MiG-21 Bison shoots down F-16 in Kashmir

The Military Issues & History Forum is a venue to discuss issues relating to the military aspects of the Indian Armed Forces, whether the past, present or future. We request members to kindly stay within the mandate of this forum and keep their exchanges of views, on a civilised level, however vehemently any disagreement may be felt. All feedback regarding forum usage may be sent to the moderators using the Feedback Form or by clicking the Report Post Icon in any objectionable post for proper action. Please note that the views expressed by the Members and Moderators on these discussion boards are that of the individuals only and do not reflect the official policy or view of the Bharat-Rakshak.com Website. Copyright Violation is strictly prohibited and may result in revocation of your posting rights - please read the FAQ for full details. Users must also abide by the Forum Guidelines at all times.
Post Reply
nachiket
Forum Moderator
Posts: 9102
Joined: 02 Dec 2008 10:49

Re: MiG-21 Bison shoots down F-16 in Kashmir

Post by nachiket »

Cain Marko wrote:
nachiket wrote:[
This also shows how badly the RoE's can affect you. .
That's my take too. The roe was quite defensive. I don't see why mkis wouldn't have let loose first if roe allowed. With bars and r77 and esp. R27s they surely have first look/shot.
There would be other considerations like I mentioned. Altitude and speed disadvantage (which the early reports talked about) and the numbers. Last thing the MKI pilots would want is to run out of missiles. There were too many bandits opposite them. Even the strike configured F-16's might have been carrying a couple of AMRAAMs each.

The attacker has another advantage in cases like this. All their aircraft are perfectly configured and fueled for the exact mission they are tasked with. The defender is flying round the clock CAP's not knowing when and where exactly the attack will come from. Defending aircraft may not be at the best fuel state when the engagement happens while being outnumbered at the same time. The ordnance they carry may be limited because carrying around 10-12 AAM's on every Su-30 sortie will use up the carriage hours of IAF's missile stocks very quickly. Same with EW pods which are expensive and will be available in limited quantity.
Aditya_V
BRF Oldie
Posts: 14332
Joined: 05 Apr 2006 16:25

Re: MiG-21 Bison shoots down F-16 in Kashmir

Post by Aditya_V »

Karan M wrote:
So how would Abhi know who targeted Sq Ldr Vyas who by several accounts had already listened to the GCI input and had broken off? Abhi was jammed.

The theory you propose has multiple loopholes, and that's the basic issue. There is no point in firing R77s against retreating fighters at supersonic unless there is a high chance of success, their firing envelope decreases drastically. The RMax against non manuevering targets, rear profile targets is 1/4th that of the head on range!

You are making multiple assumptions here about who chose to fire what as if all guys know who is targeting whom, and they know which specific fighter has done so and so forth. This is not how it happens in real life (at least not until we get mega-datalinks) unless both pilots are regularly conversing and operating as a team. The RWRs arent networked. So how would Abhi know who targeted Sq Ldr Vyas who by several accounts had already listened to the GCI input and had broken off? Abhi was jammed.

Furthermore, there is no mention in the IAF VrC commendation of all this.
“Displaying exceptional air combat acumen and knowledge of the enemy’s tactics, Abhinandan scanned the low altitude airspace with his airborne intercept (AI) radar and picked up an enemy aircraft that was flying low to ambush the Indian fighter interceptor aircraft… Abhinandan alerted the other formation pilots towards this surprise threat,” the citation said.

“He then consolidated the riposte, by gathering his wingman in an offensive formation against the hostile Pakistani aircraft now dropping weapons on Indian Army positions. This audacious and aggressive maneuver forced the enemy aircraft into tactical chaos,” it further said.

The citation said the wing commander then pursued a retreating enemy fighter bomber aircraft and in the ensuing aerial combat, shot down an F-16. “However, in the melee, one of the enemy aircraft fired multiple advanced BVR missiles, one of which hit his aircraft forcing him to eject in enemy territory.”
1. Ambush the fighter interceptor craft - likely the Su-30s or other Bison themselves. Alerted them, ergo that was dealt with.
2. Wingman and him both, moved towards the F-16s engaged in the LGB attacks. Disrupted their attack, and they ran.
3. Pursued the retreating aircraft and shot down a F-16 (not necessarily the one that threatened the wingman or the one they were chasing either). Got shot down in turn. Note there is no mention of any HMS usage etc in WVR either. This was likely driven completely by the tone in the headset from the R73E seeker.



Ergo, all this conjecture is just unproven.

How about we acknowledge the true expert was the guy in the cockpit and he decided to choose the right weapon for his task, which functioned as intended. That's all we can say for sure.

What we can understand from the above.

Abhi was the lead, he was using his radar, at least intermittently - providing the info outwards (voice comms) and focused on his task, decided to chase after the broken F-16 strike, didn't hear the instructions to break off (which Sq Ldr Vyas did and broke off), and on his radar saw a potential target of oppty (likely closing in), activated his R73E, got tone, launched, and then cut and run. All this while his RWR would have been buzzing non stop with F-16 tones and that of the AEW&CS. So he knew the risk, and took it. As he was cutting and running, an AMRAAM hit his aircraft, either from the F-16 he had targeted or another one. As Vyas was racing back, he too took an AMRAAM shot either from the same F-16 Abhi hit or another one and outran the missile.

That's all the information we have so far. So if Abhi had sought to protect Vyas by targeting the F-16 attacking it in turn, why would IAF not release it. So clearly, Abhi has no claimed this. Its more likely he saw a F-16 turn hot or come in targeting range, become a threat and took the shot.
Karan M- some of things you posted and IAF citation does indeed confirm my theory, but some of things posted by you are clearly wrong

1. So how would Abhi know who targeted Sq Ldr Vyas who by several accounts had already listened to the GCI input and had broken off? Abhi was jammed.

This is simply false, Squadron leader as a wingman did not turn back leaving his leader alone in POK, it was only after Wing Commander Abhinandan was hit, evidence?- IAF presentation video, POK Mirpur video - in both IAf presentation- you can see the 2nd Bison was with its leader in IAF presentation and PAF Mirpur video which was uploaded(possibly earlier part of the video would have shown the F16 coming down and hence edited) only when 1 Mig-21 Bison was hit - probably some seconds before, at 16 to 22 seconds you can see contrail of an aircraft turning engaging afterburner burners turning in a North east direction, another aircraft fires a missile 1 minute later at the aircraft which just turned and left.
This jamming story is a PAF myth, Squadron Leader Vyas did not turn back until Wing Commander Aircraft was hit.


2. Regarding my 2nd contention Wing Commander Abhinandan decided to Hit F-16 because it was waiting at low altitude and was Targeting both Mig 21 Bisons or any aircraft crossing the LOC- ok may my RWR theory was wrong - the F16 which went down might have launched Amraam in TWS mode, but the IAF citation clearly mentions the following

- Displaying exceptional air combat acumen and knowledge of the enemy’s tactics, Abhinandan scanned the low altitude airspace with his airborne intercept (AI) radar and picked up an enemy aircraft that was flying low to ambush the Indian fighter interceptor aircraft… Abhinandan alerted the other formation pilots towards this surprise threat,” the citation said.- So clearly he was not Jammed and decided to engage the PAF aircraft which was ambushing IAF aircraft

-“He then consolidated the riposte, by gathering his wingman in an offensive formation against the hostile Pakistani aircraft now dropping weapons on Indian Army positions. This audacious and aggressive maneuver forced the enemy aircraft into tactical chaos,” it further said.This is line with my theory that the Mig 21 Bisons messed by the LGB strike by 3 PAF F16 at BHQ Rajouri

-The citation said the wing commander then pursued a retreating enemy fighter bomber aircraft and in the ensuing aerial combat, shot down an F-16. “However, in the melee, one of the enemy aircraft fired multiple advanced BVR missiles, one of which hit his aircraft forcing him to eject in enemy territory.”

PLEASE NOTE- I never criticized Wing Commander Abhinandan and was praising Him, His IAF training- please read all my previous posts, I only criticized the ROE and GOI/MEA which possibly tied the Hands of the IAF .


So in my theory following are the facts

1. Wing Commander and Squandron leader Vyas messed up with 3 F16 dropping LGB at IA BHQ
2. 1 F-16 which was lying in Ambush below the Pir Panjals altitude trying to shoot down any IAF aircraft - this was a "surprise threat" - mentioned in IAf citation
3. Wing Commander Abhinandan alerted all pilots to this threat- mentioned in IAF citation So the Ttufails and PAF and Pak Pasand jamming theory goes into the dustbin-

4. Similarly IAF presentation shows Squadron leader Vyas was across the LOC with Wing Commander ,PAF Mirpur video show Squadron leader Vyas turned back only Wing Commander aircraft was hit that too a good 20-30 seconds later and not before he was hit, another 1 minute later after he has turned back engaging afterburners another aircraft fires a missile at him- this was the Amraam recovered from South of the Pir Panjal in J&K Reasi district. Again PAF and Pak pasand theory that Wing Commander was jammed and hence only Squadron leader turned back before crossing the LOC- this should go into the dustbin.

Now the conjecture in my theory

1. That R-77's were not fired due to ROE and non escalation and the Bisons merely wanted a mission kill at the 3 attacking F-16's dropping LGB by stopping them to lase the targets- it is possible the Pilots/IAF were not sure of what exactly PAF was doing at that time.

What supports my theory, IAF presentation and citation- we know the F-16 at low altitude lying in ambush was not detected until later by Wing Commander Abhinandan who alerted the rest of the IAF. From the IAf presentation the Mig 21 Bisons were really close the F-16's when they did the mission kill- at beast 8-12 KM, I think even in a tail chase mode given the Mig 21 Bisons came at good altitude and speed and targeted these 3 F-16's - I am sure if Kopyo can guide more than 1 R-77 at the time - there was a very good PK R-77 shot at the turning and retreating F-16's - why did the Mig 21 Bisons not do it- I suppose a real world Pilot can answer this- but till then unless there is a clear answer the GOI ROE is the most likely answer
Last edited by Aditya_V on 04 Apr 2021 12:49, edited 3 times in total.
Aditya_V
BRF Oldie
Posts: 14332
Joined: 05 Apr 2006 16:25

Re: MiG-21 Bison shoots down F-16 in Kashmir

Post by Aditya_V »

For reference I posting the 3 relevant videos

1. Nikhil Gokale and Air Marshal Sinha video

2. IAF presentaion video

3 POK Mirpur video





Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21538
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: MiG-21 Bison shoots down F-16 in Kashmir

Post by Philip »

Good analysis Adit. It does appear that the GOI wanted to teach Pak a lesson,Balakot, and not escalate matters further into a free-for-all where it is common knowledge that both sides cannot fight an all-out war for more than a week with disastrous eco. consequences. The scale of the Paki riposte certainly was not anticipated ,but their plans came to naught because of our airborne AEW defence and professionalism of our pilots ,where but for Abhi's Bison, none of the other aircraft,MKIs, etc. fell foul of the PAF's AMRAAMS.
VikramS
BRFite
Posts: 1885
Joined: 21 Apr 2002 11:31

Re: MiG-21 Bison shoots down F-16 in Kashmir

Post by VikramS »

Radar Guides missiles have higher range, but require multiple systems to work in cohesion to succeed. As such they are not stealthy since both the targeting radars and the missile's own terminal radars will be detected, giving the targeted aircraft an early warning. In the Swift Retort context with almost two dozen aircraft up in the air, the EW jammers would have been actively operating.

The IR guided missiles have a shorter range, but are more stealthy and harder to evade when used properly. Since they have no active emissions, the target aircraft has little early warning signals of a potential launch but for their own IR sensors. As long the target aircraft is not flying with the sun in the background, an IR missile will likely get a good lock and be harder to evade.

In the WingCO's context, the sun was behind the missile, the missile's seeker had clear blue skies to paint the target against, the target aircraft was turning in to the firing aircraft, making it more of a head-on shot, which would have limited the effectiveness of any tail-fired flares.

In the particular context the IR shot was a higher kill probability shot than what any Radar Guided shot may have been.
Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 20773
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: MiG-21 Bison shoots down F-16 in Kashmir

Post by Karan M »

Aditya_V wrote: Karan M- some of things you posted and IAF citation does indeed confirm my theory, but some of things posted by you are clearly wrong
No it doesn't. Your theory re: R77s, ROE and what not,has enough loopholes in to drive a truck through, and most of the things you have claimed are wrong, based on a flawed understanding of the topic in question.
1. So how would Abhi know who targeted Sq Ldr Vyas who by several accounts had already listened to the GCI input and had broken off? Abhi was jammed.

This is simply false, Squadron leader as a wingman did not turn back leaving his leader alone in POK, it was only after Wing Commander Abhinandan was hit, evidence?- IAF presentation video, POK Mirpur video - in both IAf presentation- you can see the 2nd Bison was with its leader in IAF presentation and PAF Mirpur video which was uploaded(possibly earlier part of the video would have shown the F16 coming down and hence edited) only when 1 Mig-21 Bison was hit - probably some seconds before, at 16 to 22 seconds you can see contrail of an aircraft turning engaging afterburner burners turning in a North east direction, another aircraft fires a missile 1 minute later at the aircraft which just turned and left.
This jamming story is a PAF myth, Squadron Leader Vyas did not turn back until Wing Commander Aircraft was hit.
One cant just make up a theory, ignoring the facts as they stand - jamming story is not a PAF myth. There are multiple reports that state that communications jamming was occurring and Abhi had issues with it.

What in the IAF presentation video are you talking of? Even in the video you have linked it does not back up your statement. All it shows is the F-16 positioning and how one disappeared.

Lets have some proper sources of the event next.

AM Subramanian - Full Spectrum, India's Wars after 1971
AM Subramanian's accounts of the conflict clearly states "Even as A approached the LOC at top speed, Agarwal ordered him to go cold, he missed the instruction possibly because of PAF's communication jamming?
AM Hari Kumar , Hit and Run, Feb 2020

AM Hari Kumar notes:
The PAF ensured that they did not cross the International Boundary or the Line of Actual Control. Two MiG-21 Bisons, flown by Wing Commander Abhinandan Varthaman and Squadron Leader Vyas, were scrambled from Srinagar at 10:03am for the package on the Poonch axis. On reaching the sector, Abhinandan spotted enemy aircraft at low level, and the radar informed him that all aircraft to his west were hostile. He went for the target in contact on close combat mode with R-75 missiles.

The radar had asked the formation to turn back because of the threat developing on them. Vyas heard the call and turned around. Jammers prevented Abhinandan from getting the call. In the melee, it is presumed that the Bison shot down an F-16D, while breaking off from the attack.

Three, communication jamming was a vulnerability. The IAF has been crying hoarse for years for securing communications and progressing the case for operational data link. The case has got traction now.
What now? Are both people with far greater awareness and sources re: the incident in question peddling a PAF myth?
2. Regarding my 2nd contention Wing Commander Abhinandan decided to Hit F-16 because it was waiting at low altitude and was Targeting both Mig 21 Bisons or any aircraft crossing the LOC- ok may my RWR theory was wrong - the F16 which went down might have launched Amraam in TWS mode, but the IAF citation clearly mentions the following

- Displaying exceptional air combat acumen and knowledge of the enemy’s tactics, Abhinandan scanned the low altitude airspace with his airborne intercept (AI) radar and picked up an enemy aircraft that was flying low to ambush the Indian fighter interceptor aircraft… Abhinandan alerted the other formation pilots towards this surprise threat,” the citation said.- So clearly he was not Jammed and decided to engage the PAF aircraft which was ambushing IAF aircraft
You dont seem to understand the issue in question at all.

The PAF engaged in communications jamming. That was the point under debate. Second, just because the PAF tries other jamming does not mean it will always be effective! Even communications and other jamming can be intermittently successful depending on the power levels deployed, the equipment on both sides and the orientation of the jammer vis a vis the targets.

Secondly, one does not need TWS mode alone to launch the AMRAAM. A "TWS like" mode is sufficient. Net, you don't need lock-on with ARHs, only with SARHs.
-“He then consolidated the riposte, by gathering his wingman in an offensive formation against the hostile Pakistani aircraft now dropping weapons on Indian Army positions. This audacious and aggressive maneuver forced the enemy aircraft into tactical chaos,” it further said.This is line with my theory that the Mig 21 Bisons messed by the LGB strike by 3 PAF F16 at BHQ Rajouri

-The citation said the wing commander then pursued a retreating enemy fighter bomber aircraft and in the ensuing aerial combat, shot down an F-16. “However, in the melee, one of the enemy aircraft fired multiple advanced BVR missiles, one of which hit his aircraft forcing him to eject in enemy territory.”

PLEASE NOTE- I never criticized Wing Commander Abhinandan and was praising Him, His IAF training- please read all my previous posts, I only criticized the ROE and GOI/MEA which possibly tied the Hands of the IAF .


The basic things are this. We wanted to hit and walk away with a war. That was how the entire game was played. This was from the very top of the GOI. We did it. The ROE issue was in part because of that and specifically said aircraft up to 10 km of the border could be allowed.

The PAF stayed behind that and began their attack taking potshots with BVR missiles. Can't expect the GOI or MEA to know the intricacies of BVR Missiles.

Once that started, there was no ROE which said we couldnt retaliate.

AM Hari Kumar notes:

Five, clear rules of engagement are important in less-than-war situations. These rules need to be reviewed quickly.

With stand-off ranges increasing, involving air power for sub-conventional operations will open more windows of conflict and conflict resolution. Today’s rule is that military planes should not operate less than 10km from the border. At normal speeds, this distance can be covered in less than a minute. The issue gets compounded with induction of weapon systems which have assured stand-off ranges, like the Meteor missile (which has a range of more than 100km), SCALP (300km) or S-400 (380 km), with AWACS giving cross-border visibility of 450km. Thus, the fight could take place without crossing the border. We need to remember that it works both ways.


That's the ROE. So where is your theory that we couldn't fire back once fired upon or use R-77s coming from? What is this magical theory that states that R-73 can be used but not R-77?

So in my theory following are the facts

1. Wing Commander and Squandron leader Vyas messed up with 3 F16 dropping LGB at IA BHQ
2. 1 F-16 which was lying in Ambush below the Pir Panjals altitude trying to shoot down any IAF aircraft - this was a "surprise threat" - mentioned in IAf citation
3. Wing Commander Abhinandan alerted all pilots to this threat- mentioned in IAF citation So the Ttufails and PAF and Pak Pasand jamming theory goes into the dustbin-
4. Similarly IAF presentation shows Squadron leader Vyas was across the LOC with Wing Commander ,PAF Mirpur video show Squadron leader Vyas turned back only Wing Commander aircraft was hit that too a good 20-30 seconds later and not before he was hit, another 1 minute later after he has turned
back engaging afterburners another aircraft fires a missile at him- this was the Amraam recovered from South of the Pir Panjal in J&K Reasi district. Again PAF and Pak pasand theory that Wing Commander was jammed and hence only Squadron leader turned back before crossing the LOC- this should go into the dustbin.

Now the conjecture in my theory

1. That R-77's were not fired due to ROE and non escalation and the Bisons merely wanted a mission kill at the 3 attacking F-16's dropping LGB by stopping them to lase the targets- it is possible the Pilots/IAF were not sure of what exactly PAF was doing at that time.


You are just making claims here without facts.

AM Hari Kumar clearly notes he used his radar and used the weapon appropriate to the situation. I dont know why you are so obsessed with R77. What was so great about using the R77 when a better weapon for the task was available?

R77 use is escalation and R73E is not? What kind of logic is this? What do you think the Su-30s were trying to use against the F-16s if not R-77 and R-27?

What supports my theory, IAF presentation and citation- we know the F-16 at low altitude lying in ambush was not detected until later by Wing Commander Abhinandan who alerted the rest of the IAF. From the IAf presentation the Mig 21 Bisons were really close the F-16's when they did the mission kill- at beast 8-12 KM, I think even in a tail chase mode given the Mig 21 Bisons came at good altitude and speed and targeted these 3 F-16's - I am sure if Kopyo can guide more than 1 R-77 at the time - there was a very good PK R-77 shot at the turning and retreating F-16's - why did the Mig 21 Bisons not do it- I suppose a real world Pilot can answer this- but till then unless there is a clear answer the GOI ROE is the most likely answer


Again and again, you are making up the facts to suit your conjecture. There is no ROE issue when they have fired on us! We could fire back anytime.

The Su-30s repeatedly tried to close in with the F-16s, what weapons do you think they were trying to use?

Do you have the R77 performance against receding supersonic targets? You have been given this.

Its 1/4th of 80 km, i.e. 20 km vs receding targets which are not even maneuvering.

How much do you think it would be vs supersonic targets which had turned around and were dashing back?

You are sure there is a high Pk shot - without any data whatsoever to back it up. And without this data, you are insisting R77 should have been used and if it wasn't, its not because the actual expert i.e. the pilot didnt choose to use it, but ROE.

When Abhi was chasing the F-16s, he knew the information about R77 and most MRAAM limitations, they don't function too well against supersonic receding targets! His aircraft dynamic weapons launch indication on his HUD would have shown him this. Plus his own awareness of their limitations against alert targets when they were kinematically disadvantaged to begin with. Again, his tactical choice to make!

Once he thought he was close enough to take a shot, vs the PAF's BARCAP, AM Hari Kumar's comment clearly notes that once Abhi used his radar he saw all the aircraft to his west were hostile, switched his radar to CCM to get the right information and moved to R-73E. That's his tactical choice to make!

Please lets not try to second guess that and mix it up with ROE of all things and blame the GOI.
Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 20773
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: MiG-21 Bison shoots down F-16 in Kashmir

Post by Karan M »

What's bizarre is you can't even make out what your own videos state, given that they only show Abhinandan's aircraft and not his wingman or anyone else.

https://theprint.in/defence/8-pieces-of ... 16/278752/

MiG-21 vs F-16’

Reconstructing the AIR COMBAT ENGAGEMENT over PoK between 1020 to 1045 hours
Wing Commander Abhinandan Varthaman crossed over to PoK sometime after 1020 hours, flying at 0.9 Mach at an altitude of 15,000 feet. He spotted targets on his Kopyo radar in search mode at 30–35 km, higher at 30–35,000 feet. He switched to close combat (CC) mode on course 290 (deg) and sweeped (cover a specified Field of View from the nose) the area ahead to pick anything closer. He was climbing. His approximate position is as shown in the radar picture shared by the Indian Air Force.

Abhinandan was callsign ‘Alpha-1’. At this stage his No. 2 (Alpha-2) had turned back and was back in Indian territory.

Coincidentally, the PAF Barrier Combat Air Patrol (BARCAP) at that time, may also have had the call sign ‘Alpha’.

Tens of minutes before that 2 x 4 aircraft F-16 formations (total 8 aircraft) of 9 Sqn (Griffins) and 29 Sqn- CCS (Aggressors), both from Sargodha AFB had performed Offensive Counter Air (OCA) Missions at the LoC, where they had fired 4–5 AIM-120C-5 missiles against IAF Su-30MKIs, claiming a Su-30MKI kill. Two formations (C/S Bravo & Charlie) had fallen back around 1017 hours and the third (Alpha) now formed the BARCAP in depth. These were controlled by a Saab ERIEYE AEW&C aircraft, Callsign — ‘Vigil’. Alpha 1–4 (all probably from 29 Sqn-CCS) were the 4 x F-16s which the IAF radar picture showed.

According to sources in the IAF, the call sign of the aircraft which went down in PoK that day was ‘Alpha-3’. This is according to PAF’s R/T intercept, wherein after this sharp engagement, Callsign Alpha-3, never responded back on any communication channel.

As Abhinandan was looking for targets in CC mode, he got a missile seeker head lock. Important to note, it was not a radar assisted Lock, but a missile head Lock — which picked up a heat emitting target out to 30 km within its 30 deg field of view.

Abhinandan fired his missile while on course 280 at 20,000 feet, turning northwards and finally settling down on an eastern heading towards Jhangar in J&K for a getaway.
Note what the above states. He chose a missile head lock - a completely passive solution!

Both your claims are based on a flawed understanding of the issue. You can't chase down supersonic fighters in tail chase and then attack them with MRAAMs assuming a high Pk, especially if there is significant distance between you and the target already when your missile has a limited range in the scenario as it is (>20 km).

And if you go for other targets which are not receding but approaching, using MRAAMs can alert them, and there are better choices available if you have closed in enough for a passive BVR shot.

If if was your claim that Sq Ldr Agarwal saw the F-16s turn hot and warned both Abhi and his Wingman to turn away, and due to comms jamming Wingman did, but Abhi did not, then the story would have at least made sense because that's in line with how the situation would have developed.

Given the speeds involved, Abhi would have been ahead while his wingman was already breaking away and both sides taking shots. The air combat paradigm does not allow for delay whatsoever and hence it is arguable that while Sq Ldr Vyas should have maintained his wingman position, his actions were exactly what were necessary to save his aircraft and his going cold achieved that. Abhi didn't hear it and went ahead.

But you didn't claim this either. Based on your own conjecture you stated that Sq Ldr Vyas accompanied Abhinandan, saw him getting shot, then turned around and dashed away! As if the times involved with oncoming AMRAAMs would have allowed him to do so.

Next you claimed that Abhi fired R73Es only when he saw Vyas was targeted and some ROE would have otherwise prevented him from opening fire. Again, no such ROE and no such claim anyplace!

And nor does the R77 story makes no sense whatsoever nor does the ROE theory.

All this is your own conjecture, your own theory, without a single fact backing it up, and in the process you are accusing the GOI/MEA and who knows what else for no reason.

The only ROE was that aircraft could approach till 10 km of the border without being fired upon and the PAF exploited this given the BVR angle. Instead you have diverted the topic into some wild goose chase.
Aditya_V
BRF Oldie
Posts: 14332
Joined: 05 Apr 2006 16:25

Re: MiG-21 Bison shoots down F-16 in Kashmir

Post by Aditya_V »

Karan_M .This is quite unnecessary, I have been saying from the beginning that the F16 was shot down with with HMCS cued shot, the F16 pick as a "suprise" in the IAF citation was by Wing Commander using his Radar in Ambush position. One day when we get the official information from the relevant memoirs we will know whether no R77 shot by Mig 21 Bison was due to pure technical parameters or the ROE in place. I have put view. You have another view, until the real world people in the know put out the truth I guess I am leaving it at this.

I said both Mig 21 Bisons were targeted by the F16 in ambush position after they crossed LOC, realizing the danger Wing Commander selected R73 missile cued it with HMS and got the kill. Squadron leader Vyas was with him at this point and turned only after Wing Commander Abhinandan was shot down. My previous posts have exactly state this.
Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 18259
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: MiG-21 Bison shoots down F-16 in Kashmir

Post by Rakesh »

Aditya: We have gone through 100 pages in this thread. What is the need to rehash the same issue over and over? Unless some new info comes up, it is best left alone.

The IAF did what it had to do. Just leave it and move on.
Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 20773
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: MiG-21 Bison shoots down F-16 in Kashmir

Post by Karan M »

Aditya_V wrote:Karan_M .This is quite unnecessary,
What is quite unnecessary? My posting actual, factual sources to show that literally everything you have claimed so far is incorrect, merely to prevent folks from making incorrect assumptions about what occurred?

Lets recap.

1. You claimed that some ROE existed which prevented the R77 from being used, and this was a GOI/MEA issue.

Status: False. No such thing. Only a fly 10 km away from the border rule which Pakis violated.

2. You claimed that R77 would have a high Pk solution vs receding F-16s, which were likely flying supersonic.

Status: False. The R77 and any MRAAM would struggle against such targets when its range against receding, non maneuvering targets is a fourth of the regular one.

3. You claimed that Abhi knew that Sq Ldr Vyas was targeted so Abhi engaged the F16s as a defensive measure.

Status: False, there is no confirmation of this or mention of this. He engaged the targets which were available via his radar scope, and missile seeker lock. He didn't even know Sq Ldr Vyas had broken off. Both of them were targeted and there is no mention Abhi even spoke to Vyas about taking on a F-16 which had targeted him and not Abhi.

4. You claimed Sq Ldr Vyas was there all along and left only when he saw Abhinandan shot down.

Status: False. He had already broken off since he got the warning from GCI (Sq Ldr Agarwal) about crossing the LOC and that F-16s had turned hot.

5. You claimed comms jamming was a PAF myth

Status: False. Multiple sources corroborate communications jamming occurred and was likely why Abhi didnt hear the message.

6. You claimed the IAF presentation video shows Abhi and Vyas together

Status: False. It only shows one MiG-21 vs the F-16s. Clearly indicating the wingman had left by then.

Image

Can you show me Sq Ldr Vyas in this picture? If you claim its the orange icon at the bottom, guess what it's receding even further away in the 2nd frame indicating he has turned and is leaving. There is no icon next to Abhinandan. Your claim is incorrect.

Now yet another claim emerges:
I have been saying from the beginning that the F16 was shot down with with HMCS cued shot, the F16 pick as a "suprise" in the IAF citation was by Wing Commander using his Radar in Ambush position.


Again, more mixing up of the terms you are even using. This is the RWR issue all over again.

Do you understand that the HMCS is used for targets in the visual domain which the pilot can already see? That a pilot has to *see a target*, lock the HMCS on it, and then that slews the seeker and missile accordingly for a shot! There is no mention of this.

He went for a seeker activated shot! All he did was uncage the seeker and let it "growl" indicating that it had a target, and let it loose.

Abhi did not see the target he was attacking, so why would he use the HMCS and against which target?

Sameer Joshi writes:
As Abhinandan was looking for targets in CC mode, he got a missile seeker head lock. Important to note, it was not a radar assisted Lock, but a missile head Lock — which picked up a heat emitting target out to 30 km within its 30 deg field of view.

Its actually +/- 75 degrees with +/- 45 degrees slewability off boresight, so what does that mean? It means he did not slew the seeker off bore, which means he relied on the +/- 30 degrees which is intrinsic to the seeker.
roe.ru wrote: Off-boresight/seeker deflection angle, deg ±45/±75
Sameer Joshi wrote: Abhinandan launched a R-73 missile on a heading of 280–290 degrees at 20,000 feet after the missile head locked onto a target in frontal quarters. Since the radar was in close combat (CC) search mode at that time, the aircraft being tracked by the R-73 would not have got any Lock ON chirp on its radar warning receiver (RWR). Neither does the R-73 missile give any approach warning while using passive guidance. The PAF aircraft, targeted by the IAF MiG-21, was NOT aware that a R-73 missile had been fired against it.

The R-73 seeker could have locked on to two PAF jets, one at north edge and the other at the bottom edge of the Mangla reservoir. The blip at the north edge, which subsequently vanished from the scope was flying at Mach 1+ at 32,000 feet.


An R-73 missile can intercept a 12G manoeuvring target at 0.3–30 km. The F-16 was placed around 22 km (trajectory inclusive) from the missile. The F-16 was well within the kinematic performance range available to the R-73 missile to shoot down the F-16.
What does this tell you? That the targets were purely locked on by the seeker. There was no single target in front of the pilots eyes, which he could have locked the HMCS on to.

AM Hari Kumar writes:
He went for the target in contact on close combat mode with R-75 missiles.

Can you explain of what use is a HMCS in this situation?

"Radar in ambush position"

What is this ambush position? He was using the radar in search mode and then moved it into Close Combat mode. How is either an "Ambush position"? The F-16s and Erieyes would have known his radar being active.
One day when we get the official information from the relevant memoirs we will know whether no R77 shot by Mig 21 Bison was due to pure technical parameters or the ROE in place. I have put view. You have another view, until the real world people in the know put out the truth I guess I am leaving it at this.
No, many real people with high grade access like AM Hari Kumar (former head WAC), AM Subramanian (recently retd Mirage 2000 pilot), Sameer Joshi et al have already posted informed views, which directly contradict *your speculation*.

You can't just post risible claims blaming the GOI, with no evidence and say "ah I have put my view one day, something will emerge and that will ensure my view wil be ok" when that view is proven to be false based on multiple credible sources, is not logical and also you don't post any evidence to support it.

That's not how this functions. You put a view, you back it up with evidence, not with idle speculation changing the story as you go along, and blaming the GOI for no darn reason.
I said both Mig 21 Bisons were targeted by the F16 in ambush position after they crossed LOC, realizing the danger Wing Commander selected R73 missile cued it with HMS and got the kill. Squadron leader Vyas was with him at this point and turned only after Wing Commander Abhinandan was shot down. My previous posts have exactly state this.
You are wrong again.

Sq Leader Vyas had already turned by this time, as GCI had warned him to not cross the LoC and that there were F-16s which had turned hot. Read what credible sources say, just don't make up your own story and embellish it for whatever reason.

This is how crazy claims start. Oh I read on BRF that if GOI had changed ROE we would have shot down 3 F-16s with multi-target on Kopyo with R-77.

Yeah sure. Only that no such evidence exists.
Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 20773
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: MiG-21 Bison shoots down F-16 in Kashmir

Post by Karan M »

In fact, at 5:04 Sq Ldr Minty Agarwal states



"Then the (aircraft on screen) turned red, they were identified as hostile, we were cleared to engage" (But with what? Clearly, with sticks and stones, ROE, somebody please inform her).

At 8:45, "the only idea in my mind was to hit them, to shoot them and if they dare to come again, we will shoot them many more". (Somebody please inform her, that GOI/MEA said no no, dont do this)

At 9:28 "As a controller, it is not only my duty to guide a fighter so it can achieve a lock on, so a missile can be launched but at the same time I have to keep in mind I have to keep my aircraft safe" (Missile launching? Despite GOI/MEA saying no ways!?)

With the amount of data out there, the *last* thing the forum should be doing is spreading anti-GOI propaganda based on idle speculation. Kindly desist.
srai
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5243
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31

Re: MiG-21 Bison shoots down F-16 in Kashmir

Post by srai »

Sameer Joshi wrote:...

The R-73 seeker could have locked on to two PAF jets, one at north edge and the other at the bottom edge of the Mangla reservoir. The blip at the north edge, which subsequently vanished from the scope was flying at Mach 1+ at 32,000 feet.

...
Interesting. Does the MiG-21 Bison have the ability to target and shoot at multiple boogies in R-73 seeker mode? Could have been two kills with two R-73 shots in close succession.
Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 20773
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: MiG-21 Bison shoots down F-16 in Kashmir

Post by Karan M »

No, what he means is that the R-73E had locked onto *a target* which had to be one of the above two. He is making a logical case that per the map the R73E had only two targets it could go for, and subsequently one of the very same two targets disappeared from the scope, indicating it was the one the R73E locked on to.

To your question, sequentially yes. But CCM usually slews onto one target and maintains a radar scan particular to that target. Close Combat Mode is used to assist the pilot in keeping track of the target he was fighting with, in case he loses visual sight while maneuvering. Depending on the aircraft/WCS, it can also be used to slew the missile seeker towards the target.

So, you begin with search or a scan mode, get data on multiple bogies, and then seek to engage via shifting to/ using CCM for each target, sequentially or close in to true visual range, use the HMCS to take rapid shots. In Abhinandan's case, using Sameer Joshi's point above, he did the same, moved the radar from scan to a close combat mode focusing on a single target to keep track of it, opened his seeker (but the seeker being independent is not necessarily going to pick up the same target as the radar if there is a significant distance from the launch aircraft, and if there are other hot targets nearby) and then launched, letting the seeker do its task.

In reality though, you best be running after the first shot. Because if you can see and take your shot, the other guys wingman likely did the same. That's how dangerous the close combat scenario is.
manjgu
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2615
Joined: 11 Aug 2006 10:33

Re: MiG-21 Bison shoots down F-16 in Kashmir

Post by manjgu »

Karan M ..there is a roe requirement that U can shoot an enemy aircraft, provided its debris falls in ur own territory ... this was stated by Kaiser Tufail in his kargil article..
Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 18259
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: MiG-21 Bison shoots down F-16 in Kashmir

Post by Rakesh »

I would not believe anything that Kaiser Tufail says.
manjgu
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2615
Joined: 11 Aug 2006 10:33

Re: MiG-21 Bison shoots down F-16 in Kashmir

Post by manjgu »

Well it's something which can be verified from any AF pilot ... it was said in context ...IAF ac during the kargil conflict were making minor technical / shallow violations of the LOC ... a few times apparently PAF was able to go up but did not shoot as IAF planes were eggressing and a potential downing of IAF ac would result in IAF plane crashing inside indian territory ... roe prevented them from trying to shoot.
Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 18259
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: MiG-21 Bison shoots down F-16 in Kashmir

Post by Rakesh »

If you are referring to the Kargil conflict of 1999, the PAF had no advantage over the IAF.

In 1999, the IAF had missiles that had a longer reach than the PAF. So this theory of the PAF being able to go up and shoot down IAF aircraft during Kargil, is a cock-and-bull story. The AIM-120C5s only came to Pakistan in 2010. The IAF had MiG-29s armed with R-27s and possibly early model R-77s in 1999. That is how Flight Lieutenant Gaurav Chibber was able to get a lock on to a PAF F-16, which resulted in that F-16 quickly retreating. The PAF stayed clearly away from the LOC during Kargil. Doing otherwise would result in the IAF shooting them down. Learning from this episode, the PAF managed to secure an order for 500 AIM-120C5s in 2006, with the first batch arriving in 2010.

Kaiser Tufail will dutifully regurgitate whatever the ISI tells him to. He has no other choice. Two years ago, during Balakot, he gleefully beat the drum stating the PAF shot down a MiG-21 Bison and a Su-30MKI. Two years later, he now sings a different tune.
arvin
BRFite
Posts: 672
Joined: 17 Aug 2016 21:26

Re: MiG-21 Bison shoots down F-16 in Kashmir

Post by arvin »

We are still not working on local expendable or towed decoys. Something that would greatly mitigate the threat of C5 in case of surprise scenario. Meteor or SFDR is one part of solution. The other part is decoys.
srai
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5243
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31

Re: MiG-21 Bison shoots down F-16 in Kashmir

Post by srai »

^^^
Don’t forget to include EW/ECCM and SPJ.
manjgu
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2615
Joined: 11 Aug 2006 10:33

Re: MiG-21 Bison shoots down F-16 in Kashmir

Post by manjgu »

Rakesh wrote:If you are referring to the Kargil conflict of 1999, the PAF had no advantage over the IAF.

In 1999, the IAF had missiles that had a longer reach than the PAF. So this theory of the PAF being able to go up and shoot down IAF aircraft during Kargil, is a cock-and-bull story. The AIM-120C5s only came to Pakistan in 2010. The IAF had MiG-29s armed with R-27s and possibly early model R-77s in 1999. That is how Flight Lieutenant Gaurav Chibber was able to get a lock on to a PAF F-16, which resulted in that F-16 quickly retreating. The PAF stayed clearly away from the LOC during Kargil. Doing otherwise would result in the IAF shooting them down. Learning from this episode, the PAF managed to secure an order for 500 AIM-120C5s in 2006, with the first batch arriving in 2010.

Kaiser Tufail will dutifully regurgitate whatever the ISI tells him to. He has no other choice. Two years ago, during Balakot, he gleefully beat the drum stating the PAF shot down a MiG-21 Bison and a Su-30MKI. Two years later, he now sings a different tune.

rakesh it is not a question of advantage or disadvantage. Paf was initially in the game and only later on they could not sustain the operational tempo. The q is wether the roe as told by tufail exists or not. A IAF pilot or somebody in know can clarify...
Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 18259
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: MiG-21 Bison shoots down F-16 in Kashmir

Post by Rakesh »

manjgu wrote:rakesh it is not a question of advantage or disadvantage. Paf was initially in the game and only later on they could not sustain the operational tempo. The q is wether the roe as told by tufail exists or not. A IAF pilot or somebody in know can clarify...
The question about the ROE does not even arise, when the PAF could not engage the IAF in Kargil in 1999. No clarification is needed.
Subin
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 9
Joined: 24 May 2002 11:31

Re: MiG-21 Bison shoots down F-16 in Kashmir

Post by Subin »

Rakesh wrote:Kaiser Tufail will dutifully regurgitate whatever the ISI tells him to. He has no other choice. Two years ago, during Balakot, he gleefully beat the drum stating the PAF shot down a MiG-21 Bison and a Su-30MKI. Two years later, he now sings a different tune.
Incidentally, his son-in-law Wing Commander Yasir Shafiq Malik (his daughter Mariam Kaiser’s husband) was the former OC of PAF No 9 Squadron, which was in action on Feb 27. For all you know, he might have been 1 of the 2 pilots in the F16 that was shot down and escaped with his life.

A few weeks after the Feb 27 incident, he makes the following cryptic social media post (he has since gone offline). Exactly what you’d write if one of your squadron mates was killed or if you had cheated death.

Image
Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 18259
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: MiG-21 Bison shoots down F-16 in Kashmir

Post by Rakesh »

Great find Subin. Like the nation itself, the PAF is built on lies, myths and bedtime fantasy stories.

Folks in here are getting takleef over R-77, R-73, ROEs and are losing the bigger picture. Great replies by KaranM.
arvin
BRFite
Posts: 672
Joined: 17 Aug 2016 21:26

Re: MiG-21 Bison shoots down F-16 in Kashmir

Post by arvin »

Karan M wrote: Do you understand that the HMCS is used for targets in the visual domain which the pilot can already see? That a pilot has to *see a target*, lock the HMCS on it, and then that slews the seeker and missile accordingly for a shot! There is no mention of this.

He went for a seeker activated shot! All he did was uncage the seeker and let it "growl" indicating that it had a target, and let it loose.

Abhi did not see the target he was attacking, so why would he use the HMCS and against which target?
The Vir Chakra citation clearly says he was pursuing a retreating enemy fighter bomber aircraft. You can only pursue something if you see it. He had visual contact with the enemy aircraft. The intent was clear to take out that particular F-16.

After the radar scan he chose the nearest target, which happened to be in visual range, activated the R73E, i,e seeker is cooled and ready for tracking, pursued the target, bought it into his HMS for long enough for the seeker to get a lock, Fired it after the audio tone is generated. The seeker is slaved to the SURA K and there is no other way you can use the R73E since it will always point where the pilot is looking.

Another reason which I believe he had visual sighting of the F-16 is, the retreating F-16 would have been on its full afterburners which would have made a different smoke trail than one without AB.
Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 18259
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: MiG-21 Bison shoots down F-16 in Kashmir

Post by Rakesh »

Karan M wrote:1. You claimed that some ROE existed which prevented the R77 from being used, and this was a GOI/MEA issue.

Status: False. No such thing. Only a fly 10 km away from the border rule which Pakis violated.
Now that is a good one KaranM :lol:

I guess GOI/MEA officials have to learn about BVR missiles and their tactics as part of their indoctrination.

The things some folks will claim. My oh my!
VikramS
BRFite
Posts: 1885
Joined: 21 Apr 2002 11:31

Re: MiG-21 Bison shoots down F-16 in Kashmir

Post by VikramS »

In a clear blue skies scenario with the sun shining bright and behind your back, you can easily see 10s of miles away.

More importantly if you know to look for something in a particular area, you will be able to locate it. And the aircraft were leaving big contrails also so detection was not hard at all.

In general BVR refers to 20nm and beyond. So conversely anything under 20nm (30Km) can be also be viewed as WVR.

This was a WVR shot with the seeker locking on before launch.
Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 20773
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: MiG-21 Bison shoots down F-16 in Kashmir

Post by Karan M »

arvin wrote:
Karan M wrote: Do you understand that the HMCS is used for targets in the visual domain which the pilot can already see? That a pilot has to *see a target*, lock the HMCS on it, and then that slews the seeker and missile accordingly for a shot! There is no mention of this.

He went for a seeker activated shot! All he did was uncage the seeker and let it "growl" indicating that it had a target, and let it loose.

Abhi did not see the target he was attacking, so why would he use the HMCS and against which target?
The Vir Chakra citation clearly says he was pursuing a retreating enemy fighter bomber aircraft. You can only pursue something if you see it. He had visual contact with the enemy aircraft. The intent was clear to take out that particular F-16.

After the radar scan he chose the nearest target, which happened to be in visual range, activated the R73E, i,e seeker is cooled and ready for tracking, pursued the target, bought it into his HMS for long enough for the seeker to get a lock, Fired it after the audio tone is generated. The seeker is slaved to the SURA K and there is no other way you can use the R73E since it will always point where the pilot is looking.

Another reason which I believe he had visual sighting of the F-16 is, the retreating F-16 would have been on its full afterburners which would have made a different smoke trail than one without AB.
"You can only pursue something if you see it". You do realize the Kopyo can see upto over a dozen km vs receding targets and that it's the job of the GCI to inform him where the targets are? One can easily pursue a target without seeing it.

If he had a target on visual he would not need to use the radar at all. He would directly switch to his HMS and take the shot.

As the citation suggests, he saw the targets on radar, alerted his team, got into pursuit with his Wingman. Chose a target on radar, got into CCM and most likely fired head on. It doesn't even state that the aircraft he shot down was the one he was pursuing.

Wing Commander Varthaman Abhinandan then pursued a retreating enemy fighter bomber aircraft, and in the ensuing aerial combat, shot down an F-16 ac with his on-board missile. However, in the melee, one of the enemy aircraft fired multiple advanced BVR missiles, one of which hit his aircraft forcing him to eject in enemy territory.


The IAF radar image shows a BARCAP of 3 F-16s one of which he targeted, 20 odd km away.

The Sura K or any other HMS is used to cue the missile for mostly off bore sight shots or crossing shots. You have to activate it before it can be used. It is not on all the time.

If it were imagine the seeker locked onto a target and the pilot looks over his shoulder for a quick check, and the seeker loses lock. Is that logical?

There is also no evidence that Abhinandan actually saw the target he had shot at, and hit.

The IAF has never stated this. If he had, most of this debate would end right there, and IAF would not stress on the radar images, ESM, visual sightings even after he returned.

There is a chance the IAF would seek to protect Abhinandan by not releasing this info as it would not want its pilots targeted in a future conflict by the image hungry Pak establishment but the manner in which our journos leak, the info would have come out by now.

The most logical thing to state is he maneuvered using his radar modes, used the seeker acquisition and launched, and then turned and raced out but was hit nonetheless. The HMCS usage is simply unproven.

At best he may have seen contrails but we simply don't have enough reports to conclude he was in an actual close WVR fight wherein he saw the opponent aircraft.

Note there are multiple reports of COAS Dhanoa talking of the F-16 shoot down post Abhis return, and not once does he mention this.

This is also likely why Sqd Ldr Sameer Joshi's article also doesn't mention HMCS, but how Abhi would have used a mix of radar and the seeker acquisition itself to get a seeker lock and take the shot.
Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 20773
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: MiG-21 Bison shoots down F-16 in Kashmir

Post by Karan M »

manjgu wrote:Karan M ..there is a roe requirement that U can shoot an enemy aircraft, provided its debris falls in ur own territory ... this was stated by Kaiser Tufail in his kargil article..
Manjgu I don't know what Kaiser Tufail wrote but the PAF didn't care to follow this or any other ROE. They took advantage of the 10km rule, positioned themselves well, and fired first. I believe this ROE gap has now been addressed.
manjgu
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2615
Joined: 11 Aug 2006 10:33

Re: MiG-21 Bison shoots down F-16 in Kashmir

Post by manjgu »

Karan... yes it's TRUE that paf didnt follow the roe in the feb skirmish and that probably gave PAF an oppurtunity to surprise IAF as they fired missiles to down the su while su were over indian territory. But that roe was followed in kargil and that's the reason no engagement took place though the planes did lock each other on radars. The need to extract some kind of revenge was paramount in feb skirmish given the kind of thapad pakis got.
Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 20773
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: MiG-21 Bison shoots down F-16 in Kashmir

Post by Karan M »

I don't think it was ROE that stopped the PAF at Kargil but the fact we had BVR missiles and they didn't. It was as simple as that. We could lock onto them with impunity and they gad no option but to grin and bear it as their lockons were meaningless given they had no weapons with which to make anything of it.
manjgu
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2615
Joined: 11 Aug 2006 10:33

Re: MiG-21 Bison shoots down F-16 in Kashmir

Post by manjgu »

Only 30 to 40% of IAF ac participating in kargil ops were equipped with bvr ... so while it was true that PAF was alive to iaf bvr threat it was not wholly because of bvr..iaf religiously kept on its side of loc except for minor technical violations ...and paf also ran out of steam after few days and needed to conserve for a possible full scale war.. u shuld clarify the roe with someone in know ..
nachiket
Forum Moderator
Posts: 9102
Joined: 02 Dec 2008 10:49

Re: MiG-21 Bison shoots down F-16 in Kashmir

Post by nachiket »

manjgu wrote:Only 30 to 40% of IAF ac participating in kargil ops were equipped with bvr ... so while it was true that PAF was alive to iaf bvr threat it was not wholly because of bvr..iaf religiously kept on its side of loc except for minor technical violations ...and paf also ran out of steam after few days and needed to conserve for a possible full scale war.. u shuld clarify the roe with someone in know ..
All aircraft in a strike sortie do not need to be equipped with BVR missiles. As long as the escorts have them any opposing fighters need to factor in that threat, even if it just 2 of them escorting a large strike package.
K Mehta
BRFite
Posts: 973
Joined: 13 Aug 2005 02:41
Location: Bangalore

Re: MiG-21 Bison shoots down F-16 in Kashmir

Post by K Mehta »

I have a simple query
Does any source refute that
1. Indian Air force attacked a target in Pakistan.
2. Indian Air force engaged and countered fizzleya fighters that tried to bomb us.
3. Does this not show a doctrinal change?
If yes then it matters much more than any other aspects. This will cover any future engagements.
Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 20773
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: MiG-21 Bison shoots down F-16 in Kashmir

Post by Karan M »

manjgu wrote:Only 30 to 40% of IAF ac participating in kargil ops were equipped with bvr ... so while it was true that PAF was alive to iaf bvr threat it was not wholly because of bvr..iaf religiously kept on its side of loc except for minor technical violations ...and paf also ran out of steam after few days and needed to conserve for a possible full scale war.. u shuld clarify the roe with someone in know ..
You should clarify how escorts are done with someone in the know to get the point that was being made. To reiterate, the point is IAF escorted it's strike packages with Mirage 2000s, and MiG-29s which had BVR and the PAF didn't have any BVR capability. So clearly latter were at a disadvantage and didn't want to take the risk of escalation. Your ROE reference Tufail admits as such in one of his articles.
Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 20773
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: MiG-21 Bison shoots down F-16 in Kashmir

Post by Karan M »

K Mehta wrote:I have a simple query
Does any source refute that
1. Indian Air force attacked a target in Pakistan.
2. Indian Air force engaged and countered fizzleya fighters that tried to bomb us.
3. Does this not show a doctrinal change?
If yes then it matters much more than any other aspects. This will cover any future engagements.
This simple point is lost on the majority of the perennially argumentative sorts.
Rahul M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 17168
Joined: 17 Aug 2005 21:09
Location: Skies over BRFATA
Contact:

Re: MiG-21 Bison shoots down F-16 in Kashmir

Post by Rahul M »

Manjgu, the ROE point is a transparent excuse by Tufail to explain away why PAF allowed IAF to operate with impunity during kargil war, bombing their mujahideen and army.
The reality is they had no capability to stop IAF from doing so in the first place, if they flew in a hostile trajectory towards IAF non-bvr armed fighters, the escorts were on station to teach them the rules in effect, as Lt Chibber's example showed.

In effect, it is a sophisticated version of paki cricketers giving excuses after yet another drubbing by India 'we would have defeated these kufrs easily, if only the selectors selected the correct team'.
manjgu
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2615
Joined: 11 Aug 2006 10:33

Re: MiG-21 Bison shoots down F-16 in Kashmir

Post by manjgu »

nachiket wrote:
manjgu wrote:Only 30 to 40% of IAF ac participating in kargil ops were equipped with bvr ... so while it was true that PAF was alive to iaf bvr threat it was not wholly because of bvr..iaf religiously kept on its side of loc except for minor technical violations ...and paf also ran out of steam after few days and needed to conserve for a possible full scale war.. u shuld clarify the roe with someone in know ..
All aircraft in a strike sortie do not need to be equipped with BVR missiles. As long as the escorts have them any opposing fighters need to factor in that threat, even if it just 2 of them escorting a large strike package.
correct Thats the theory .. but did all missions have escorts? not in the initial phase of Kargil of what i have learnt. The thing about BVR is over stated as both PAF and IAF were flying close to LOC on their respective side ( with minor technical violations on IAF side) ..so the ranges were well within visual ranges missiles as well. the thing which prevented PAF from taking pot shots/ambush during these fleeting technical violations was any such shooting could result in IAF planes crashing on indian side which was clear violation of roe plus resultant escalation. No such restraint was shown in Feb 2019 skirmish. thats why i am asking if this point abt roe can be clarified. ( i am not saying tufails words is the holy quran). if folks remember during the Atlantique shooting , the Pakis made a hue/cry about the PAF/PN plane falling inside Paki territory. i am only discussing this little point.. once the missiles were fired by PAF, it was war time ROE. but by firing first, PAF did gain the advantage though negated by IAF pilots.
Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 20773
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: MiG-21 Bison shoots down F-16 in Kashmir

Post by Karan M »

manjgu wrote:
nachiket wrote: All aircraft in a strike sortie do not need to be equipped with BVR missiles. As long as the escorts have them any opposing fighters need to factor in that threat, even if it just 2 of them escorting a large strike package.
correct Thats the theory .. but did all missions have escorts? not in the initial phase of Kargil of what i have learnt.
I dont know whom you have been talking to, but the IAF went to great lengths to have escorts for all its strike missions once the combat properly began. For instance, the Mirage 2000s had intrinsic A2A configured aircraft and MiG-29s as top cover.

https://www.bharat-rakshak.com/IAF/hist ... #gsc.tab=0
A typical bombing mission would involve 4 Mirages from 7 Squadron loaded with dumb bombs leaving a base in Punjab together with a two seat Mirage loaded with a LGB and Laser Designating pod. This 5 ship would rendezvous with 3 aircraft of 1 Squadron carrying Beyond Visual Range Weapons (Super 530D), operating out of another base. This rendezvous point would change on a mission to mission basis and once joined up, one escort aircraft would return. Once over Jammu and Kashmir they would be joined by Mig29’s giving top cover. These only had 20-minute duration in the area and would usually be supplemented by another pair.
manjgu wrote:The thing about BVR is over stated as both PAF and IAF were flying close to LOC on their respective side ( with minor technical violations on IAF side) ..so the ranges were well within visual ranges missiles as well. the thing which prevented PAF from taking pot shots/ambush during these fleeting technical violations was any such shooting could result in IAF planes crashing on indian side which was clear violation of roe plus resultant escalation.
BVR can be used from well within WVR to BVR ranges. Being radar guided the aircraft does not have to maneuver as much for the optimal shot and by opening up with BVR, you place the opponent on the defensive.

Lets go back to your primary source, Kaiser Tufail.
To prevent the mission from being seen as an escalatory step in the already charged atmosphere, PAF had to lure Indian fighters into its own territory, ie Azad Kashmir or the Northern Areas. That done, a number of issues had to be tackled. What if the enemy aircraft were hit in our territory but fell across, providing a pretext to India as a doubly aggrieved party? What if one of our own aircraft fell, no matter if the exchange was one-to-one (or better)? Finally, even if we were able to pull off a surprise, would it not be a one-off incident, with the IAF becoming wiser in quick time? The over-arching consideration was the BVR missile capability of IAF fighters which impinged unfavourably on the mission success probability.
http://kaiser-aeronaut.blogspot.com/200 ... force.html

Then he mentions the concern about F-16 usage, lack of spares and that the rest of the PAF aircraft were duds.

No mention of any ROE issue whatsoever. Merely that they were concerned India would get more enraged even if they did pull off one successful mission. That they would lose their own aircraft. And lets see the primary consideration. "The over-arching consideration was the BVR missile capability of IAF fighters which impinged unfavourably on the mission success probability.

So here you have the PAF view about what concerned them the most.
No such restraint was shown in Feb 2019 skirmish. thats why i am asking if this point abt roe can be clarified. ( i am not saying tufails words is the holy quran). if folks remember during the Atlantique shooting , the Pakis made a hue/cry about the PAF/PN plane falling inside Paki territory. i am only discussing this little point.. once the missiles were fired by PAF, it was war time ROE. but by firing first, PAF did gain the advantage though negated by IAF pilots.
What you seem to be missing, and refusing to acknowledge for whatever reason, is that PAF didnt care much for the ROE at Kargil either. They just realized that trying to hit at the IAF was fraught with trouble given the IAF had BVR and they didnt.
Anujan
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7807
Joined: 27 May 2007 03:55

Re: MiG-21 Bison shoots down F-16 in Kashmir

Post by Anujan »

Rahul M wrote:Manjgu, the ROE point is a transparent excuse by Tufail to explain away why PAF allowed IAF to operate with impunity during kargil war, bombing their mujahideen and army.
The reality is they had no capability to stop IAF from doing so in the first place, if they flew in a hostile trajectory towards IAF non-bvr armed fighters, the escorts were on station to teach them the rules in effect, as Lt Chibber's example showed.

In effect, it is a sophisticated version of paki cricketers giving excuses after yet another drubbing by India 'we would have defeated these kufrs easily, if only the selectors selected the correct team'.
Is Shri Tufail now claiming that PAF did not attack IAF during Kargil because of ROE?

In his own words
The over-arching consideration was the BVR missile capability of IAF fighters which impinged unfavourably on the mission success probability. The conclusion was that a replication of the famous four-Vampire rout of 1st September 1965 by two Sabres might not be possible. The idea of a fighter sweep thus fizzled out as quickly as it came up for discussion.
After one week of CAPs, the F-16 maintenance personnel indicated that war reserve spares were being eaten into and that the activity had to be ‘rationalised’, a euphemism for discontinuing it altogether. That an impending war occupied the Air Staff’s minds was evident in the decision by the DCAS (Ops) for F-16 CAPs to be discontinued....other than F-16s, the PAF did not have a capable enough fighter for patrolling, as the minimum requirement in this scenario was an on-board airborne intercept radar, exceptional agility and sufficient staying power. F-7s had reasonably good manoeuvrability but lacked an intercept radar as well as endurance, while the ground attack Mirage-III/5s and A-5s were sitting ducks for the air combat mission.
Ofcourse Pakis were following their Rules of Engagement during Kargil. Their rules of Engagement Clearly state

1. You cant use F16 because we dont have money or spares to keep them flying
2. You cannot use F7 because they dont have intercept radar
3. You cannot use Mirage-III/5s and A-5 because they dont have any combat capability

So, no shooting at IAF during Kargil, otherwise they will whip our musharraf. 8)
Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 20773
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: MiG-21 Bison shoots down F-16 in Kashmir

Post by Karan M »

Precisely. Pakis and following rules, ha. The only rules they believe in is that wherein they can survive for another day to break the rules.
Post Reply