MiG-21 Bison shoots down F-16 in Kashmir

negi · Post by **negi** » 11 Apr 2019 10:16

If two missiles from completely different manufacturers differ in range by that much on paper one cannot tell much it's not like both go out and get range calibrations done against a common standard , mostly the real data is only known to those who have fired them in trials and actually seen them work. It makes little sense to trust such data at face value when one's life or more importantly mission's success would depend on it .

Aditya_V · Post by **Aditya_V** » 11 Apr 2019 10:25

In BVR AAM , speed and Altitude of adversaries also matters, ROE's apllied till PAF launched, in a Hot war there will be counter air operations and another set of aircraft. In this no war no peace scenario, PAF was able to launch and get back, we did not pursue them. But I feel we now have the right to ambush PAF aircraft.

The question is after 27 Feb we are not seeing pics of PAF aircraft flying over Paki cities like between 15 Feb and 26 Feb 19, they were dropping flares, goign supersonic over Lahore, Sialkot et all, they seem to staying 30-40Km iff not more away from the Loc or IB, this does not look like they belive AMRAAM outrages R-77, in fact they seem pretty spooked that Su-30 can dodge a Slammer and they need to get close.

They did not even challange IAF aircraft in the beginning of April which went near the LOC.

tsarkar · Post by **tsarkar** » 11 Apr 2019 10:26

Thakur_B wrote:
Katare wrote:.

Seems R77 lacks in range by 10-15 KM against AMRAAM and PAF exploited that advantage.
R77 is slightly longer ranged than AIM120C5. The NEZ of both is approximately similar.

Missile range from manufacturer is often propellant range in best case conditions. It deteriorates in environmental conditions - heat, humidity, altitude etc.

https://www.indiatoday.in/education-tod ... 2015-05-21

The missile could be launched from different altitudes - it can cover 110 km when launched from an altitude of 15 km, 44 km when fired from an altitude of eight km and 21 km when the altitude is sea level.

The missile can reportedly undertake 40 g turns close to sea level, when attacking a maneuvering target. It will have an active homing range of 25 km.

Note the huge variance - 110 km vs 21 km - just because of the density of air at different altitudes.

tsarkar · Post by **tsarkar** » 11 Apr 2019 10:40

Katare wrote:Saar, ROE doesn’t apply anywhere in the world if you are being locked on and fired upon.

And what is the basis of your statement?

Not following orders is a court martial offense.

Ever seen Kashmiri rascals slapping CRPF personnel and CRPF personnel not reacting? They dont react not because they cant but because they're following orders of not harming civilians.

Read this and check how much the soldiers were heckled before they opened fire. And how despite being provoked into opening fire, they were court martialled.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boston_Massacre

This article is correct on the RoE that exists on the LOC. The RoE were not to fire unless Pakistani aircraft are inside Indian Territory and they fire first. The first criteria was unfulfilled.

https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/ne ... s?from=mdr

negi · Post by **negi** » 11 Apr 2019 10:51

I don't buy RoE thing beyond a point it comes to what is the right thing to do , for some weird reason the same RoE did not apply to Abhinandan. Secondly on this forum I always get amused by some arguments , while it took pages and pages of discussions and hundreds of man hours of analysis of photos twitter feeds to establish how exactly the F-16 was downed , I can only imagine if say a PAF AC was shot near LoC and and say we would have claimed we shot it on our side and let the world debate , there won't be any data to prove it otherwise for Pakis don't have any sophisticated mechanism to actually show a missile taking out AC within their own LoC . Secondly and most importantly if such a RoE exists then we are genuine idiots for we had this same excuse brought up during Kargil when we lost AC as it was said we chose to fly in a manner such that we don't cross the LoC and that made us more susceptible to MANPADs , it seems we hardly learn much . The countries that are paranoid about their security don't even let war come to their shores they actually fight it away on adversary's territory and here we have some old school RoE when even being attacked with standoff weapons . How come this RoE did not apply to Balakot , because we were taking out a non military target ? I am sorry but I think it's a speculation on our part or if it is true then a bad excuse.

Manish_P · Post by **Manish_P** » 11 Apr 2019 10:52

tsarkar sir, i have a basic question.

Why is the ROE for the IAF different to say the ROE for the IA. For example, if a post on the LOC comes under sniper/mortar/ATGM fire from the PA, the IA units engage and try to neutralize that threat using similar weapons. The LOC is not breached as such (by both parties).
Is it purely because air power has traditionally been seen as escalatory or something else.

Sid · Post by **Sid** » 11 Apr 2019 11:01

I have to agree having such a restrictive ROE (if true), knowing well in advance that an attack is imminent, is really dorky decision. We attacked them on 26th, what else was expected.

Almost everyone predicted this ambush scenario on BRF. If we can brain storm it, people who are paid to do this would have definitely done it. Hence this ROE argument does not hold much water.

Although I don't doubt IAF's actions, but we need to ask some tough questions. We should have been more aggressive given we gave porkies a prostate exam a day earlier.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 11 Apr 2019 11:09

>> This article is correct on the RoE that exists on the LOC. The RoE were not to fire unless Pakistani aircraft are inside Indian Territory and they fire first. The first criteria was unfulfilled.

this probably dated back to when TSP had only Aim9L missiles with a 10km range. a indian a/c hovering 10km inside the LOC (as per bilateral agreement) would be on limits of the aim9L range so we could afford to wait. this was kargil roe.

clearly someone missed the bus on updating the ROE in the age of amraam and PL12 to delete the first criteria. in any case, what does it matter where the PAF is if they open fire - a lot of lives could have been lost that day due to this condition.

PAF happily fired away from high level, even knowing half dozen civilian airliners were flying around at 10am - they clearly are far more pragmatic.

the right defensive ROE is
- fire if anyone takes a missile lock from anywhere
- fire on anyone crossing the LOC
- put missile lock if anyone is within 10km on their side

Sid · Post by **Sid** » 11 Apr 2019 11:12

And what about SAM cover? While Migs were launched for interception, how come no F-16s were engaged by SAM batteries. That is supposed to be our first line of defense.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 11 Apr 2019 11:18

We nearly lost multiple fighters

Failure of chain of command to predict pakiness of pakis

harish_ch · Post by **harish_ch** » 11 Apr 2019 11:34

After multiple wars , and numerous attacks on us, if we still fail to understand the pakiness, then it is time for us to seriously introspect. Nobody cares how fair you fought a war, all that counts is the result.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 11 Apr 2019 11:42

this ROE may not be IAFs to choose but dictated by political commands.
its our political leadership who needs to be more agile, ruthless and timely if they want to damage Pak seriously.

SidSoma · Post by **SidSoma** » 11 Apr 2019 11:43

Katare wrote: What Pakis did was another tactical brilliance, in a real war scenario, MKI’s, after evading BVR Missiles fired from the edge of the envelope, would have chased them into their territory and F16 without their AMRAAM would have been in big trouble.

Seems R77 lacks in range by 10-15 KM against AMRAAM and PAF exploited that advantage.

Sorry I am unable to understand how this was Pakin brillance. Shooting Amraams out of the NEZ of the missile is sheer dumbness. Just shows that Pakis dont value the Amraams which were given free.

Can you name one source that suggests that R77 lacks in Range against AMRAAM. This data point cannot be deduced from the fact that IAF did not fire the missile. IAF does not believe that its missiles are powered by djinns.

chola · Post by **chola** » 11 Apr 2019 11:49

Singha wrote:
PAF happily fired away from high level, even knowing half dozen civilian airliners were flying around at 10am - they clearly are far more pragmatic.

Inhumane is the more appropriate term, Singha ji. They take down an airliner with an AAMRAM and they remain the failed sh1t-state and pariah they already are.

The reverse happens and we fall into the sewer with them. Imagine carefully what would happen. No, our ROE come from being humans not pigs. I am glad that they are that way. Being a warrior carries risk. Placing that risk on civilians is not our way. It is theirs but not ours.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 11 Apr 2019 11:56

Katare wrote:
Aditya_V wrote:I dont think this IAF not confident in R77 is true, then IAF would not have ordered soo many SU30 or upgraded MiG 29, Mig 21 to fire R77 or IN would have ordered INS VikramAditya plus Mig 29K. Plus M2000 upgradedversions also didnt fire MICA. Simple reason ROE, once Amraam were fired Su30 had to spoof , by the time they did engagements were amd there no IAf orders to cross the border later and go after PAF aircraft.

https://m.economictimes.com/news/defenc ... 312074.cms
Saar, ROE doesn’t apply anywhere in the world if you are being locked on and fired upon.

What Pakis did was another tactical brilliance, in a real war scenario, MKI’s, after evading BVR Missiles fired from the edge of the envelope, would have chased them into their territory and F16 without their AMRAAM would have been in big trouble.

Seems R77 lacks in range by 10-15 KM against AMRAAM and PAF exploited that advantage.

Lock can happen many times it happened even during Kargil where Mig-29 locked an F-16.

IAF was surprised that PAF not only locked but also fired not one but more than half a dozen of AMRAAM on Su-30MKI ........ Hind sight tells us that PAF came with Plans to kill the MKI as prized assest.

Once you have half a dozen AMRAAM coming towards you , You will be more busy trying to make sure that it does not hit you rather than fire counter BVR.

Thats what MKI did it tried to out manouver/outflank half dozen AMRAAM...............its a miracle he survived not one or 2 buy 7 AMRAAM

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 11 Apr 2019 12:00

yes chola wrong choice of words by me. completely immoral and "willing to do what it takes" is better.

see arabi armies of old always tried to hit high value generals first to demoralize the cohort.
they also sometimes fought on after dark because arrah promised them victory.
they killed prisoners enmasse
they slaughtered civilians in large numbers, carried off women and kids.

the "rajput rules" do not apply to how pak fights. this should be well known and drilled into everyones head.

you cannot fight them with our rules.

sum · Post by **sum** » 11 Apr 2019 12:01

Sid wrote:And what about SAM cover? While Migs were launched for interception, how come no F-16s were engaged by SAM batteries. That is supposed to be our first line of defense.

This is one Q I have been having since the day of the event.

IIRC, we were caught with our pants down and just like in Kargil and 1965, Pakis were able to achieve complete surprise but couldn't get the deal done due to hasty planning/bad execution.
We ourselves admit that a single large tree saved our brigade HQ from being bombed which just shows how lucky we got ( despite having known that a counter attack will come given that we had violated their so-virginity)

nachiket · Post by **nachiket** » 11 Apr 2019 12:05

A lot of these things are only obvious with hindsight. When the PAF fighters showed up on the Su-30's radars, they were still on paki side of LoC, and IAF had no idea what they were planning, whether it was a show of force, probing to check air defences or an actual attack. The Su-30's were heavily outnumbered. Firing first in this scenario was not as obvious then as it might seem now.

And even if they had decided to fire, they wouldn't do that at max engagement range like the PAF did (which doomed their AMRAAMs). Their was also an altitude differential in paki favor.

Aditya_V · Post by **Aditya_V** » 11 Apr 2019 12:13

If you read IAF memoirs, there is talk about how bad they felt that PAF pilot getting hit by Bullet, IAF/MOD and Babudom has always seen air power as escalatory and tried to avoid causing losses to PAF, like in Kargil twice, MIg 29 let F 16's go and M 2000 let a Paki brigadiers Helicopter go are clear examples, there is a correction required in this aspect of IAF Ethos, even in this case they warned the PAF fighters twice.

I think IAF realised that they came to kill our military personal and deceided to get 1 of the attackers, even now in Balakot Pakis are having deniability because we hit a camp away from Civilians. Well next time we should keep quiet and just hit the target. Let the Pakis claim they were hit or not.

A 1000 years of false pity on the enemy and false morality have not taught us the importance of standing together and hitting hard, we doubt everything . No Paki doubts their Amraams or their JF 17 or the Chinese whether thier Pl or PL 15's work, here we are all Kit like a dream, something in our pschye doubts other Indians but belives other's propaganda. In 2017 an AIM 9X II missed a simple Su 22 shoot down, but American posters dont doubt Aim 9's. Really admire Americans/Russians, thier miltary fights in Iraq, Afganistan, Syria but our miltary needs to really goaded to fight at home.

This is due a culture where being aggressive has been curbed. See even now our Media is bashing the Man who ordered 36 Rafales and the man who ordered nothing goes scott free. So those who take initiative and doers are smashed while those who toe the Foreign line are praised to no ends.

Khalsa · Post by **Khalsa** » 11 Apr 2019 12:18

The 6 or so AMRAAMS fired created a temporary curtain that prevent any IAF fighter from ingressing into the area. They knew they had limited time and they moved into drop their bombs etc.

Its quite a standard move .... in a fight to the finish you will follow you BVRs and finish up the battle.

ks_sachin · Post by **ks_sachin** » 11 Apr 2019 12:29

Why do we keep saying WingCo Abhinandantook matters into own hand!

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 11 Apr 2019 12:41

sum wrote:
Sid wrote:And what about SAM cover? While Migs were launched for interception, how come no F-16s were engaged by SAM batteries. That is supposed to be our first line of defense.
This is one Q I have been having since the day of the event.

IIRC, we were caught with our pants down and just like in Kargil and 1965, Pakis were able to achieve complete surprise but couldn't get the deal done due to hasty planning/bad execution.
We ourselves admit that a single large tree saved our brigade HQ from being bombed which just shows how lucky we got ( despite having known that a counter attack will come given that we had violated their so-virginity)

Sum, why do you write such defeatist whines. IAF detected large formations of Paki planes way back, so where is the question of being caught with our pants down and similar whining. Our SOP is to maintain CAP, back it up with QRA and not overreact, otherwise we will end up going insane and broke everytime a Paki formation takes off. As regards a sine large tree etc, this is war. Pakis could have launched a dozen RAADs at a single target and 1-2 would have got through. Aggressor has the initiative in a limited conflict. In all out, things are different.

Nihat · Post by **Nihat** » 11 Apr 2019 12:53

In this particular dog fight they were able to swarm a very limited geographical space with a very high density of combatants thereby achieving temperory superiority. PAF had a very limited point to prove to their awaam that they too can ingress and threaten Indian territory and they managed to achieve that to some extent. Ofcourse they would not have accounted for losing an f-16.

Point is that does the Iaf need to relook at its ROE, especially in a hostile situation. If there is a reason to believe that a large number of boogies will actively threaten our assets, should we engage them in a pre emptive manner.

negi · Post by **negi** » 11 Apr 2019 12:56

SAM at least one can understand as we did not have time to issue a NOTAM and free up the airspace for using medium or long range SAMs (because pakis were still far from ground bases). However RoE thing is obviously either a case of we trying hard to come up with stuff to support a pov or worse if true then a huge oversight and blunder on our part specially after knowing well in advance what was to come after Balakot . Lastly if this RoE was indeed some lakshman rekha why did Wing Co. Abhinandan cross it unlike the MKIs he wasn't even fired upon , his wingman too did not follow him which in my opinion is a huge mistake (bigger than violating a lousy RoE) unless he was pinned down or being engaged (my speculation is Abhi asked him to back off) ; in my opinion if Abhi did violate the RoE he did well . All great things in this world happened when someone thought of doing what needed to be done , those who follow ill thought out gibberish , well we know from day to day life what happens to them.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 11 Apr 2019 13:05

Abhi was cleared to engage, he didnt violate the ROE. He just pressed home his attack *despite* being warned of the risk.

Aditya_V · Post by **Aditya_V** » 11 Apr 2019 13:05

Negi unfortunately , from multiple reports the ROE things seems true, and Wing Commander was warned many times he was crossing LOC by ground personal and his wingman stayed inside and did not fire R-77's.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 11 Apr 2019 13:07

Peacetime ROEs were in place on day of attack, as both sides are not supposed to fire first or come within 25km of border. Info. Tom Cooper got via his Pak sources. However, PAF ignored them and fired first. Also remember both we and Pak routinely play a game of chicken, we surge assets towards the border, and then break off. Pakistan took advantage of this. Stuff happens, you learn from it.

sudhan · Post by **sudhan** » 11 Apr 2019 13:19

Aditya_V wrote:Negi unfortunately , from multiple reports the ROE things seems true, and Wing Commander was warned many times he was crossing LOC by ground personal and his wingman stayed inside and did not fire R-77's.

The radar screen grabs seem to show both the MiG21s across the LoC, chasing after the 4 F16s (if the 2 blue triangles are ours)

Aditya_V · Post by **Aditya_V** » 11 Apr 2019 13:29

Hmm OK. But it does seems A to A fights which boosts PAF morale, which in turn boosts Paki Awam and then leads to Jihadi influx. Hitting the PAF is a huge loss to this complex, hope IAF understands this and ambushes some of the PAF and hopefully some of these planes land on our side, it will be terribly crushing for the Pakis.

sum · Post by **sum** » 11 Apr 2019 13:32

Karan M wrote:Peacetime ROEs were in place on day of attack, as both sides are not supposed to fire first or come within 25km of border. Info. Tom Cooper got via his Pak sources. However, PAF ignored them and fired first. Also remember both we and Pak routinely play a game of chicken, we surge assets towards the border, and then break off. Pakistan took advantage of this. Stuff happens, you learn from it.

Agree .

I believe the next time any PAF fighter tries to get to close to LoC, I would assume a pre-emptive R-77 would be on its tail after this episode

negi · Post by **negi** » 11 Apr 2019 13:33

Karan M wrote:Abhi was cleared to engage, he didnt violate the ROE. He just pressed home his attack *despite* being warned of the risk.

Well which means there was no RoE it cannot exist for some and not for others ; it only means MKIs and others did not engage as I said earlier simply because they were not in a position to as they had been seen before they saw the f-16s and since they had been fired upon and were trying to dodge/manoeuvre out from the NEZ they had no shot (R-77 being similar in range to AIM 120) . Abhi and his wingman sort of sneaked up on the 16s (as clearly evident from various reports) and since he knew he had a good shot he went ahead primarily on his own instincts and conviction he simply informed everyone and off he went (no time to play permission permission in cockpit of a Mach 2 AC that's within Radar range of F-16s) .

Aditya_V · Post by **Aditya_V** » 11 Apr 2019 13:46

Nope, I disagree, ABhi and wingman were post firing of AMRAAM, that incident invalidated ROE's, till the AMRAAM launch ROE was in place. Thats why the M-2000 UPG also did not fire at the JF-17'.

The SU 30 and Phalcon saw the Paki F-16, nobody expected the Pakis to Fire Amraam's at 50-60 KM range which would waste them..

No other Airforce has wasted 5 BVR's in 1 engagement, the Slammer name was sullied.

negi · Post by **negi** » 11 Apr 2019 13:54

^ Err even before Abhi would know of a AIM 120 being fired the MKIs would know before either-way for they were the target not Abhi , point I am making is this RoE is being over emphasised upon no one cares about it . MKIs did not fire as they were not in position to engage it is as simple as that. Abhi did because he had a shot and not because he was waiting for someone to fire at him (he by the way was not fired upon , it has been clearly mentioned in more than one place he and his wingman sneaked up on the 16s)

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 11 Apr 2019 14:23

Aditya_V wrote:
The SU 30 and Phalcon saw the Paki F-16, nobody expected the Pakis to Fire Amraam's at 50-60 KM range which would waste them..

Why is a waste to fire at that range , C5 range is advertised as 90 km plus so its perfectly fine to fire a target at 50-60 km.

AMRAAM like weapon wont fire till it has positive lock on the target even in case of LOAL the weapons computer will compute the best intercept point before it fires.

Even R-73 does not fire till it has a positive lock even if you hold the weapons to fire switch.

AMRAAM needs a MCG post launch and it would be useful to know if F-16's or a pair of it after firing multiple AMRAAM could maintain the track of MKI that knew it was under attack and took manouveres to evade it.

It would be the credit of the pilot that avoided a salvo launch of BVR against it and perhaps even the Ground Operator or AWACS that alerted it .......TVC comes to good effect at this time to shorten your response

chola · Post by **chola** » 11 Apr 2019 14:25

Aditya_V wrote:Hmm OK. But it does seems A to A fights which boosts PAF morale, which in turn boosts Paki Awam and then leads to Jihadi influx. Hitting the PAF is a huge loss to this complex, hope IAF understands this and ambushes some of the PAF and hopefully some of these planes land on our side, it will be terribly crushing for the Pakis.

Mass 200 MKIs with support from hundreds of Bisons, M2Ks, MiG-29's on the border plus POK and draw up their entire F-Solah force of 50-60 for a giant furball. Destroying a good portion of their Falcons will crush them both operationally and morally.

ldev · Post by **ldev** » 11 Apr 2019 14:43

As tsarkar says, what is critical is what altitude the F-16s were when they fired their AMRAAMs vs the SU-30 altitude. From what I remember from the IAF briefing, at least one group of F-16s was at 40,000 feet and went supersonic. At that altitude and speed the AMRAAM would be able to have an effective range of ~100km. The SU-30s on the other hand were at a much lower altitude, 15,000-20,000 feet and so the R-77 would have a much lower range. And that is why the SU-30s could not get a firing solution.

The entire objective of the PAF in the air battle component of the confrontation was to able to down a SU-30 in an aerial engagement, and hence the multiple AMRAAMs targeting the SU-30s, but instead of that they lost a rook(F16) for a pawn (MIG 21)

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 11 Apr 2019 14:44

>> C5 range is advertised as 90 km plus so its perfectly fine to fire a target at 50-60 km.

not against a agile fast fighter target that can recede @ mach2. perhaps they thought the su30s would not detect the launch or keep nose on, giving the missiles a chance.

Chola, i suspect a big anti airbase effort is planned using saaw and cruise missiles. its easier to either kill ac in hangars or render the bases damaged to reduce the threats.

in that respect the line of f16 bases from jacobabad , quetta , peshawar and sargodha are the prime targets. deep behind the line but in our range.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 11 Apr 2019 14:44

what would be the terminal velocity of a amraam @ 100km in a straight line fire?

negi · Post by **negi** » 11 Apr 2019 14:54

Don't know about range thingy I don't think such data is ever shared out in open except for cases where we know of existing AIM 120 intercepts and at what altitude and range were they carried out . However I do agree with Austin's point that the system will give you enough indication as to whether the shot is possible or not in the first place . Now my personal opinion is the biggest variable in this case was not altitude per se but terrain i.e at such long ranges in J&K region you have a good chance of diving low below and break the lock of the tracker , remember AIM 120 radar kicks in only in last ~20km or so prior to that it must have been either one of the F-16s or Eyrie guiding the missile now if F-16 radars were being jammed then only Eyrie was in a position to guide the missile and it was farther north from action and hence would not be able to maintain lock if MKIs managed to bring in a hillock between them and the Eyrie.

Aditya_V · Post by **Aditya_V** » 11 Apr 2019 15:01

negi wrote:Don't know about range thingy I don't think such data is ever shared out in open except for cases where we know of existing AIM 120 intercepts and at what altitude and range were they carried out . However I do agree with Austin's point that the system will give you enough indication as to whether the shot is possible or not in the first place . Now my personal opinion is the biggest variable in this case was not altitude per se but terrain i.e at such long ranges in J&K region you have a good chance of diving low below and break the lock of the tracker , remember AIM 120 radar kicks in only in last ~20km or so prior to that it must have been either one of the F-16s or Eyrie guiding the missile now if F-16 radars were being jammed then only Eyrie was in a position to guide the missile and it was farther north from action and hence would not be able to maintain lock if MKIs managed to bring in a hillock between them and the Eyrie.

If you have played video games, the system typically will put a small dark triangle on the HUD below the Square, the dark triangle will appear only if lock and range parameters are met, however, it will happen outside NEZ also and if the target maneuvers after launch it might escape.