[Gansan]

Originally Posted by skanchan95

Not necessarily. When a Hellenic(Greek) Air Force Mirage 2000 fired an R550 Magic II and shot down a Turkish Air Force F-16D over the Aegean Sea after an airspace violation incident, that loss was openly admitted(The Turkish pilot was killed, his back seater survived and was rescued by the Hellenic Navy). Similarly a manuevering kill was awarded to a Greek Mirage F1 pilot when a Turkish F-16, after engaging in a brief dogfight with the Mirage F1, crashed. Remember both these opposing Air Forces that have a long history of aerial skirmishes and operate similar variants of the F-16, including Block 52 F-16C/Ds equipped with CFTs.

May be there was no "plausible deniability" in those two losses. Also, conceding a loss to a Mirage and to a Mig 21 are two different matters. Since the plane fell in to POK, what proof can be given, except circumstantial evidence?

[V.Narayan]

Originally Posted by rrsteer

I think sir you misunderstood the post. You have gone on a tangent, I fear.
Its not just the media in US, but also in India and I think across the world that is now unethical - and as a reader this effects one's mental constructs. I am quite conscious of it and for this reason I won't read newspapers, magazine (especially dealing with finance, economics)etc. This is also to keep me as unbiased as possible to enable me to do my job - invest money. Having said that, whenever I do, I would read any opinion with a detached frame of mind and would dig in a bit deeper to atleast get as close, to a range of facts, as I can. Its for this reason I dug up the original Foreign Policy report after reading skanchan95's post and for the same reason I wanted to ask what is the meaning of 'not returning to base'? It most likely means, just that the fighter plane was brought down, but could it mean more - was my question?

Dear @rrsteer, Allow me to clarify. I am not at all criticizing you. That is not my intention. You brought the report to our attention and I am glad for that. My apologies if I unintentionally hurt your feelings. My note was against the article.

[skanchan95]

Originally Posted by Gansan

Also, conceding a loss to a Mirage and to a Mig 21 are two different matters. Since the plane fell in to POK, what proof can be given, except circumstantial evidence?

That I agree. The narrative of the mighty F-16 falling prey to a lowly Fishbed is not easy for the Pakis or the US to accept. The sly Pakis, as history has shown, are experts are hiding and denying their own losses in a bid to further boast about their mythical superiority over us Indians, even if it means not honoring their own fallen soldiers!!!

As Narayan sir said in one of his earlier posts, it would be interesting to know which F-16s they counted(if at all they did!!!) - the original PAF Block 15 F-16A/Bs(some or all of which were upgraded by Turkey) the newer Block 52 F-16C/Ds or the second/third hand Block 15 or 20 F-16A/Bs they received from Jordan?

[Foxbat]

‘Not aware’: Pentagon on Pak F-16 count after Feb aerial dogfight with IAF

https://www.hindustantimes.com/india...c2EyYe62H.html

The United States defence department on Friday said it was “not aware” of any investigation that was conducted to ascertain if Pakistan had lost an F-16 in a dogfight with Indian fighter jets on February 27, contrary to a report by a news publication that had gone on to say, citing unidentified defence officials, the count revealed none was missing.

I don't think the truth will ever be found out unless actual wreckage of the aircraft is found.

[V.Narayan]

Originally Posted by Foxbat

‘Not aware’: Pentagon on Pak F-16 count after Feb aerial dogfight with IAF

https://www.hindustantimes.com/india...c2EyYe62H.html

The United States defence department on Friday said it was “not aware” of any investigation that was conducted to ascertain if Pakistan had lost an F-16 in a dogfight with Indian fighter jets on February 27, contrary to a report by a news publication that had gone on to say, citing unidentified defence officials, the count revealed none was missing.

Thank you Foxbat. I firmly believe that article is a planted one. I cannot think of any self respecting Air Force coming forward and asking a foreign power to count the assets in its inventory. And the Pakistanis are not exactly in love with the Americans. Nor would the Americans want to get dragged into a controversy when they are trying to sell some serious amount of equipment to us. It is very sad to see the ignorance, lack of homework and the self inflicted wounds of our media and their willingness to lap up anything tossed up by the western media.

[skanchan95]

Originally Posted by Foxbat

‘Not aware’: Pentagon on Pak F-16 count after Feb aerial dogfight with IAF

This going to make it look so bad for Ghafoor, the Buffoon. A couple of days ago, based on that Foreign Post article, he mockingly claimed - Truth always prevails - in all probability a veiled reference to our National Motto - Satyameva Jayate!!!

[SmartCat]

Originally Posted by skanchan95

This going to make it look so bad for Ghafoor, the Buffoon

I see that you are fan of Ghafoor too. ISPR/Ghafoor responded to IAF's clarification with this tweet/picture:



The one on the right is R-73 Archer (short range heat seeking missile) purported to be fired by Mig 21. Missing R-73 missile body sort of indicates that they could not pull it out from F16's backside. But it looks like Pakistan armed forces spend a decent amount of cash on propaganda and PR activities.
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/a...w/68676332.cms

Added:

Regarding those seekers, there is a clarification from "IAF sources" - basically, seekers remain mostly intact even if a missile explodes.
https://www.aninews.in/news/national...0190405225730/

[skanchan95]

Originally Posted by SmartCat

I see that you are fan of Ghafoor too. ISPR/Ghafoor responded to IAF's clarification with this tweet/picture:


The one on the right is R-73 Archer (short range heat seeking missile) purported to be fired by Mig 21. Missing R-73 missile body sort of indicates that they could not pull it out from F16's backside.

Well, he is a joker and jumps the gun every time.

Bade Miyan Toh Bade Miyan, Chote Miyan Subhanallah!!!

Look what ISI's puppet - The 'Chote Miyan' PM said in a tweet today:

The truth always prevails and is always the best policy. BJP's attempt to win elections through whipping up war hysteria and false claims of downing a Pak F-16 has backfired with US Defence officials also confirming that no F-16 was missing from Pakistan's fleet," he said in a tweet.

https://www.daijiworld.com/news/news...?newsID=576798

Towing the exact same line of General Buffoon, you see. Like him, on the evening of Feb 27th, Imran too had claimed they had IAF "pilots" in custody. These clueless fellows have no idea that the report of F-16s having been counted has been rubbished by their Godfather - The US Govt, officially.

They never clarified what happened to the 2nd pilot in their custody and/or third pilot, who they claimed initially was on the run. Now they caim that two Paki Army units went after the same pilot and captured him, hence the confusion of two captured pilots.

The display of missiles has proven to be a joke too. There have been many instances in the past where IRM seeker heads have remained intact and recovered even after a succesful hit. They need to work harder at their game because it is now pretty obvious that they are doing everything they can to cover that embarassing F-16 loss to a MiG-21.

[locusjag]

An IAF war veteran has written this article on why the IAF did shoot down a F-16: https://theprint.in/defence/in-paf-l...a-myth/218125/

A hidden irony in the article: the author quoted radio intercepts where the Pakistani Northern Light Infantry (NLI) reported two fallen 'parindey'. After the Kargil War, weren't the 1000 nameless Pakistani dead the NLI's own dishonored soldiers? I'm surprised the NLI even exists, leave alone why the unit hasn't gone rogue and slit a few throats in their deep state.

[SmartCat]

Quoting from ThePrint.in article:

Because the PAF did not want to reveal to the world that an American made F-16 had been used as part of an offensive operation against India on 27 February, voilating end use agreement on many counts, including use of the AIM-120 C-5 AMRAAM air to air missile — which ostensibly had been given to Pakistan to be used against its war on terror.

Violation of end user agreement? AMRAAM air to air missile to be used against whom? Pakistan Taliban? It is quite obvious to anybody that F16s and AMRAAM missiles would be used against India. I don't know why Indian Government or IAF even bothers to highlight this (or takes it up with USA). However, this bit was useful in nailing ISPR's blatant lies ("no F16s were used in combat")

The IAF’s gound controller saw the defensive maneuvering of the F-16s, warning the MiGs in turn. While his No 2, who was lagging behind, turned ‘cold’ or away from the F-16s which were going ‘hot’ or facing the MiGs — –Abhinandan chose to ignore this threat and continued towards the F-16s.

That's because of jamming of radio communications by Pakistani side apparently (as mentioned in some article). Abhinandan did not hear the ground controller asking him to turn back. It was not a reckless move.

Meanwhile, IAF's lady ground controller is likely to get "distinguished service" award for keeping her nerves during the dogfight
https://www.femina.in/achievers/iaf-...on-120400.html

[locusjag]

@ All

For a long time now, I have been searching for this article which originally appeared in Swarajya; finally, I have traced it with attribution given to Swarajyamag.com in the India Defence Review site - http://www.indiandefencereview.com/s...reat-to-india/

Up until I had read this article, it never occurred to me that a country's armed forces could be unprofessional. Even as you read this sentence of mine, you probably glossed over the word 'unprofessional', since you don't value the term 'professional' in the context of armed forces. We Indians do so because the professionalism of the Indian armed forces is taken for granted; it is a given. No big deal, right? This is why I was surprised to read of Saudi Air Force officers going on mass sick leave when Saddam came knocking -

...raised in absolute luxury, the Saudi flying men were ill-prepared for the rigours of combat, and this was evident when Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait in 1990. Knowing they stood no chance against the highly professional Iraqi Air Force – which incidentally was trained by India – the Saudi princes instead of taking to the sky, went on a mass sick leave.

Due credit to the Indian armed forces (and every other country's armed forces which are professional in nature and conduct), because the mere thought of an armed force going on mass sick leave when war is visited upon them is unthinkable. I just cannot get my head around it. They just upped and left their posts? Wow.

[Sutripta]

^^^
The norm in the past was that deserters were shot.
In a country which beheads/ stones people at the drop of a hat (or knickers), wonder what happened in this case. (Of course assuming that the news is true. 'Mass casual leave' is a very Indian term).

Regards
Sutripta

[locusjag]

Originally Posted by Sutripta

^^^
The norm in the past was that deserters were shot.
In a country which beheads/ stones people at the drop of a hat (or knickers), wonder what happened in this case. (Of course assuming that the news is true. 'Mass casual leave' is a very Indian term).

It seems the issue is that the Saudi forces' top echelons and general officer cadre are manned by royal scions and princes (how many princes can there be in 1 kingdom?)
Since they're royalty who're more concerned with luxury than with fighting for anything, they did their disappearing act. It's no surprise that their highnesses didn't get executed for abandoning their duties. Moreover, the larger article is about how the Saudi forces have for long had mercenary Pakistani airmen and soldiers amongst them to infuse some professionalism into that technically equipped but professionally challenged force.

The article is by an Indian defence analyst based out of New Zealand. Hence the Indianness in the words used.

Anyways, in a related vein to the larger topic at hand - I also remember a telling snippet from the movie "The Kingdom", starring Jamie Foxx. The movie is about a terrorist attack within an American compound in Saudi Arabia. It is based on a real life event.

When the Americans investigate in the compound after the attack, an American old lady points out suddenly - "I remember seeing a new gardener in the compound. What stood out about him is that he was a Saudi citizen."

Jamie Foxx's character asks - "so?"

Old lady - "since when did the Saudis ever do a day's hard work?"

A figurative bell rings in the investigators heads and they discover that this new gardener was the wolf who'd infiltrated the compound and provided intel for the attack.

That was quite an insight.

[Maveryq]

The Apache Guardian AH-64E (I) is formally handed over to the Indian Air Force, in Mesa, Arizona.


Looks good in Tipnis Grey. My question to the experts in the forum is why was the Apache chosen over the Mil Mi 24/35. The Russian attack helicopters had seen combat and were proved in battle.



Was it service height ceiling restrictions and service availability which impacted the IAF decision to move to the Apache as the weapons platform?











Picture Source: IAF Twitter handle

[SmartCat]

Originally Posted by Maveryq

My question to the experts in the forum is why was the Apache chosen over the Mil Mi 24/35.

Mil 24/35 is a troop carrier + attack helicopter. It is not a dedicated attack platform. The contest was primarily between at Kamov Ka-52 and Boeing Apache.