MiG-21 Bison shoots down F-16 in Kashmir

Aditya_V · Post by **Aditya_V** » 02 Apr 2019 01:39

True for this engagement, just like the F-16, even SU 30 should be able to launch r-77 in TWS without RWR going off, if planned and things work out, given the higher speed and altitude, the Su 30 should be able to pull off R-77 shot when still out of AMRAAM range, but in this case the PAF F-16's used higher speed and altitude and fired shots at D Max1.

PAF did not Jam us, Abhinandan radio was working in contact with GCI

IndraD · Post by **IndraD** » 02 Apr 2019 01:40

https://theprint.in/defence/what-wing-c ... dy/215214/
Abhinandan was allowed to make phone call to wife but call routed through Saudi ; wife recorded the conversation

Tanvi was taken aback when she heard Abhinandan’s voice over the phone, which showed a Saudi number. Realising that the ISI was at play, she recorded the conversation.

Far from breaking down, she spoke confidently to the Wing Commander. Apart from the initial questions on how he was doing, she asked what she should tell their two children about the whereabouts of their father. A composed Abhinandan replied: “Tell them Papa jail mein hain (Papa is in jail).”

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 02 Apr 2019 01:46

nachiket wrote:
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 ROEs would have prevented the IAF hitherto from aggressively seeking engagement with the PAF, now that's lifted more tactical opportunities would emerge.
In this particular case, the Su-30s didn't fire R-77s because the missiles would have been up against high-flying receding targets, a kind of target these missiles would be challenged by.
But it all depends on what possibilities present themselves for us, to set up our ambushes with more sense than the PAF displayed.

http://www.x-plane.org/home/urf/aviatio ... mrange.gif

Target is in middle, when in stern chase (i.e. from behind), missile range drops substantially. It will drop even more if the missile has to climb and then undertake a stern chase.

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.

This is a Su-30 possible loadout, upto 14x AAMs (though of course, the Su-30s that day may have been carrying around a more reasonable 8 or thereabouts):
https://defencyclopedia.files.wordpress ... -loaad.jpg

[I know, I know, I use every excuse possible to post this pic]

I do think it was just discipline and common sense drilled into IAF pilots by virtue of training. Why waste rounds on a target the missile can't reach, and your WCS is also informing you of that fact. The targets would not have been in the launch zone, shown in the display & the Su-30 pilots were smart enough to not chase the F-16s without proper support across the LOC.

UlanBatori · Post by **UlanBatori** » 02 Apr 2019 01:59

IndraD wrote:https://theprint.in/defence/what-wing-c ... dy/215214/
Abhinandan was allowed to make phone call to wife but call routed through Saudi ; wife recorded the conversation
Tanvi was taken aback when she heard Abhinandan’s voice over the phone, which showed a Saudi number. Realising that the ISI was at play, she recorded the conversation.

Far from breaking down, she spoke confidently to the Wing Commander. Apart from the initial questions on how he was doing, she asked what she should tell their two children about the whereabouts of their father. A composed Abhinandan replied: “Tell them Papa jail mein hain (Papa is in jail).”

Just in case this suggests any kindness from/to ISI, consider this: When the WCdr returned he was found to be suffering from spinal compression as a result of the rocket-powered ejection from the plane. So consider that this is why the Pakis made him STAND UP for hours. Also he was probably concussed from the rifle blow to the side of his head (bleeding injury). So loud music to "help" his headache.

Put the ISI HQ's name on a SPICE pls. And get a few lampposts ready for them for when the Baloch National Army marches into Pindi.

nachiket · Post by **nachiket** » 02 Apr 2019 02:20

Karan M wrote: 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.

Just compare this with PAF behavior during Balakot strike. They faced the exact same problems then that the IAF faced during the PAF's attempted strike.

That time IAF had the initiative, element of surprise, AWACS support and superior numbers already in the air, exactly the opposite of the latter engagement. But the IAF Mirages were able to cross PoK and bomb a target in KPK without being challenged, because the PAF disengaged on seeing the numbers stacked against them. IAF response in the reverse situation was exactly the opposite. They effectively engaged the PAF despite being heavily outnumbered and caused a mission kill. This in itself proves the IAF's superior skill, discipline and guts, even without WingCo Abhinandan's shootdown of the F-16.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 02 Apr 2019 03:05

Yes, much more effort into training and skill. The PAF crew was undoubtedly the cream of their crop, yanked from CCS..yet, mediocre results against the IAF.

Having said that, this was an act of war, we should have retaliated heavily against the PAF the next day or thereafter. The AMRAAM launches and attempted ambush, for instance plus the Raptor strike.

Hopefully, this was just round 1, and there will be a round 2, with an eqvt Govt in charge and IAF much more modernized.

Aditya G · Post by **Aditya G** » 02 Apr 2019 03:07

+1

nachiket wrote:
Karan M wrote: 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.
Just compare this with PAF behavior during Balakot strike. They faced the exact same problems then that the IAF faced during the PAF's attempted strike.

That time IAF had the initiative, element of surprise, AWACS support and superior numbers already in the air, exactly the opposite of the latter engagement. But the IAF Mirages were able to cross PoK and bomb a target in KPK without being challenged, because the PAF disengaged on seeing the numbers stacked against them. IAF response in the reverse situation was exactly the opposite. They effectively engaged the PAF despite being heavily outnumbered and caused a mission kill. This in itself proves the IAF's superior skill, discipline and guts, even without WingCo Abhinandan's shootdown of the F-16.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 02 Apr 2019 03:43

This will be the last engagement with the Mig-21 Bisons and they had the last gore.
They would have been retired by 2018 but for delays.

UB yes they will get a Brahmos and SPICE up their behinds.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 02 Apr 2019 03:44

Aditya G wrote:How did PAF actually jam us?

PAF has two old Falcon 20's which it uses in the ELINT/Comint/ ComJam role.
https://www.globalsecurity.org/military ... /24sqn.htm

ISPR has been claiming everything and anything in their name post the 27th. Now of course, the reality is out. At best intermittent ComJam.

gakakkad · Post by **gakakkad** » 02 Apr 2019 03:52

Can someone edit the wiki page of balakot air strikes ? It's greatly skewed by pakee narrative .

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 02 Apr 2019 03:52

Another thing, not a single ZDK-03 has been used in the engagement. Compare and contrast to our usage of Netra which we used in the initial Balakot strikes.

Just shows that the PRC stuff hyped and mentioned by PAF fanboys as the ultimate.. in reality is anything, but.

The JF-17 radar also had issues with Mirage 2000 EW.

CAPS had predicted this clutter issue in 2016 itself.
http://capsindia.org/files/documents/CA ... _RS_21.pdf

It seems the reason for basing the Erieye in Kamra was because of its powerful signal processing and capability for radar pickup over land being better than the Chinese AWACS which has been based in a coastal area at Masroor airbase in Karachi. In technical terms, the radar clutter signal reflected from land is stronger than clutter signals over the sea. Therefore, the AWACS radar should have powerful signal processing and clutter handling capabilities to pick up targets over land while the relatively weaker sea clutter can be handled by less powerful radar. Apparently, the Swedish Saab 2000 Erieye radar has better pick up over land than the Chinese ZDK-03 AWACS and for this reason has been based in Kamra for use over the Pakistan-India land frontier.

I won't be surprised if this is was yet another scam foisted on the Pakistanis like their Chinese trains or buses and what not.

Coming to number of Erieyes, while Pakistan officially claims 4.
https://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/sw ... tan-02377/

So the Taliban attacked the base with 4x Erieye.

As usual, the PAF lied through their teeth, till a rtd PA guy rubbed it in.

Feb 6-9/13: Revelations. Defence Secretary Lt. Gen. (ret.) Asif Yasin Malik informs Pakistan’s National Assembly Standing Committee on Defence that the defence installations saw their last attacks in Peshawar and the Kamra airbase, but adds that an AWACS plane was destroyed during the attack on Kamra AB in August 2012. Initially, it isn’t clear which AWACS plane type he’s referring to, but a subsequent report by Pakistan’s The News International confirms that it was one of Saab’s S2000 AEW planes.

That’s a bit awkward, because Pakistani authorities have apparently been claiming for the last 6 months that the attack had just damaged an aircraft’s nose cone, and that it would be repaired in Sweden. The report also refers to “one of the four” planes, which would finally provide a reliable number.

Except that we might have been wrong. What even the February revelations in Pakistan hadn’t disclosed is that the attack on Minhas AB in Pakistan happened with 3 Erieye planes on the ground. One was destroyed – but 2 others were very badly damaged. That leaves Pakistan with a fleet of just 1 plane, until it gets those 2 fixed. That could explain this $170 million contract, with the sudden secrecy invoked because Pakistan doesn’t want to publicly admit the extent of the loss; indeed, if Saab doesn’t announce a separate SEK 1+ billion support contract soon, the default assumption for this deal must become Pakistan.

So the PAF lost 1x Erieye, and has apparently got 3 operational (supposedly..take anything the PAF says with a bucket of salt, because they ordered 3x more Erieyes.. why??).

They have 4x Chinese AWACS which they can't deploy up north.

IAF has 3x Phalcon, and 2x Nethra. There is 1x more Nethra which was to be a DRDO testbed, but IAF should just take it. And 2x more Phalcons which are stuck in usual MOD "best price" stuff. If we get these 3x more AWACS, we will have a rough parity.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 02 Apr 2019 03:54

The Swedes will pay a price for selling the Saab Erieye to the Paks used against the IAF.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 02 Apr 2019 04:10

Yes, because SAAB apparently signed a deal with Pakistan for 3 more Erieyes.
https://airforcesmonthly.keypublishing. ... e-erieyes/

To me, this makes no sense. Until and unless the ZDK-03 is a complete mess and/or the so-called repaired Erieyes which are flying, have such significant damage still that they need to be rapidly replaced. The talk of them being repaired, in service etc was for morale purposes and PR.

The Gripen should not even be in consideration for MMRCA.

nachiket · Post by **nachiket** » 02 Apr 2019 04:17

IAF is clearly satisfied enough with the Netra that they didn't mind using it instead of the Phalcon during the first actual planned hostile engagement in 2 decades. Yet, there are no new orders for the type and IAF is content to wait till we somehow integrate it on a larger platform. An air force the size of the IAF still being stuck at 5 AWACS does not make sense.

souravB · Post by **souravB** » 02 Apr 2019 05:49

nachiket wrote:IAF is clearly satisfied enough with the Netra that they didn't mind using it instead of the Phalcon during the first actual planned hostile engagement in 2 decades. Yet, there are no new orders for the type and IAF is content to wait till we somehow integrate it on a larger platform. An air force the size of the IAF still being stuck at 5 AWACS does not make sense.

Sir, DRDO/CABS have been waiting for MoD/IAF to procure platforms for them to put the radars. Here's one of their idea of netra on C295 platform.

IMO it would be better if CABS mount the chapati type radar on C295, as the chapati type radar is almost ready as already said. C295 can take chapati on it. Here's one having an Israeli chapati aka phalcon.

So as soon as IAF acquires C295, we'll see some more AWACS on it.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 02 Apr 2019 06:33

Thread Roll of Sameer Joshi tweets on The air battle.

https://twitter.com/threadreaderapp/sta ... 35584?s=19

manjgu · Post by **manjgu** » 02 Apr 2019 08:11

the way i understood Sameer Joshi's posts is that AMRAAM were fired more in hope ( that they might get lucky with a SU ... ) and to disrupt the Su's. PAF just fired and turned tail not really guiding the AMRAAM till it went active ( pitbull bucket). Without F16 guiding the missiles till it became active, it would not have been too difficult for Su to negate the missiles but still demonstrates good training on part of IAF. The missiles would have continued in a straight line towards the ground..

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 02 Apr 2019 09:56

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

- we already have some for a while now
- usaf has multiple projects ongoing for the successor to amraam, including ramjet ones
- people need to stop thinking of SAMs and AAMs as a tank firing on a tank - ie the shell will surely catch the target @ 2km in 1 second
both shooter and target are moving fast
and while AAMs can accelerate to mach4 quite fast, their burn time is in few seconds...after that each CLIMB or HARD TURN will lose energy as it coasts, also more control surfaces will also mean more drag and lose energy...... so targets who are warned of the incoming missile and have adequate distance can either turn and escape on afterburners, making the aam fall off as out of range.....or force the aam into a series of hard turns, making it lose energy and fall off spent. ... after motor burnout the aam is a high speed glider.

amraams allegedly can use a lofted trajectory to gain height and energy to last longer for long range shots

higher and faster you are at launch better the energy..

its only within a 15km type of range that modern aams boast of a so called "no escape zone" but again try that against a Foxhound and see what happens

bahut yoddha chale aaye the foxbat ko marne, but koi kuch ukhaad nahi paya.

NEZ means the aam has enough energy to run you down, but you can still defeat it with hard turns and EW / chaff. but you cannot outrun it in a tail chase anymore.

Aditya_V · Post by **Aditya_V** » 02 Apr 2019 10:16

One thing we seem to forget that when selling the F-16, the Americans specifically said the Paki F-16 threat library would not be updated for NATO aircraft so in Osama Bin Laden raid type situations PAF cannot dare engage NATO aircraft, we should use all our efforts to ensure, stuff like EL 2032's and EL2052's are also not updated in threat Library, so RWR alret for these aircraft.

This is also probably a reason why the PAF F-16's specially stay from IAF M-2000's.

Katare · Post by **Katare** » 02 Apr 2019 10:17

Some of the questions hat come to a moderately informed layman’s mind around the way IAF responded. Why didn’t IAF send more aircrafts? Why do they send fighters in twos? Two MKIs, two mig 21s etc! Why not through it all on it? Each base has a squadron or more available and i would assume they have to be at the highest possible alert level, just 24 hour after attacking Pakistan deep inside it’s territory.

May be IAF needs different sets of rules, from full on war, for these touch n go type of skirmishes.

Deploy a few MKIs, Mig 29s and Mirages on forward basis on temporary basis

Keep rest of the old inventory and bombers away from the LOC/IB

Fly/scramble in larger formations of 4-8 from each bases with intention of achieving absolutely superiority in numbers with intent to chase down enemy in force if needed

When scrambling to defend, IAF should have flexibility to approach enemy from behind by way of shallow ingress in enemy territory at point of our choosing.

Aditya_V · Post by **Aditya_V** » 02 Apr 2019 10:29

I think since no civilian aircraft should have any business near the LOC, miltary installations have good radars, Sam, AAA which can even take out smart munitions, this way PAF needs to take greater risks in future and hopefully we must take out some PAF aircraft when the approach LOC, in reality PAF did badly, but since Balakot, Mig 21, F-16 and Abhinandan fell in thier territory, the H&D of PAF was saved in Aam Awam's eyes.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 02 Apr 2019 11:07

manjgu wrote:the way i understood Sameer Joshi's posts is that AMRAAM were fired more in hope ( that they might get lucky with a SU ... ) and to disrupt the Su's. PAF just fired and turned tail not really guiding the AMRAAM till it went active ( pitbull bucket). Without F16 guiding the missiles till it became active, it would not have been too difficult for Su to negate the missiles but still demonstrates good training on part of IAF. The missiles would have continued in a straight line towards the ground..

The AMRAAMs were fired from 40-50 km away. That's somewhere around RMax1 for a fighter target and the AMRAAM C-5 which per most accounts is in the same class as our RVV-AE. If the missiles were not guided, they would be hopelessly lost, and the Su-30s would not needed to have punch countermeasures or even maneuver aggressively, because as they moved, the missiles would not. Also, 1-2 AMRAAMs would be fired in such a situation (suppose you have Su's nose on & just quickly want to disrupt the formation & then exploit the situation) but wasting 5 AMRAAMs?

The advantage of firing in RMax 1 is you maintain max distance between you and the target (so you can disengage safely if need be), guide the missile in from afar (its well within the capability of a 100km set like the AN/APG-68 v(9)). Disadvantage is the missile has used up a lot of its propulsion by the time it reaches the target, and is hence more vulnerable to aggressive maneuvering (which is what the Su-30s did).

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 02 Apr 2019 11:09

Can someone map the location of the AMRAAM debris with respect to the air battle?

https://m.timesofindia.com/india/jk-top ... ssion=true

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 02 Apr 2019 11:10

Singha wrote:its only within a 15km type of range that modern aams boast of a so called "no escape zone" but again try that against a Foxhound and see what happens bahut yoddha chale aaye the foxbat ko marne, but koi kuch ukhaad nahi paya.

NEZ means the aam has enough energy to run you down, but you can still defeat it with hard turns and EW / chaff. but you cannot outrun it in a tail chase anymore.

Theoretically, it means the seeker has a lock-on and irrespective of the turning, burning, speed etc, the missile will defeat any maneuvers the aircraft makes. Theoretically. Real life, I wont be surprised if RF AAMs get defeated even within the NEZ.

Karthik S · Post by **Karthik S** » 02 Apr 2019 11:21

Katare wrote:Some of the questions hat come to a moderately informed layman’s mind around the way IAF responded. Why didn’t IAF send more aircrafts? Why do they send fighters in twos? Two MKIs, two mig 21s etc! Why not through it all on it? Each base has a squadron or more available and i would assume they have to be at the highest possible alert level, just 24 hour after attacking Pakistan deep inside it’s territory.

May be IAF needs different sets of rules, from full on war, for these touch n go type of skirmishes.

Deploy a few MKIs, Mig 29s and Mirages on forward basis on temporary basis

Keep rest of the old inventory and bombers away from the LOC/IB

Fly/scramble in larger formations of 4-8 from each bases with intention of achieving absolutely superiority in numbers with intent to chase down enemy in force if needed

When scrambling to defend, IAF should have flexibility to approach enemy from behind by way of shallow ingress in enemy territory at point of our choosing.

From what I have inferred about patrolling by jets, certain types of jets such as F-15s always patrol in pairs. Even when the F-16 was shot down over serbia during patrol, the patrolling party consisted of a pair of F-16s. So, unless you launch an offensive you probably stick to a pair. Thinking about it, if half of a squadron is in the air and other half ready for next patrol, for any real action, you may run the risk of finding the jets on maintenance. Someone like Karan or singha saars may shed more light on this.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 02 Apr 2019 12:04

i read on the initial night of desert storm, with some 2000 a/c lined up for the fight, only some 8 F15upg were sent in over southern iraqi for the CAP mission, while streams of a2g a/c were flying in and out.

probably like too many cooks in a confined kitchen, there is not much additional advantage of sending 8 instead of 2 unless a real fight is imminent - which one never knows and AWACS/ground can anyway give an assessment of enemy numbers and types before you get to that decision.

there is also the fined tuned nature of limited endurance. you dont want to send a herd and have a enemy force come up just as you are low on fuel and need to head back. timing of entry and exit from the situation must be deftly managed among the nos of a/c available, distance to their bases and the fuel situation incl availability of refuelers if any. even with aar, fighter missions are not that viable beyond 6 hrs.

remember that fighters can go supersonic only a few minutes (barring ofcourse supercruisers and foxhound types)...so one dash into the fight, or one missile firing supersonic run is about all you get....maybe the flanker types can sustain a bit more of this than Solah/Bandar but they too will have supersonic drop tanks and will retain that unless its a emergency retreat and they need the extra agility to evade missiles.

none of the bandars and mirages loaded with a2G weapons would have any AAMs at all probably...they were just mules and not a2a threats. bandars have no bvr as yet and mirages never had it. the H4 is a clumsy weapon to carry.

think only of the number of F16 vs number in IAF (all in a2a mode) and the numbers are more realistic.
8 F16 vs 4 Mig21, 2 su30, 2 M2kupg

PAF will definitely fly F16s mixed in with formations of other types, to try and entice the IAF to have a go at the softer prey...

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 02 Apr 2019 12:13

The JF-17s were tasked to box up the Mirage 2000s, so they were def. A2A equipped. The "mules" were the Mirage 3/4s with Raptors (explains the high number of Raptors launched, 11x per ANI) and the 4x F-16s which had a LGB (probably 1x each) + AMRAAMs. I guess like you said, the Bandar's BVR capability is "up in the air" but safe thing to do would be to assume it has it, and plan accordingly..

nachiket · Post by **nachiket** » 02 Apr 2019 12:18

Karan M wrote:The JF-17s were tasked to box up the Mirage 2000s, so they were def. A2A equipped. The "mules" were the Mirage 3/4s with Raptors (explains the high number of Raptors launched, 11x per ANI) and the 4x F-16s which had a LGB (probably 1x each) + AMRAAMs. I guess like you said, the Bandar's BVR capability is "up in the air" but safe thing to do would be to assume it has it, and plan accordingly..

Was there any LGB debris recovered or impact site identified? I remember seeing Raptor fragments, all fallen harmlessly near the LoC where nobody was present. I'm trying to see what the F-16's did after firing off the AMRAAMs.

Also, they wasted 11 raptors! Money truly grows on trees for paki armed forces while rest of the country starves.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 02 Apr 2019 12:19

Apart from AVM Subramaniam and Sameer Joshi, there were a couple more sources which initially mentioned LGBs..i'll try and dig them up.

nachiket · Post by **nachiket** » 02 Apr 2019 12:27

Katare wrote:Some of the questions hat come to a moderately informed layman’s mind around the way IAF responded. Why didn’t IAF send more aircrafts? Why do they send fighters in twos? Two MKIs, two mig 21s etc! Why not through it all on it? Each base has a squadron or more available and i would assume they have to be at the highest possible alert level, just 24 hour after attacking Pakistan deep inside it’s territory.

May be IAF needs different sets of rules, from full on war, for these touch n go type of skirmishes.

Deploy a few MKIs, Mig 29s and Mirages on forward basis on temporary basis

Keep rest of the old inventory and bombers away from the LOC/IB

Fly/scramble in larger formations of 4-8 from each bases with intention of achieving absolutely superiority in numbers with intent to chase down enemy in force if needed

When scrambling to defend, IAF should have flexibility to approach enemy from behind by way of shallow ingress in enemy territory at point of our choosing.

Saar this was partly discussed in preceding posts. The aggressor has an inherent advantage since he can choose time and place and composition of forces. If this was a full blown war, there would have been far more assets available in theater.

PAF got blindsided in similar fashion during Balakot strikes. They could not scramble enough fighters to match IAF numerical strength already in air (plus the AWACS giving the IAF a complete real time picture). When they attacked, IAF was at a disadvantage. You cannot have huge numbers of aircraft on patrol 24x7. Difference between IAF and PAF was that pakis flinched in the face of superior numbers, IAF did not.

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 02 Apr 2019 12:38

I guess times like these calls for all hands on deck!

Coming to the commentary and map shared by Sameer Joshi, do compare that with the one shared earlier by AM Anil Chopra.

The one shared by AM Chopra has flight paths and even time stamps which shows the position of fighters as the air-battle progressed. A map like that can only be prepared who's witnessed the battle sitting in front of a radar console or has first had debrief on the subject.

Now, come to Sameer Joshi's map - to me, that map is pictorial representation of a verbal conversation. In fact, but for the location of Mirage-2000 way-up north, his commentary fits perfectly well with map shared by AM Anil Chopra. Also, report by Nitin Gokhale has some details about timelines. Which again matches to large extent with map by Anil Chopra.

MAP 1: By AM Anil Chopra:

Map 2: By Sameer Joshi

I will some time later put-up a post explaining the map by AM Chopra.

nachiket · Post by **nachiket** » 02 Apr 2019 12:44

Nice to see you post again rohit saar.

manjgu · Post by **manjgu** » 02 Apr 2019 12:57

this reminds me of spot the difference thingy we did as children 1) AWACS 2) Joshi;s pic ..SU 30 at the bottom ( southern end) .3) Joshi ..north is JF 17 ..not F 16

nachiket · Post by **nachiket** » 02 Apr 2019 13:02

There are several differences. Number and type of aircraft on our side in particular. To my untrained eye, AM Chopra's map makes more sense reconciling whatever I have read till now. But there are a lot of similarities too. Both seem to agree that the main force of Bandars and Mirage 3's turned away after seeing only 2 M2k

. Pakis are certainly wary of the upgraded M2k's. The locations are different however, and Sameer Joshi has 2 more Mig-21's in the air somehow. I thought only 2 Migs were scrambled after the PAF formation was detected and weren't in the air from the start. They came up in the radar shadow of the Erieye due to the mountains and surprised the F-16s.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 02 Apr 2019 13:25

rohitvats wrote:I guess times like these calls for all hands on deck!

Welcome back.

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 02 Apr 2019 13:41

Karan M wrote:
rohitvats wrote:I guess times like these calls for all hands on deck!
Welcome back.

Thanks, Karan!

There is a strong disinformation campaign going on. I was quite outraged after reading the article by Shekhar Gupta. Imagine my horror when I someone inquired from me - 'Is PAF more advanced than IAF?" and I was like, 'Who told you this?' and he referred to the article by Shekhar Gupta.

I realized it then and there that such narrative needs to be countered. And burnt some midnight oil to put out the article.

Do have a look, if you haven't already:
https://www.opindia.com/2019/03/the-pri ... hole-lies/

I've taken inputs from your earlier assessment of the BVR component of the air-battle in the article; helped me save some hours of research

There's a footnote in the article acknowledging the same.

Also, I realize BRF is a powerful platform to counter such negative narrative. Twitter is good but limited in the sense that it does not allow for proper analysis. I started writing for OpIndia.com with express intention of bursting negative propaganda but everything does not warrant a long form article.

BRF is perfect platform for proper analysis which is read by lot of people.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 02 Apr 2019 13:51

Yes, definitely a lot of deliberate disinformation running down the forces for political aims, and to pump up the Pakistanis as being more than they are. As has always been done by certain groups/interests.

Awesome job at Op India both the MiG-21 article and now this one - both have a role, first showed how the "old" Bison was still deadly and then this punctured a certain Guptaji's cycle tire. Ramana posted your article and twitter message, thanks for your kind words. I am glad it helped, like you said at times like these "all hands on deck".

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 02 Apr 2019 13:54

I think Sameer and AVM Chopra's sources are similar, his graphics also show a flight path (he's used those block arrows to show the same curved path the original pic did), but the terminology and details mentioned ring very true. The tactics, the manner in which the Erieye controllers tried to shape the battle.. all of it just "adds up" so to say.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 02 Apr 2019 14:35

Note Print also continues to peddle the outdated serviceability figures for Su-30 MKI, while at the time of Vayu Shakti itself, they were at 65%, PRINT mentions the earlier 58% figure. Overall, the agenda of Gupta is pretty clear.

nam · Post by **nam** » 02 Apr 2019 15:32

We should also point out how PAF is sorely lacking in A2G. Who sends in their best aircraft to drop a LGB against a heavily guarded frontier on high alert?

And their H4, not even ONE hit the target.

Compare this IAF hit at 60KM depth!

And Paks think they are being smart by declaring "we showed our capability by dropping the bombs in empty place"

Someone needs to write a article detailing the incompetence of PAF. Time we stop defending IAF and take the fight to PAF.