Bharat Rakshak

Posted: **01 Jul 2004 00:06**

Johann, beg to disagree.

PLAAF doctrines require that they do not have to replace equipment one on one frequently. PAF doctrines - I am not sure about that -they need to have equipment to match an opponent that will wipe the floor with them anyday. If I were to be PAF, my best option would be to buy several thousands of Mig-17 and Mig-19 clones for dirt cheap prices. As long as they can send some flying object in the air that needs to be shot down at a very very high operational and military cost to the IAF, the better it will be for them to prevent the IAF from attacking other high value targets.

Originally posted by Johann:
-As far as any one can tell, PLAAF combat pilots get less flying time, for reasons of cost and a desire to minimise accidents.

- The PAF has had far more exposure to modern air forces in terms of training and exercises than the PLAAF.

- The PAF has had more direct air combat experience than the PLAAF in the last 40 years.

- PLAAF doctrine is far more limited, which directly impacts the range of missions they are trained and equipped to perform.

- The problem of obsolescence is far more acute in the PLAAF than the PAF, in part because the PLAAF can not afford system upgrades for such a vast fleet.

- It is not clear if the PLAAF's air surveillance network is as well developed as the PAF's.

Posted: **01 Jul 2004 01:26**

Ashutosh, what Daulat meant by the term 'peasant airforce', was that the vast numbers of inferior J-5, J-6 and J-7s would be major irritants. In their vast numbers lie their danger.

Johann, I had read in some military mag, that when western observers actually saw PLAAF pilots fly their fighters, they were apalled by the poor tactics and training.

But just becoz the PAF were exposed to Western tactics and exercises decades ago, or that their doctrine is better, does'nt make them a good fighter force. Those pilots still lack good training up in the air, with less hours and their equipment is not upto modern standards at all. And even if a few of them are good pilots, what are they gonna do when facing a much larger, more modern force ? They'd probably not run like the Iraqis, but they'll be decimated. There's only so much training can do. What on earth are those J-7s or F-16s going to do when a Phalcon sees them first, and then hands them over to Bisons, Mirages, MiG-29s or MKIs that would take it on at BVR ? that pilot is handicapped to a level that he wont be able to overcome, however good he may be at WVR.

and the fact remains that even though the IAF had BVR weapons for a long time, it took Ex Garuda to open their eyes to new BVR tactics. And PAF still can only wait for the JF-17 and its SD-10 missile.They still lack a modern fighter, an AEW aircraft,an AAR capability, their SEAD capability is suspect. PLAAF is going ahead with programs to address all these. and with the resources that they have at their disposal, they'd be far more dangerous than a mangy PAF.

Posted: **01 Jul 2004 02:29**

N,
I misread it: IAF success bodes well 'for' the PLAAF rather than 'against'. I was thinking about that article that came out claiming that since IAF did well in Cope INdia the PLAAF with their 300 odd flankers will do well too.

I dont agree with that.

Posted: **01 Jul 2004 03:50**

Where are the Jags right now ? In Portugal or have they left for the Azures ?

Posted: **01 Jul 2004 04:03**

Originally posted by Hitesh:
Nitin, when the Americans came to Gwalior, they did not bring their system such as AWACs, refueling tankers, SEAD etc. so your arguments about the IAF system being good remains to be seen because the IAF system has not been fully tested.

As far as I am concerned, the recent exercise was just showing individual prowess, not comparing one system to another system.

If the Americans had brought one whole squadron like 24 planes, an AWACs, refueling tanker, and other components that would complete a strike or tactical system and brought it to bear against the IAF system, only then we can actually test and judge the IAF system.

Thanks for completely missing the point.

My aim was to direct attention towards how an IAF package would have fared against an opponent with the same or lesser capabilities brought by the USAF to Gwalior.
Now do the PAF guys have AWACS etc?
The IAF system proved its worth- they were able to hold their own in counterair ops and the USAF notes the same as their strength. Thats what I meant. Lots of angst and agony in packeeland..

Posted: **01 Jul 2004 04:04**

Originally posted by John Umrao:
Hitesh>> Who knows had they come with complete complements our implements would have been different to tackle them?

Posted: **01 Jul 2004 05:51**

Guys, can we move this discussion to the General Aerospace thread? When Cope-Thunder starts we can start a separate thread to collate news items.

Posted: **01 Jul 2004 06:11**

Interesting discussion of the PAF and PLAAF, but I would rather continue it on a different thread.

Posted: **01 Jul 2004 11:00**

Cope India success of indian air force was not because of numerical superiority or USAF not using its full capability.It essentially showed the capability of IAF to strike a high value target protected by F-15 C s one of the best USAF can field today around the world.The surprise agility of our flankers and the ground hugging hostile area pentration capability og the bisons caught the USAF off guard .They never expected IAF to have that level of hardware or for that matter indian pilots to be that well trained or skilled.They thought all russian aircraft flying airforces of the world are like iraq -which they found out is not true.SEAD/AARF/AWAC were not used simply because those factors were not being evaluated or compared in this exercise.After all we were in a friendly exercise - not a war but the object i think was also to let them know how different or good we are.

Posted: **01 Jul 2004 23:40**

Originally posted by Rudra Singha:
AFM had a interview with a PAF sqdn leader at Karachi who was saying they practise at night over the sea only when the situation is tense, in peacetime he was told to preserve national assets and thats what he was dutifully doing avoiding higher risk training regimes. the

Any clue as to when this interview was taken? Month/Year?

Posted: **01 Jul 2004 23:49**

It was part of a AFM special on PAF. must have
been 2000 or 2001. cant have been more than 2-3 issues with large articles on PAF in last five yrs.

Posted: **03 Jul 2004 01:44**

I wonder what our friends across the border, Pakistanis think about the American praise of IAF combat skills and equipment. The Paks always bragged how good their F-16s were and how skilled their pilots were against the IAF. I had a sneaky suspicion that the PAF even with their "vaunted" F-16s and their "skilled" pilots didn't want to tangle with the IAF during the Kargil war. They stayed miles away and just watched from a distance when their Pak army brethren were being massacred by the IA and IAF in the mountains of Kargil. Now with the Americans praise of the IAF capabilities, the Paks would need to understand reality as always, as a 2nd thought because their initial assessment of things always have proven to be wrong so many times in the past.

Posted: **03 Jul 2004 02:15**

scroll to bottom of this link for photos of the Midas in Portugal and all the serial nos. There are 2 IL76 and 2 IL78 not 3 as reported earlier

http://forum.airforces.info/showthread.php?t=27532&page=2

Sun 04-Jul ARR North Bay, Ontario (Canada)
Tue 06-Jul DEP North Bay, ARR Edmonton
Wed 07-Jul DEP Edmonton, ARR Eielson AFB (AK)

Posted: **03 Jul 2004 06:15**

Nice. Very nice. Some span.

Posted: **03 Jul 2004 11:09**

There are reports all unofficial ofcourse that the 2 F-16 s did try to entangle with our mirage 2000s in the early stages of safed sagar ops but very rudely pushed out of their own airspace when lit up by escorting Mig 29 s missile tracking radars locked on ready to shoot.Did read some speculation also that 2 falcons were indeed shot down over mountains of kargil as lost aircraft reports of PAF in recent times.None of the govts confirmed or denied these reports but i some times feel may be there is some truth in above reports otherwise why would PAF never on a single occassion challenge the massacre of their army for months.Only if they know standing upto

Posted: **03 Jul 2004 11:13**

all i can say is a thanks for pics :wah:

Posted: **03 Jul 2004 12:31**

Originally posted by santpaul:
all i can say is a thanks for pics :wah:

Yep great job by 'Portugal' in Portugal - many thanks.

Even greater thanks for the serials he posted

Jaguar IS: JS141, JS144, JS150, JS154, JS170 and JS177
IL-76MD: K2665/E and K2901
IL-78MKI: RK3451 and RK3452

Note that that earier RK3448 and RK3449 has been observed. So that confirms the four Tankers..

Posted: **03 Jul 2004 16:06**

the #50 seems missing. we could well have got the 5th now.

Posted: **03 Jul 2004 17:28**

Originally posted by shankarghosh:
There are reports all unofficial ofcourse that the 2 F-16 s did try to entangle with our mirage 2000s in the early stages of safed sagar ops but very rudely pushed out of their own airspace when lit up by escorting Mig 29 s missile tracking radars locked on ready to shoot.Did read some speculation also that 2 falcons were indeed shot down over mountains of kargil as lost aircraft reports of PAF in recent times.None of the govts confirmed or denied these reports but i some times feel may be there is some truth in above reports otherwise why would PAF never on a single occassion challenge the massacre of their army for months.Only if they know standing upto

WOW, that would be sweet if indeed 2 paki F-16s got shot down by IAF MiG-29s in Kargil. If we didn't publicize the shoot downs, then it fits the pattern of India after every victory over the pakis we've been generous with them and not rub their noses in it. We all know how fragile their H&D and their self image is. Besides the Paks, maybe other nations have taken notice of IAF as well after Kargil. Maybe that's why the French and the Americans all wanted to hold exercises with IAF and have done so.

Posted: **03 Jul 2004 18:05**

The talk of 2 F-16s getting shot over Kargil is a myth created by AFM in it's F-16 special. It was discussed and shot down by all on this forum. It was infact retracted by AFM in a subsequent issue.

Posted: **03 Jul 2004 18:35**

Originally posted by bansal:
The talk of 2 F-16s getting shot over Kargil is a myth created by AFM in it's F-16 special. It was discussed and shot down by all on this forum.

Not at all Not at all

It pays to have a bit of Pakiness in us.

It IS true < wink > < nudge > < wink >

Posted: **04 Jul 2004 11:09**

The MIG 29 -F16 stand off is not to be written off so easily .Certain questions need to be answered before that .1)why PAF never interfeared on a single occassion 2)why IAF is so tight lipped about the incident 3)how many PAF falcons are listed and accounted for after safed sagar 4)why the spurt of joint air exercises after kargil and particularly USAF involving fulcrums?????

Posted: **04 Jul 2004 17:44**

Acc to a media report posted in AFM , the PAF has
asked for 11 F-16s as attrition replacement. We
know of 8 reported crashes, so the other 3 are unreported crashes or massive cannibalizations down to the bone.
it is known they have attached F-7s to the F-16
squadrons for pilots to keep up flying hrs but preserving the f16 airframe life.

Posted: **05 Jul 2004 07:38**

Woo,
Time to put up the Mirage refuelling clip eh Shiv/Jagan?

Cheers,
Kapil

Posted: **09 Jul 2004 05:38**

http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/IAF/Images/Current/Misc/AAR03.jpg

This image seems to go in the face of what Vishnu had to say in one of his earlier posts regarding centerline pods never being used in conjunction with wing pods coz they affect the flight characteristics of the IL-78.

Also, they rarely (never) use a wing pod in conjunction with a centre-line pod since that affects the aircraft's flight characteristics ...

Posted: **09 Jul 2004 05:57**

Originally posted by Kapil:
Woo,
Time to put up the Mirage refuelling clip eh Shiv/Jagan?

Cheers,
Kapil

Kapil - the ball is in your court. I told you that clip itself was worth a whole CD.

Do you want to ditch the CD idea and let me put a clip up?

Posted: **09 Jul 2004 05:58**

That is one helluva pic.

Posted: **09 Jul 2004 11:50**

Kartik, those pics were taken during demos for photography and such sessions, to be released to the press and of course us jingoes

Posted: **09 Jul 2004 13:26**

A more likely explanation is that after trying all sorts of positions, IAF realised what works and what is best avoided. So, what we hear now is the post-facto wisdom while that pic is a while-it-unfolded. JMHO.

Posted: **16 Jul 2004 16:36**

smaller span a/c like jags could be adversely affected by the wake turbulence from the midas, hence centreline position may not be an option for them. larger span a/c like the Su30's can probably manage ok

on the probes question - someone was saying recently about French tankers having different feeders. that is unlikely there would be either a NATO standard fit, or an universal standard fit, same as for ground based refueling hoses. NATO tankers are required to be able to refuel any NATO a/c so standardisation is a must

the other problem is the USAF/USN differences of flying boom and probe and drogue. not sure if the NATO tankers offer both options on the same a/c?

Posted: **16 Jul 2004 20:45**

Daulat, it probably has to do more with the Midas' center of gravity. The two side drogues probably drain fuel out of the wing fuel tanks, whereas the centerline one drains the fuel out of a central fuel tank?

Posted: **16 Jul 2004 20:59**

Hey, re: wake from Il 76 family, isnt that problem,ie- exhaust from the engine, from them Il 76s that prevents aircraft following them too close (Big boy formation in various AF parades not having a fighter/ chopper immidiately following them) IIRC, I had read this/ heard it on DD parade commentary sometime..

Posted: **16 Jul 2004 21:13**

The problem is not exhaust from the engine; it's the massive vortices that are shed from the wingtips. They tend to stay around a bit and can gobble up the odd unsuspecting cessna ...

Posted: **16 Jul 2004 21:26**

the spiral wingtip vortices have led to many
crashes of a/c following behind esp when it hits
the vertical fin and freaks out the FCS. among
others the A300 crash in brooklyn of 2002? was attributed to wake turbulence from a JAL 747 flying 2 mins ahead.

FAA flew a a.c with smoke from wintips to see the
vortice clearly and then flew a special 737 type
behind it.

Posted: **18 Jul 2004 02:25**

Originally posted by Rajesh:

Pilot fatigue must make the air-to-air refuelling much harder. wonder if they take something along to alleviate boredom.
What do you think all that "literature" tucked above the right glare shield was? Maps?

You mean something like this?

Posted: **18 Jul 2004 02:33**

Yup --- but the pilots are really interested only in the articles (and letters).

Dear Janes,

I never believed these letters until it happened to me. Just the other day, I was driving a MiG-21 and I "shot" down an F-15C. It all started ...

That sort of thing ...

Posted: **18 Jul 2004 05:32**

Originally posted by Kapil:
Woo,
Time to put up the Mirage refuelling clip eh Shiv/Jagan?

Cross post from the Gen Aerospace thread:

Well took a hint from Kapil - and produced a 1.3 MB real media file from a 10 MB, 1 minute clip of IAF Mirages being refuelled by Midas during Vayu Shakti 2004 all grabbed from a 35 minute VCD of Vayu Shakti 2004 made specially for me Kapil and Jagan only.

Viewing at twice the default size is OK.

www.bharat-rakshak.com/CLIPS/m2kdrink1.rm

Posted: **19 Jul 2004 09:03**

Originally posted by shiv:

all grabbed from a 35 minute VCD of Vayu Shakti 2004 made specially for me Kapil and Jagan only.

Posted: **19 Jul 2004 10:29**

midas c of g is not an issue, fuel would be moved around to balance out, and the automatic trim would kick in to keep the midas steady. i cannot imagine that something as big as the midas will not have auto trim

Posted: **23 Jul 2004 04:06**

I would imagine that the theory about the vortices being the trouble would be the reason for not using the central pod.

Bharat Rakshak

IAF Jaguars & IL-78s in Italy

Re: IAF Jaguars & IL-78s in Italy

Re: IAF Jaguars & IL-78s in Italy

Re: IAF Jaguars & IL-78s in Italy

Re: IAF Jaguars & IL-78s in Italy

Re: IAF Jaguars & IL-78s in Italy

Re: IAF Jaguars & IL-78s in Italy

Re: IAF Jaguars & IL-78s in Italy

Re: IAF Jaguars & IL-78s in Italy

Re: IAF Jaguars & IL-78s in Italy

Re: IAF Jaguars & IL-78s in Italy

Re: IAF Jaguars & IL-78s in Italy

Re: IAF Jaguars & IL-78s in Italy

Re: IAF Jaguars & IL-78s in Italy

Re: IAF Jaguars & IL-78s in Italy

Re: IAF Jaguars & IL-78s in Italy

Re: IAF Jaguars & IL-78s in Italy

Re: IAF Jaguars & IL-78s in Italy

Re: IAF Jaguars & IL-78s in Italy

Re: IAF Jaguars & IL-78s in Italy

Re: IAF Jaguars & IL-78s in Italy

Re: IAF Jaguars & IL-78s in Italy

Re: IAF Jaguars & IL-78s in Italy

Re: IAF Jaguars & IL-78s in Italy

Re: IAF Jaguars & IL-78s in Italy

Re: IAF Jaguars & IL-78s in Italy

Re: IAF Jaguars & IL-78s in Italy

Re: IAF Jaguars & IL-78s in Italy

Re: IAF Jaguars & IL-78s in Italy

Re: IAF Jaguars & IL-78s in Italy

Re: IAF Jaguars & IL-78s in Italy

Re: IAF Jaguars & IL-78s in Italy

Re: IAF Jaguars & IL-78s in Italy

Re: IAF Jaguars & IL-78s in Italy

Re: IAF Jaguars & IL-78s in Italy

Re: IAF Jaguars & IL-78s in Italy

Re: IAF Jaguars & IL-78s in Italy

Re: IAF Jaguars & IL-78s in Italy

Re: IAF Jaguars & IL-78s in Italy

Re: IAF Jaguars & IL-78s in Italy

Re: IAF Jaguars & IL-78s in Italy