MiG-21 Bison shoots down F-16 in Kashmir

Lalmohan · Post by **Lalmohan** » 13 Mar 2019 14:52

I wouldn't be surprised if sputnik is picking up its latest scoops from this very thread, the timing is always very uncanny!

JTull · Post by **JTull** » 13 Mar 2019 14:58

Lalmohan wrote:I wouldn't be surprised if sputnik is picking up its latest scoops from this very thread, the timing is always very uncanny!

That's why it's so important to maintain the credibility of this forum to change the narrative in our favour. Gone are the days of Rakshaks being just a collection of jingos/fan-boys/armchair-generals/etc. We are at the frontline of looking thru the fog of war and challenging the propaganda war being waged. No wonder so many Rakshaks are on SM too.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 13 Mar 2019 15:12

Khalsa wrote:
ryogi wrote:Apologies if posted previously, but a really good POV of the incident from a neutral viewpoint, also extensive referencing of COPE 2004/05:

http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/26 ... r-bullshit
In all honesty I take and took umbrage at his remarks of us whining that we possibly shot down an F-16.
But I gave him a chance to prove us whineys wrong and what did I end up reading ... detailed accounts of analysis and summarisation from Bharat Rakshak reformatted and re-worded. Fine not all from BR but the Internet as well to supplement his upgrade related info.

Either way, I ended up terming at a damn good drafted and written up click bait.
remember I am only terming it so because he said that we had no proof, i expected a systematic deconstructions of the IAF claims and I got none.

Had he called the article 'Deep Analysis of Mig-21 capabailities vs F-16'
I would have hailed his article.

Well said. There is a deep urge in many folks to get validation from gora saab and this article is being shopped around like crazy because of that. He has just repeated a lot of stuff we already knew on BRF (I must have posted the Bison and Cope stuff a dozen times myself) and he himself hasnt quite understood what the Bisons do. They just dont get into WVR in the exercises, they took active shots from 20 miles out using kopyo and R-77. Furthermore, nor has its radar been changed.. some other errors too, but lets that remain.

Having said that, he at least had the guts and intellectual honesty to admit a F-16 could have been shot down. Many western guys can't get over themselves to discredit the IAF claims.. because MiG-21 .. because F-16. Their ego is firmly in the way.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 13 Mar 2019 15:13

Aditya_V wrote:Can't these journalists use thier sources in the Defense ministry to find the name of the pilot , squadron and put in a tweet, something like Shahbaz Haider , No 19 Squadron etc.

Our MOD/establishment has been too clever by half backslapping each other with how successful the raid was/is, and has completely forgotten about the pys-war, optics part of it.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 13 Mar 2019 15:18

rkhanna wrote:So basically we helped re-train and equip the USAF over the last 15 odd years ?!!

Yes, in a nutshell.

http://vayu-sena.tripod.com/exercise-ia ... cle01.html

Officials from the 3rd Wing at Elmendorf did not provide specifics about how their aircraft fared, but said the experience is causing the service to reevaluate the way it trains its pilots for air-to-air operations.

“What happened to us was it looks like our red air training might not be as good because the adversaries are better than we thought,” Snodgrass said. “And in the case of the Indian Air Force both their training and some of their equipment was better than we anticipated.”

“Red air” refers to the way the Air Force simulates enemy capability in air combat training. Because the service has assumed for years that its fighters are more capable than enemy aircraft, the U.S. pilots that simulate the enemy, known as “red” forces, in air combat training are required to operate under rules that constrain their combat capability.

“We have always believed that our technology was superior to everyone else’s technology, that we would fight a somewhat inferior adversary, so we have had to supply a simulated adversary from our own resources; we call that ‘red air,’” Snodgrass said.

As a result, Air Force pilots are used to flying against an enemy whose combat capability is deliberately limited.

“There are manoeuvering limits as well as weapons employment limits, what we believe enemy aircraft may be able to do with their weapons systems, so we try to simulate that in our own airplane with our own weapons,” Snodgrass explained. “It becomes very complex because instead of using the airplane the way it was designed, you now have to come up with rules of thumb that limit what you do and cause you to not perform . . . the way we really would want to in combat.”

.....................

“What we faced were superior numbers, and an IAF pilot who was very proficient in his aircraft and smart on tactics. That combination was tough for us to overcome,” Neubeck said.

One reason the Indian pilots proved so formidable is that their training regimen does not include a concept of “red air.” Instead, “they fly pretty much blue-on-blue . . . [a] full-up airplane with no restrictions against somebody else’s airplane with no restrictions, and that leads to more proficiency with your aircraft,” Neubeck said.

In addition to reinforcing the need for the F/A-22, therefore, Cope India demonstrated that the service might be able to immediately improve its air combat capability by changing the way Air Force pilots train.

“The Air Force is re-examining, from what I can understand, our concept of red air and how we might be able to provide red air to our fighter forces so that we get [the best] training we can afford,” Snodgrass said.

Neubeck said the service probably needs to “take off the handcuffs that we put on our red air training aids and allow them to be more aggressive and make the red air tougher than we have in the past.”

End result, USAF took some of its handcuffs off its red air regimens and also has all sorts of real world threat aircraft in its inventory.
They also field MiG-29s & Su-27s. Post Cope India, these aircraft would have also received upgrades and been used more aggressively rather than Russian style GCI controlled stuff.

We have learnt a fair bit too. Our BVR tactics got a wake up call when we went up against the French.
But we haven't invested in our fleet as much as we should have.

Lalmohan · Post by **Lalmohan** » 13 Mar 2019 15:33

very little was said after the Adel'A BVR exercises apart from 'we have a lot to learn' - I guess the silence itself was telling...

Khalsa · Post by **Khalsa** » 13 Mar 2019 15:34

Karan M wrote:We have learnt a fair bit too. Our BVR tactics got a wake up call when we went up against the French.
But we haven't invested in our fleet as much as we should have.

Aye, this was a turning point. The french had us pouring the wine that evening after those exercises.
But said that I heard the Mirage squadrons went into over drive to learn BVR tactics as applied in the EU forces and adapted that into the Indian sys and geography.

But yeah, more training is always essential and welcome.

Lalmohan · Post by **Lalmohan** » 13 Mar 2019 16:12

did the French field an awacs during those exercises? garuda?

habal · Post by **habal** » 13 Mar 2019 16:34

If the americans have via the Israelis sold to the yindoos, the key hack against the aim-120c in the spirit of give and take', brotherly cooperation, mutual respect and geostrategics, then the elta jamming pods are the right candidates to carry them. Thus if americans claim that, hey pakistani f16s will not be used against IAF atleast in a2a mode, there is some substance behind that statement.

As the pakjabis have found to their dismay.

This would also then mean. Abhi's MiG-21 as claimed by certain yak herder was not bought down by the aim-120c it was bought down by engine failure via f16 debris ingestion. And thus the carcass of the MiG-21 lay pretty much like it would if it crashed due to engine failure/bird hit anywhere in India, wreckage was all together.

whereas the f16 wreckage and debris would be scattered all over and dispersed over a few kms because it had to bear the brunt of being actually hit by a missile.

think about this possibility.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 13 Mar 2019 17:01

Lalmohan,

Garuda, we fielded Mirage 2000 RDMs against Mirage 2000 RDYs - they "fox"ed active missiles much faster than we did. Second, for safety considerations,we maintained a certain alt "lock" for maneuverability and did not maneuver effectively in the vertical plane. Once they saw it was hurting against the French, we dropped that & things improved. Third, we were again using a fixed ground reference point for all our exercises, the French relied completely on their onboard avionics doing the job. Again, this led to reaction time lags & complex onboard calculation from the IAF guys restricting freedom of maneuver. All the above per memory, from AVM Bhavnani IIRC who wrote about the exercise in IDR or someplace else.

So post exercises, IAF relaxed some restrictions, rechecked how they did things, and went out scouting for upgrades.

Lalmohan · Post by **Lalmohan** » 13 Mar 2019 17:05

thanks - I remember some parts of the above, but useful insights. have we flown su30's against French yet?

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 13 Mar 2019 17:09

Yes, last Garuda. Su-30s against French AF Mirage 2000 Vs and Rafales.

Lilo · Post by **Lilo** » 13 Mar 2019 17:11

Defence Minister Nirmala Sitharaman puts it on record about f16 and confirms what ever we were speculating here about the death of the paki pilot in the hands of Paki awam.Suggest watching full interview.
About the damage done by Balakot strikes starts at 4:30
About the dead Paki pilot starts at 11:49 in the video.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c2a_XuZzp9g

UlanBatori · Post by **UlanBatori** » 13 Mar 2019 19:29

habal wrote: the key hack against the aim-120c i MiG-21 as ~~claimed by certain yak herder~~ stated by the Dunia's most accurate strategic analysis source, was not bought down by the aim-120c it was bought down by engine failure via f16 debris ingestion. And thus the carcass of the MiG-21 lay pretty much like it would if it crashed due to engine failure/bird hit anywhere in India, wreckage was all together.
whereas the f16 wreckage and debris would be scattered all over and dispersed over a few kms because it had to bear the brunt of being actually hit by a missile. think about this possibility.

We have... and that explains a lot of the panic among PA and PN faujis. They have understood that they are not only nook-nood, but air-cover nood. It is like subathing on the terrace at the Binori Madarssa one Sundin, all properly covered in black Pakistant Army Standard Issue burkha and realizing that the drone that just flew across has a Millimeter Wave Camera. Plus the Tricolor and it ain't French

Rishi · Post by **Rishi** » 13 Mar 2019 20:09

Can anyone guess what altitude the F16 was when it took the R73? Supposedly the F16 went vertical when the MiG21 dove at it...and then there was a turning fight?

We know that the MiG21 was at a high altitude when w/c ejected.

Also supposedly the F16 pilot was "badly burnt" when brought in to CMH (source: unreliable pak chatter).. so did he eject at a low level? Any idea how catastrophic a R73 explosion would be? Would it have damaged the chute?

Lalmohan · Post by **Lalmohan** » 13 Mar 2019 20:21

roughly speaking the R73 warhead like many contemporaries explodes in two modes:

1. up the tail pipe and boom against the exhaust chambers and rips out the turbine section, front of the aircraft may be undamaged - this is likely if the Mig got a clean ass-shot by closing in on the rear (either vertical or horizontal)

2. in a circular saw pattern at proximity to the target designed to chew of significant portions of the airframe, again the front of the aircraft may be undamaged - this is likely if it was a hard turning fight with a high off-boresight launch

if the crew bailed out they were not knocked out but could have been hurt, we just don't know the details

MeshaVishwas · Post by **MeshaVishwas** » 13 Mar 2019 20:24

Lalmohan wrote:thanks - I remember some parts of the above, but useful insights. have we flown su30's against French yet?

Adding to Karan's point, we also flew with/against the AdA at Ex Pitch Black.But only the Rafale.
And also this Ex PB used Large Force Employment(LFE) with the TPS77 Radar monitoring the shenanigans.So I'm sure the VayuSena had been practising extra hard to give the GoI options in case of another Paki Terror Attack.

Prem Kumar · Post by **Prem Kumar** » 13 Mar 2019 20:31

Its possible that WC Abhi employed countermeasures and AIM-120 fell for it, but it might have exploded close enough to cause enough damage that he ejected. Might explain why the plane was more or less in one piece when it crashed.

Lalmohan · Post by **Lalmohan** » 13 Mar 2019 20:32

^^^ picture of tail showed lots of shrapnel damage

UlanBatori · Post by **UlanBatori** » 13 Mar 2019 20:34

^^Pieces of F-16s at Mach 0.75 closing speed would do that.. Or expanding R73 debris cloud. But most likely to be The Faithful shooting off their AK-47s as the tail lay in the grass, to practice wedding celebrations and make sure the tail was dead.

Lalmohan · Post by **Lalmohan** » 13 Mar 2019 20:38

or it could be an exploding green djinn or its camel as well

Prem Kumar · Post by **Prem Kumar** » 13 Mar 2019 20:40

If this hypothesis is true, it speaks volumes about our physical & electronic countermeasure capabilities, not to mention pilot situational awareness. He is chasing an F-16 in a vintage aircraft, while another is sending an AIM-120 his way (he was probably a sitting duck). He shoots down the F-16 and almost escapes with his plane.

habal · Post by **habal** » 13 Mar 2019 20:41

As some scenarios right here on beeaareff had speculated the F16 did a vertical high g manouver to shake off the MiG radar lock and in between this if the R73 was fired and it hit the F16 during this vertical high g manouver then debris will surely fall onto/into the chasing MiG.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 13 Mar 2019 20:41

Prem Kumar wrote:Its possible that WC Abhi employed countermeasures and AIM-120 fell for it, but it might have exploded close enough to cause enough damage that he ejected. Might explain why the plane was more or less in one piece when it crashed.

the fuse of the amraam may also have caused it to explode sub optimally. nothing says it is perfect hittile.

SidSoma · Post by **SidSoma** » 13 Mar 2019 20:41

what does it mean when one says a platform is meant for nuke delivery ?? What would be the weight of a Nuke bomb.

manjgu · Post by **manjgu** » 13 Mar 2019 20:43

whats the hitch in naming the PAF pilot??

SidSoma · Post by **SidSoma** » 13 Mar 2019 20:48

manjgu wrote:whats the hitch in naming the PAF pilot??

I Guess that it is the decent thing to allow an AF to name its dead. Yindoos are yindoos

Prem Kumar · Post by **Prem Kumar** » 13 Mar 2019 20:50

Abdul e-R73 Musharrafi

UlanBatori · Post by **UlanBatori** » 13 Mar 2019 20:51

This self-goal speculation keeps going round and round...
The pilot suffered a compressed spine (ejection seat does that to you..) and rib injuries due to attentions of PA. That's it.
No burns, no shrapnel, nothing.
In the absence of IAF confirmation, I HAVE to ask why BRF postors keep parroting the Paki line that they shot the MiG down. First it was "ground fire" which is BS, the planes were too high and too close for anyone, even Pakidiots, to shoot AA. There were no SAM trails.

AMRAAM BVR is silly. Planes were too close and the AMRAAMs had all gone east by the time the MiG-F-16 engagement occurred.

There is no evidence of any "wing-man" etc of the F-16 being anywhere in the vicinity, to fire at close range.
The F-16 did not fire backwards, hain?

So the ONLY things in the air around the MiG at the time were
a) two pakis in parachutes
b) one F-16 exploding
c) Canopy ejected when Pakis ejected (that was clearly long before the R-73 struck)
d) Pakis' seats may have separated from their butts and been floating around
e) R-73 missile's exhaust
But STILL... people keep parroting the same line.

Of course if IAF's COI concludes conclusively then we will read it and think about it.

Lalmohan · Post by **Lalmohan** » 13 Mar 2019 20:52

Prem Kumar wrote:...in a vintage aircraft...

no sir, its a low observable, high speed, high powered, high agility, first rate dogfighter souped up with 4G digital systems and a complete mofo of a helmet sight controlled viper of a missile - ready to eat F16's for breakfast

Prem Kumar · Post by **Prem Kumar** » 13 Mar 2019 20:58

UlanBatori wrote: In the absence of IAF confirmation, I HAVE to ask why BRF postors keep parroting the Paki line that they shot the MiG down

Wogay. I am happy with this theory. Sounds plausible.

habal · Post by **habal** » 13 Mar 2019 20:58

I think it is inability to connect the dots and an opinion that meetings between countries just imply exchange of pleasantries and chai biskoot.

It is highly likely that USA has sold pakistanis with amraam missiles with some backdoor hack that can prevent these missiles being used against NATO/US platforms engaged in noble objectives in pakistani airspace. If they share this with India via Israel then it doesnt compromise amraam platform just the pakjabi amraams.

It would be the logical thing for them to do.

SidSoma · Post by **SidSoma** » 13 Mar 2019 21:08

habal wrote:I think it is inability to connect the dots and an opinion that meetings between countries just imply exchange of pleasantries and chai biskoot.

It is highly likely that USA has sold pakistanis with amraam missiles with some backdoor hack that can prevent these missiles being used against NATO/US platforms engaged in noble objectives in pakistani airspace. If they share this with India via Israel then it doesnt compromise amraam platform just the pakjabi amraams.

It would be the logical thing for them to do.

Yes we Yindoos are to fear that Khan can do nothing wrong. So when Rambha does her dance and confuses the already crappy (its on record that it is crap) AIM 120, it has to be because 1) Either we have a back door or (2) The AIM does a U turn when it crosses the LOC.

All Hail the Great Khan and his infallable missiles

MeshaVishwas · Post by **MeshaVishwas** » 13 Mar 2019 21:09

Insha Ganesha, we will see another picture of a MiG21 shooting off a CCM but this time against the Ayf Sola.
#Memories

Also I think the Yak Herder has the most logical point regarding the engagement.
UBCN should be free to Air on our D2H.

sudeepj · Post by **sudeepj** » 13 Mar 2019 21:17

Does the AMRAAM version with Pakistan have a mechanically scanned active seeker? That appears to be the case..

http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/26 ... r-bullshit

This article says that the 8222 Elta jammer is especially effective against mechanically scanned radar antennae. If this is correct, an Indo-Pak air battle will almost always get down to WVR range regardless of the AMRAAM usage. AMRAAM is not going to be an effective weapon in the Indo-Pak context.

SidSoma · Post by **SidSoma** » 13 Mar 2019 21:29

sudeepj wrote:Does the AMRAAM version with Pakistan have a mechanically scanned active seeker? That appears to be the case..

http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/26 ... r-bullshit

This article says that the 8222 Elta jammer is especially effective against mechanically scanned radar antennae. If this is correct, an Indo-Pak air battle will almost always get down to WVR range regardless of the AMRAAM usage. AMRAAM is not going to be an effective weapon in the Indo-Pak context.

Without shivering, the SD10 - PL12 BVR of the JF-17 is to be validated. However it is highly suspect that, given its longer range as compared to AMRAAM, it was not used here. Something tells me that PAF has very little confidence in it.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 13 Mar 2019 21:36

all the amraams have a mechanically scanned planar antenna with gymbal.

from ausairpower.net

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 13 Mar 2019 21:41

despite all the claims did JF17 ever get the selex RC400 radar?

wiki has it using a neutered KLJ-7 radar. that radar and SD-10 wont compare well with the APG68v9 + Amraam C5 .... its not even sure if the redoubable SD10 is on the JF17 at all. are there pix?

VikramS · Post by **VikramS** » 13 Mar 2019 21:54

The twitter video which shows both the white puffs from the F-16, and the second explosion (Mig21) shows the contrails of the weapon which hit the 2nd aircraft.

And given the structural integrity of the Mig21 it was not a direct hit but a proximity hit.

UlanBatori · Post by **UlanBatori** » 14 Mar 2019 01:11

1st smoke puff may be the F-16 ejection seats exiting - before any weapon hit them. The contrail may be R73..

Ppl assume that F-16 pilots jumped AFTER missile exploded. I think that is quite wrong. The trail IIRC was a straight line heading across the sky with a puff here and a puff there.

Think about it: MiG on tail: locks. Fires. Would the F-16 not be expected to try a sharp maneuver to get away? Would they just sail on until the missile came into the tailpipe and exploded? Yet it looks like that is what happened. Reason is that the F-16 was empty: the brave TFTA herrows had already bailed out as soon as they realized that their up-down maneuvers were not effective: the Vishnu Chakra was still on their tail. A cockpit ejection esp a double one would put out quite a puff of smoke from the explosive rocket-powered liftoff.

UBCN lesson: NEVER underestimate the creepiness of Pakis.