's must have been on ORP at the time and hence were able to get into the air very quickly but the whole engagement happened too fast for the IAF to get any more aircraft involved. I don't see an easy way around this except perhaps having an AWACS in the air 24x7 which is impractical due to the low numbers of AWACS in the IAF.

Yes, and building more base infra up north to station more fighters. Even SAMs etc can only do so much because of the terrain. So many valleys, hills etc to duck behind.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 02 Apr 2019 00:28

V_Raman wrote:Cant we have aerostat style radars for 24/7 coverage?

yes, but they are very vulnerable to strikes as they are (relatively) fixed.

gpurewal · Post by **gpurewal** » 02 Apr 2019 00:34

V_Raman wrote:Cant we have aerostat style radars for 24/7 coverage?

I think they would be easy targets, since they would be stationary and need to be tethered to the ground. In addition, Radar Coverage in the Himalayas is difficult because of the peaks shielding planes from radar detection, if the planes fly low enough. Tom Cooper mentioned this in the F16 blog, on how the Bisons were able get a jump on the PAF 16's, since Radar cannot penetrate mountains, hence the SAAB Erieye was unable to detect their takeoff.

In addition, if the Aerostat's are able to be deployed high enough, there comes an issue of being able to find low flying aircraft from the clutter that would be deflecting from the terrain.

You have a good idea, but alas I don't think it will work well in the Himalayas.

Aditya_V · Post by **Aditya_V** » 02 Apr 2019 00:38

How about Ground based Radars on the Pir Panjals, all the higher mountains on the Pakistani Side are to the North.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 02 Apr 2019 00:39

Gpurewal, the terrain is the key issue. In terms of clutter reduction, everyone's moved far ahead, including us.

yensoy · Post by **yensoy** » 02 Apr 2019 00:43

Karan M wrote:But up north, the aggressor seems to have an unavoidable advantage (from either side I should think). You can't have 20 fighters on CAP all the time and availability of airfields is limited. The scrambled Mig-21's must have been on ORP at the time and hence were able to get into the air very quickly but the whole engagement happened too fast for the IAF to get any more aircraft involved. I don't see an easy way around this except perhaps having an AWACS in the air 24x7 which is impractical due to the low numbers of AWACS in the IAF.
Yes, and building more base infra up north to station more fighters. Even SAMs etc can only do so much because of the terrain. So many valleys, hills etc to duck behind.

Do we really need to be on hair-trigger alert? Pakis are not stupid enough to incurse into Indian territory to any significant extent, because (i) it will be a clear escalation, and that is one thing they don't want, and (ii) once they are over us they will get shot down. In fact I think we were a little too aggressive in our CAP instead of drawing in the pakis and then making mincemeat out of them once they were well into our territory.

But we most certainly need to know where all the vermin are, all the time.

khan · Post by **khan** » 02 Apr 2019 00:43

gpurewal wrote:
V_Raman wrote:Cant we have aerostat style radars for 24/7 coverage?
I think they would be easy targets, since they would be stationary and need to be tethered to the ground.

IMO, this is not a bad idea, if the understanding is these radars are sacrificial when hostilities actually start.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 02 Apr 2019 00:46

Aditya_V wrote:How about Ground based Radars on the Pir Panjals, all the higher mountains on the Pakistani Side are to the North.

You may well have a point.

April 2018
CAS: The IAF has a focussed modernisation plan to build up a robust layered Air Defence (AD) network, based on modern Radars and Surface to Air Guided Weapon (SAGW) systems. Besides obsolescence management, new generation AD radars are being inducted at brisk pace. Rohini radars, Low Level Light Weight Radars (LLLWR) and Medium Power Radars (MPR) have been inducted in the IAF. The induction of Low Level Transportable Radars (LLTR) has commenced. The IAF is also progressing the case for procurement of High Power Radars (HPR) and additional Aerostat systems. Several indigenous projects of BEL/DRDO are also in the pipeline including Arudhra MPR, Ashwini LLTR and Mountain Radar.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 02 Apr 2019 00:46

khan wrote:
gpurewal wrote:
I think they would be easy targets, since they would be stationary and need to be tethered to the ground.
IMO, this is not a bad idea, if the understanding is these radars are sacrificial when hostilities actually start.

khan, these are very expensive radars. until and unless we start fielding lower cost desi ones in aerostats.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 02 Apr 2019 00:50

At 13:04 onwards, actual at 13:09

nam wrote:General Radar discussion with BEL Jhaziabad head. He mentions how Indra was developed to track low flying F16s.

There is also a plan to roll out AESA based mountain radars. With all the "football" style protection in place.

BEL also produces Thales LLTR.

Bonus: Arudhra rotating during Expo 18.

negi · Post by **negi** » 02 Apr 2019 00:58

Karan M wrote: Yes, and building more base infra up north to station more fighters. Even SAMs etc can only do so much because of the terrain. So many valleys, hills etc to duck behind.

Fact is British made the air fields when India and TSP were single country , post independence how many more air fields has the IAF commissioned ? This asking for new toys after every such attack but not being proactive by first trying to increase effectiveness of existing fleet is very BBMP like . Yes there are gorges, ravines etc but F-16s don't hug the ground and fly specially not during the night and when they fly during the day like they did this time , they still have to pray that they remain undetected (although we can detect them much early with what we have as long as we install them in enough numbers), spreading out the fleet across more AGLs and also supporting them with combination of large 3D volume search radars and then systems like Spyder and or Akash is not difficult , it is even more concerning in light of the fact that at least on ground based Radar and short range AD front we are self reliant . Hell having more AGLs and Radar installations is not just for better coverage it simply forces the adversary to process much more data . I am of the view that we did not punish TSP for it's transgression , as usual like all conflicts in the past it was another stalemate and yes like all other conflicts in the past be it Kargil , 26/11 or even this incident someone (Yogendra yadav, Hav. Tukaram Omble and now Wing Co. Abhinandan) had to go way beyond the RoE to save nation's face for the system on a whole worked just like gob-mint machinery.

nachiket · Post by **nachiket** » 02 Apr 2019 01:12

yensoy wrote: Do we really need to be on hair-trigger alert? Pakis are not stupid enough to incurse into Indian territory to any significant extent, because (i) it will be a clear escalation, and that is one thing they don't want, and (ii) once they are over us they will get shot down. In fact I think we were a little too aggressive in our CAP instead of drawing in the pakis and then making mincemeat out of them once they were well into our territory.

That will only work if the pakis try to hit a target like Srinagar. But there are many IA bases, logistics nodes, and other infra closer to the LoC which need to be protected. This is what they were targeting this time too before being forced to turn tail and run.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 02 Apr 2019 01:21

KaranM, Looking at the disposition of the attacking force in three areas seems strategic in order to hit Indian military forces, it was IAF superior and aggressive tactics that blunted the attack and caused losses. I would say this is 80% IAF victory due to loss of MiG-21.

Battle of Rajouri is a jet fighter pilots dream engagement.

yensoy the Pakis were stupid enough to fire BVR missiles like sniper rifle shots from their side of LOC only they could not get a hit despite trying hard due to IAF superior flying abilities.

From now on IAF will shoot them down if they even come on their side of LOC.

sudeepj · Post by **sudeepj** » 02 Apr 2019 01:22

Aditya_V wrote:
sudeepj wrote:Karan, so basically, the AMRAAM shots by the PAF were to force the Sukhois to stay away and not turn into the striking F16s, and not to actually shoot down the Su30s. But the Mig21s launched from the shadow the Pir Panjal ranges and surprised the strike package.

Also, the PAF is sticking to its claims of two fighters going down. Which means they did lose an F16.
I disgagree AMRAAM shots were to get the Su30 for H&D purposes. PAF did not expect Su30 to defeat the AMRAAM's.I suspect this preplanned hence as soon as news of Aircraft down came DGISPR and PAF grou d crews were claiming 2 Su30s down

If these were H&D shots, Pakis are stupider than I thought. Which is saying a lot...

sudeepj · Post by **sudeepj** » 02 Apr 2019 01:30

Karan M wrote:
sudeepj wrote:Karan, so basically, the AMRAAM shots by the PAF were to force the Sukhois to stay away and not turn into the striking F16s, and not to actually shoot down the Su30s. But the Mig21s launched from the shadow the Pir Panjal ranges and surprised the strike package.
...
This is why I meant the PAF's so called audacity was a half-way house, they lacked the willingness to take casualties by closing in. They had the opportunity to really pit a large group against our 2x Su-30 MKIs. Lose a few of their F-16s in return for the Su-30 loss. But the first group boxed the Su-30s in place for a period and then skedaddled. If they had stuck around (and risked losses) and the 2nd group emerged to ambush, it would have been a far closer run thing. If both groups had stuck around, it was still 8x F-16s vs 2x Su-30s and 2/4x MiG-21s. And the PAF still disengaged.

Also, the PAF is sticking to its claims of two fighters going down. Which means they did lose an F16.
PAF is just a propaganda house.

If you think about it, it makes sense as they cant afford to lose their precious F16s over a skirmish. India is manufacturing a squadron of Su30MKIs and a squadron of LCAs per year.. The Indian economy can also afford to surge the defense budget by $5-10B for a few years to get a few 'silver bullet' squadrons. So its logical that they are conservative when it comes to losses. I am sure, IAF planners will be analyzing the mindset and moment by moment decisions of their controllers, pilots and higher leadership.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 02 Apr 2019 01:31

negi wrote:
Karan M wrote: Yes, and building more base infra up north to station more fighters. Even SAMs etc can only do so much because of the terrain. So many valleys, hills etc to duck behind.
Fact is British made the air fields when India and TSP were single country , post independence how many more air fields has the IAF commissioned ? This asking for new toys after every such attack but not being proactive by first trying to increase effectiveness of existing fleet is very BBMP like . Yes there are gorges, ravines etc but F-16s don't hug the ground and fly specially not during the night and when they fly during the day like they did this time , they still have to pray that they remain undetected (although we can detect them much early with what we have as long as we install them in enough numbers), spreading out the fleet across more AGLs and also supporting them with combination of large 3D volume search radars and then systems like Spyder and or Akash is not difficult , it is even more concerning in light of the fact that at least on ground based Radar and short range AD front we are self reliant . Hell having more AGLs and Radar installations is not just for better coverage it simply forces the adversary to process much more data . I am of the view that we did not punish TSP for it's transgression , as usual like all conflicts in the past it was another stalemate and yes like all other conflicts in the past be it Kargil , 26/11 or even this incident someone (Yogendra yadav, Hav. Tukaram Omble and now Wing Co. Abhinandan) had to go way beyond the RoE to save nation's face for the system on a whole worked just like gob-mint machinery.

Yeah, as usual, I think you are on the dot that its not just money to be spent, but also cost-effectively get more of what we have available but don't think about well ahead in time. We really should pick up more Nethra at the earliest. Working system stuck because of some idiotic corruption angle with Embraer. In terms of airframes though, Su-30 upgrades, Rafale and Tejas Mk1A should be our priority.

nachiket · Post by **nachiket** » 02 Apr 2019 01:32

ramana wrote: From now on IAF will shoot them down if they even come on their side of LOC.

If IAF fighters fire R-77's prematurely, they will suffer the same fate as the paki AMRAAMs. That is what I understood from Karan's explanation above and the primary reason the MKI's did not fire in the first place. THe other issue in this particular case I feel is that since the MKI's were heavily outnumbered, they could not afford to waste R-77 shots in a hail mary kind of attack that the pakis did. They would have made their missiles count when they re-engaged after avoiding the AMRAAMs. But the pakis had fled by then.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 02 Apr 2019 01:34

ramana wrote:KaranM, Looking at the disposition of the attacking force in three areas seems strategic in order to hit Indian military forces, it was IAF superior and aggressive tactics that blunted the attack and caused losses. I would say this is 80% IAF victory due to loss of MiG-21.

Battle of Rajouri is a jet fighter pilots dream engagement.

yensoy the Pakis were stupid enough to fire BVR missiles like sniper rifle shots from their side of LOC only they could not get a hit despite trying hard due to IAF superior flying abilities.

From now on IAF will shoot them down if they even come on their side of LOC.

Yes, the IAF side showed *superb aggression*, heavily outnumbered but went in hard, wresting the initiative back. Also, not mindless zeal. Coolly avoiding AMRAAM shots, holding off multiple strike packages etc.

I also think WingCo Abhinandan definitely deserves an award for his actions and perhaps, so do the Mirage/Su-30 guys for holding the line, in a text book example of what to do under pressure.

IndraD · Post by **IndraD** » 02 Apr 2019 01:35

Pakistan now indicates F-16s might have been used to hit Indian aircraft post-Balakot action
http://www.newindianexpress.com/nation/ ... 58896.html

Pakistan's military spokesman Maj Gen Asif Ghafoor issued a statement with reference to "repeated Indian claims" about shooting down of Pakistani F-16 by India and use of F-16 in the air battle on February 27. "As regard Pakistan Air Force (PAF) action for strikes across Line of Control, it was done by JF-17

Later, when two Indian jets crossed the Line of Control, they were shot down by the PAF, he claimed.

"Whether it was F-16 or JF-17 which shot down 2 Indian aircraft is immaterial," he said.

He further said: "Even if F-16 have been used as at that point in time complete PAF was airborne including F16s, the fact remains that Pakistan Airforce shot down two Indian jets in self defence."

Ghafoor said that Pakistan had right to use anything for its defence.

"India can assume any type of their choice even F-16. Pakistan retains the right to use anything and everything in its legitimate self defence," he said. He also rejected that any F-16 was destroyed by Indian Air Force in the dogfight.

Aditya G · Post by **Aditya G** » 02 Apr 2019 01:35

How did PAF actually jam us?