MiG-21 Bison shoots down F-16 in Kashmir

R-27ET have 120 km range.
R-27ER have 130 km range.
AIM-120C-5 have 105 km range.
PL-12 have 100 km range.

We know India purchased R-27 but which models?

medo wrote:Indian MiG-21 Bison was shot down inside Pakistan by JF-17 with PL-12 missile and no F-16 was shot down. IAF shot down only Mi-17.

You said F-16 was not shot down. Then who is the "Doosra Banda" (Other Pilot) that is being referred to?

In this video, jihadis who got hold of the Indian Mig 21 pilot are saying two other "Indian pilots are being beaten to death" across the hill. Who are these two pilots?

https://twitter.com/KalitaAbhinav/status/1277311207280726023?s=20

Pakistan's PM says both the pilots have been captured. So who is the other pilot?

https://twitter.com/KalitaAbhinav/status/1277558258237046785?s=20

Pakistan's Army spoke person says the same thing, that they have captured not one but two pilots
https://twitter.com/KalitaAbhinav/status/1277558713751126017?s=20

This Pakistani private citizen says he saw 3 parachutes coming down

https://twitter.com/KalitaAbhinav/status/1277558585552261122?s=20

miketheterrible wrote:We know India purchased R-27 but which models?

IAF have R-27ER with Su-30K in the nineties.

Medo wrote:Not correct. There were around 10-12 PAF jets, majority of them were old Mirage 5 bomb trucks, which drop bombs near Indian positions, not fighters. IAF have at least 3 pairs of fighters. 1 pair of MiG-21 Bison, from which 1 was shot down, 1 pair of Mirage-2000 patroling near border area and 1 pair of Su-30MKI patroling inside India and vectored to the theatre. PAF didn't have more fighters than IAF in that area

The PAF formations from the radar reconstruction of the clash was formed of 24 aircraft of which 8-10 F-16s, 4 JF-17 and 4 modernized Mirage III F2 therefore the fighter component was prevalent.
The 2 SU-30MKI arrived in the NW third sector and was confronted by 11/12 PAF fighters, of which 7 F-16 and 4 JF-17, the last radar signature to the west is dubious (not possible to ascertain if also that aircraft participated organically in the engagement against the 2 SU-30MKIs).

Isos wrote:What are smocking ? RVV AE range sucks compared to AMRAAM. Even the chinese missiles on the jf-17 are better.

The MKI could do nothing. Totally outnumbered. They just looked from far away on radar what was going on and couldn't even launch a missile. There is no success in that. Pakistani air force acomplished its mission.

I smocke what smocke any person do not computing those parameters on the basis of totally non-sensical claims on internet (anyway i have provided two serious, publicly available links in the previous post ,open them).

Both the aerodynamical layout of AIM-120 and its propulsion (particularly the PN G672798-1 Plus 5 ) have very common features and has literally NOTHING of noticeable in terms of constructive or design's solutions , very classical stuff indeed.....all the fairy marketing garbage about magical as absurd performance gained thanks to "software integration" we leave to brainless orangutans.

RVV-AE (export version) had greater range than AIM-120 models of its time ,not thanks to secret design solutions, but very simply for a greater fuel to mass ratio (allowed by its greater volume), obviously with much modern materials and an improved propulsion the missile in its latest export iteration РВВ-СД reach 110 km ,as said by part Борис Обносов , about 10% more than the latest AIM-120 iteration ,the D, also here nothing of unexpected and not perfectly computable by any undergraduated engineer.

Sujoy wrote:

medo wrote:Indian MiG-21 Bison was shot down inside Pakistan by JF-17 with PL-12 missile and no F-16 was shot down. IAF shot down only Mi-17.

You said F-16 was not shot down. Then who is the "Doosra Banda" (Other Pilot) that is being referred to?

In this video, jihadis who got hold of the Indian Mig 21 pilot are saying two other "Indian pilots are being beaten to death" across the hill. Who are these two pilots?

https://twitter.com/KalitaAbhinav/status/1277311207280726023?s=20

Pakistan's PM says both the pilots have been captured. So who is the other pilot?

https://twitter.com/KalitaAbhinav/status/1277558258237046785?s=20

Pakistan's Army spoke person says the same thing, that they have captured not one but two pilots
https://twitter.com/KalitaAbhinav/status/1277558713751126017?s=20

This Pakistani private citizen says he saw 3 parachutes coming down

https://twitter.com/KalitaAbhinav/status/1277558585552261122?s=20

There are many big eyes in time of war and people could see and say many things. It doesn't matter. Now, who would shot down PAF F-16? IAF claim it was Abhinandan, who was shot down. But Abhinandan's MiG-21 Bison have all 4 missiles on pylons, whan fall on the ground. He didn't shot down anything, because he didn't launch any missile. Other MiG-21 Bison didn't launch any missile as it didn't cross the border and return back home. Su-30MKIs also didn't launch any missile and Mirage-2000s didn't even know, what was happening. Considering, that we didn't see any picture of shot down F-16 or any satellite picture from crash site and that there is no one, who would shot it down, unless it was friendly fire, it didn't happened.

Pakistan also claim, that they shot down Su-30MKI and draw silhuete of Su-30 on their jet. There was no pictures of Su-30MKI remains or from crash site, although PAF actually launched missiles against Su-30MKI. India show remains of AIM-120C-5. So no proof, that Su-30MKI was shot down.

Isos wrote:The story about the 3 pilots is also funny. They captured 3 guys but then 2 disappeared.

Jihadis on the ground thought that all the three were Indian Air Force pilots. So they decided to beat all the three to death.

Just that the two pilots jihadis managed to thrash were Pakistani Air Force pilots. One died on the spot the other rescued by the Pakistani Army. The third, which is the Indian pilot was also brutally beaten up but survived long enough to be arrested by the Pakistani Army

That's why Pakistan's Prime Minister and official spokeperson both said that two Indian pilots were in their custody.

As for Indian Migs not firing any missile - not a single missile would have remained intact after the Mig 21 fell to the ground from at least 20 thousand feet.

Isos wrote:

miketheterrible wrote:We know India purchased R-27 but which models?

IIRC ukrainian made.

Recently India purchased R-27 from Russia. So no, not ukrainian made. At least not new ones

Isos wrote:

They lied. The r-73 was clearly used and they recovered it from the crash site of the f-16 (or maybe another type).

The story about the 3 pilots is also funny. They captured 3 guys but then 2 disappeared.

Satelittes are not magical. In the moutains it's hard to spot a destroyed jet with them.

https://bmpd.livejournal.com/3579526.html

This was well discussed in India section. MiG-21 Bison have all 4 missiles on pylons, when crash on the ground. Engine of that "used" R-73 is still attached on hard point launching rail. One side of MiG was burning and missiles in that side are more damaged, because missile fuel burned out the middle of missile.

Non of Indian fighters didn't launch a single missile. Only missile IAF launched was that from Spyder, which shot down Indian Mi-17. If any other plane was shot down, than it was IAF Su-30, because we have hard evidence from Indian side, that PAF fighters actually launched missiles against Su-30.

As for Indian Migs not firing any missile - not a single missile would have remained intact after the Mig 21 fell to the ground from at least 20 thousand feet.

They are in the same state as the Mig-21, which fell on the ground.

https://fighterjetsworld.com/air/iaf-mig-21-bison-wreckage-suggests-that-indian-pilot-was-unable-to-fire-single-missile/11877/

The last off topic, to clear this. Abhinandan's MiG-21 Bison was broken in two parts, which fall on different locations. In one location we see the frontal half, where that burned missiles are and we could clearly see R-73 rocket engine still locked on hard point launching rail. The tail part, which fall on different location was the one, that Indians want to convince us, that it was PAF F-16. But it was clearly MiG-21 and have IAF markings on the tail. We have 2 R-73 missiles. One, burn out missile, which we have seen on the frontal half of crashed MiG-21 and the second one, on which full serial number is visible. Up to now neither Russians, neither Indians neither Chinese didn't say, that missile with this serial number is not from IAF stock. Similarly, serial number of Buk missile, which shot down MH-17, clearly show, that missile was from Ukrainian stocks. This Indian fairy tale, that Abhinandan shot down F-16 was based on story, that Abhinandan reported, that he have missile lock and launched it. But this same Indian air force said, that Abhinandan could not hear warnings from ground control, that he crossed LoC, because PAF effectivelly jammed communications. How could ground control hear Abhinandan to have missile lock and launch if communications were effectively jammed? It was simply imagination and embarasing disaster for IAF.

To get back on topic. IAF is now facing PLAAF, which is far more capable than IAF. Buying 33 additional Su-30MKI and MiG-29 will not change anything, if IAF is still the same disaster as it was 1 year ago. IAF must must come to conclusion, that it was an epic fail and that Bolywood fairy tales will not help against PLAAF. Facing reality is the way to do the needed changes in structure of IAF, remove all incompetent officers and start building working air force. As it is nor, IAF could succede only if PLAAF send against India young cadets from flying school, who only learn how to take off and land. But China will send well trained and experienced pilots with their Su-30MKK, J-10, J-11, J-16 and J-20, supported with AWACS and ECM/ELINT planes and powerful IADS. IAF need to do deep structural reforms and to replace AFNET with something that actualy work. IAF have good experience with Russian IFDL, that was on their Su-30K and use it greatly for group warking in their first exercise against USAF F-15C. I don't know, why they take it out from their Su-30MKI. Most probably Russian IFDL was not compatible with Indian and foreign electronic components. IAF should simply equip their SU-30MKI and MiG-29UPG with at least that IFDL from Su-30K and start working in effective groups tactics and with sharing picture between each other. PLAAF is fully networked and this is big advantage against IAF.

Mindstorm wrote: The PAF formations from the radar reconstruction of the clash was formed of 24 aircraft of which 8-10 F-16s, 4 JF-17 and 4 modernized Mirage III F2 therefore the fighter component was prevalent.
The 2 SU-30MKI arrived in the NW third sector and was confronted by 11/12 PAF fighters, of which 7 F-16 and 4 JF-17, the last radar signature to the west is dubious (not possible to ascertain if also that aircraft participated organically in the engagement against the 2 SU-30MKIs).

That's true. IAF was hugely outnumbered. Highlights the poor planning on their part.

However, the Mig 21s came out of the blue and took the PAF by surprise because their Saab Errie Eye AWACS could not detect the Mig 21. PAF panicked and even after they realized that their AIM -120 has failed to hit a single Su 30MKI, they did not re engage the SU 30MKIs. Instead they fled.

Mindstorm wrote: RVV-AE (export version) had greater range than AIM-120 models of its time ,not thanks to secret design solutions, but very simply for a greater fuel to mass ratio (allowed by its greater volume), obviously with much modern materials and an improved propulsion the missile in its latest export iteration РВВ-СД reach 110 km ,as said by part Борис Обносов , about 10% more than the latest AIM-120 iteration ,the D, also here nothing of unexpected and not perfectly computable by any undergraduated engineer.

And that's my gripe against the IAF. They should have fired a volley of R-77 at the incoming F-16s and JF-17s.

If the Mig 21 could have fired a R-73 and brought down an F-16, the Su-30MKIs could have done the same.

Sujoy wrote:That's true. IAF was hugely outnumbered. Highlights the poor planning on their part.

It was only partially bad planning (that has been anyhow a component).

In reality ,from what it is known from outside, Indian Command was afraid to adopt, for this minor clash, war-time protocols for defensive air space coverage and command and control operations; it feared that those critical informations could be collected particularly by PLAAF and used to develop systems and tactics optimized to capitalize weak spot of IAF protocols and organize attacks using the mean time for scrambling proved in that instance.  

Sujoy wrote:And that's my gripe against the IAF. They should have fired a volley of R-77 at the incoming F-16s and JF-17s.

If the Mig 21 could have fired a R-73 and brought down an F-16, the Su-30MKIs could have done the same.

Sujoy that is a sort of misconception.

Medium range air to air missiles (all having limited warhead potential and boosting time)  are not delivered simply when you reach a particualr range from a target; it do not work this way.

Today a pilot can deliver one of those kind of missile only when on board CPU system compute that actual kinematical state of the target, that of the aircraft itself and the projected interception's geometry would allow even a minimum chance of successful hit and often also with a fire solution is often not wise to deliver because little variations would conduct to an assured miss.

Almost the totality of the aircraft successfully intercerpted at today by part of medium range BVR missiles has been hit by missiles shot at them from outside the field of view of theris radars therefore with the absence of any tactical or terminal defensive action that could modify the interception parameters computed by the AWACS or directly the FCS of the delivering aircraft.

When this pre-condition was not realized the missile attack almost systematically ended in a failure.

In the clash between IAF and PAF the latter's aircraft ,enjoying very large force's concentration overmatch on the former, could manoeuvre to put themselves in kinematical conditions that rendered impossible the delivery of RVV-AE each time an IAF fighter has a stable radar track on them (effectively retreating with an high G turn, in the pilots terms "turning cold" ) while the others attempted to manoeuvre to achieve a fire solution on IAF fighters , possibly from outside theirs radar FoV.


Commander Abhinandan Varthaman's MiG-21 Bison in pair with another similar Mig-21 Bison closed at lower altitude toward 3 PAF's F-16s that was turning away -turning cold- from tracking and possible RVV-AE delivery -by part of one of the two Su-30MKI; is for this reason that those aircraft was not noticed by the PAF's F-16, both MiG-21s was outside theirs radar field of view.

Those two aircraft after two minutes ,when them was near Navshera, was picked up and detected over the ground clutter by a SAAB 2000 ERIEYE operating west of Islamabad that alerted of the menace the PAF aircraft, 3 fighters , 2 F-16 and after a while also an JF-17, turned to detect the Bison.

Ground Command of IAF alerted both pilots of the manoeuvres of PAF fighters but while the n 2 turned away Comm. Abhinandan accelerated and gained altitude to engage one of the F-16 , after the delivery of its R-73E at about 8 km head on, it attempted to turn to the left but was hit by an AMRAAM one more time delivered from outside its field of view.

You can easily understand how the act to deliver a medium range AA missile require very specific conditions mostly depending on the kinematical state of the delivering aircraft and the intended target and if you want to down your enemy is very wise to deliver those BVR missiles by surprise from outside enemy sensor's field of view.

Mindstorm wrote:In reality ,from what it is known from outside, Indian Command was afraid to adopt, for this minor clash, war-time protocols for defensive air space coverage and command and control operations; it feared that those critical informations could be collected particularly by PLAAF and used to develop systems and tactics optimized to capitalize weak spot of IAF protocols and organize attacks using the mean time for scrambling proved in that instance.  

But Mindstorm, against China’s Air Force, the Indian Air Force(IAF) will have to employ completely different set of tactics isn’t it?

For one, unlike Pakistan, China has anti-access/area denial (A2/AD) capabilities

Chinese S-400 and S-300 can engage multiple Indian fighter jets in quick succession down to ground level and make it much harder to swamp the self-protection capabilities of larger, longer-ranged SAM systems in their vicinity. Therefore, China’s strategic surface-to-air missile (SAM) systems can still hold Indian air assets at threat significantly inside their own territory whilst never crossing a border and, therefore, remaining safe from strikes. The 40N6 especially is designed to cruise at extremely high altitudes before descending whilst in active search-and-destroy mode, giving its nose mounted radar broad view to scan for targets at a wide range of altitudes during that descent.

Over Tibetan Indian aircraft and cruise missiles will be  restricted in terms of sensor picture by terrain and radar horizon limitations when flying at very low altitude. Given that all modern Chinese SAMs are mobile and in combat scenarios frequently relocate, especially if standoff weapon launches are detected, this means IAF could not simply rely on pre-flight/pre-launch target coordinates to remain valid. The need for real-time ISR to dynamically track and target mobile Chinese SAMs means low-flying aircraft and cruise missiles’ own offensive options against such targets rely to a large extent on receiving real-time off-board targeting data, which will be made harder by extensive Chinese electronic warfare
capabilities.

Sujoy wrote:Chinese S-400 and S-300 can engage multiple Indian fighter jets in quick succession down to ground level and make it much harder to swamp the self-protection capabilities of larger, longer-ranged SAM systems in their vicinity. Therefore, China’s strategic surface-to-air missile (SAM) systems can still hold Indian air assets at threat significantly inside their own territory whilst never crossing a border and, therefore, remaining safe from strikes. The 40N6 especially is designed to cruise at extremely high altitudes before descending whilst in active search-and-destroy mode, giving its nose mounted radar broad view to scan for targets at a wide range of altitudes during that descent.

Certainly the variables of the military clash will be very differents between a limited conflict with Pakistan and one with China.

But you are introducing a variable - very long range air defense systems of China- for defensive Indian air-space coverage missions by part of IAF that is not applicable to the model we was taking into consideration.


C-400 is a strategic defensive asset that China, not being the maker, cannot allow to place on the border leaving relatively opened to Indian attacks the most important centers and installations in its enormous territory.

What will be involved in China's border force building ,in particular in terms of long range Air Defense systems, will be mostly those integral in PLA's Lanzhou and Chengou military regions , practically those inserted in theirs first and second echelon Army Forces of those regions at which only partially will add some redeployment of the SAM entrusted with the role of the defense of those regions from enemy air attacks.

If a similar situation will arise, the bulk of the conflict (that will obviously be immensely more serious and extensive) will obviously shift to the exchanges between the respective Ground Forces component; the clashes in the air between the two Air Forces and the damages that those will be capable to inflict (if not paralized by the horrendous losses that them will suffer, in particular IAF, from the opposing air defenses) will appear like nothing more than background noise.

The situation we were analysisng is instead the much more probable minor clash on the border were, at a maximum, some squadrons of the IAF and PLAAF will be involved, here the side that will know the times and procedure for war-time operations of the enemy will gain a very distinctive advantage because will be capable to program its missions accordingly.

Sujoy wrote:The need for real-time ISR to dynamically track and target mobile Chinese SAMs means low-flying aircraft and cruise missiles’ own offensive options against such targets rely to a large extent on receiving real-time off-board targeting data, which will be made harder by extensive Chinese electronic warfare
capabilities.

This is a very serious problem interesting all the armed forces worldwide against advanced opponents, moreover the level of attrition of those real-time assets for enemy surveillance and the severing of theirs communication channels (that will be much more near to the enemy than friendly forces) will repropose the classical "fog of war" element, , a situation within which both sides plan and execute its missions with a very high percentage of unknown data ,moreover with level of attrition on the attacking side, that cannot have, in particular for the air component, the same resources available to the defending one, that will be enormously higher than those of the pasted war.  

US attempted to exit from this clear trend for Air Forces (representing the centerpiece of its military doctrine) through the failed pact of "stealth technology" that it continue anyhow to pursue for its expeditionary offensive posture worldwide against less sophisticated enemies; maybe in future the wide introduction of hypersonic weapons and IA integrated in robotic combat means will plain the field.

Mindstorm wrote:If a similar situation will arise, the bulk of the conflict (that will obviously be immensely more serious and extensive) will obviously shift to the exchanges between the respective Ground Forces component; the clashes in the air between the two Air Forces and the damages that those will be capable to inflict (if not paralized by the horrendous losses that them will suffer, in particular IAF, from the opposing air defenses) will appear like nothing more than background noise.

If the battle shifts to an exchange between the ground forces of China and India, then India does not stand any chance. Chinese artillery is more advanced than that of India. China has already deployed the Type 15 Light Tank in that region, India has no such tank.

China also has far more (a) artillery, (b) cruise missiles, (c) tactical ballistic missiles compared to India. Therefore, they will be able to cause un acceptable damage on Indian troops.

India's only option to expel the PLA is an air war. But even in this case as you have observed China has a far better Air Defense system in place.

Isos wrote:Best to have there is mi-8, mi-24/35 and a lot of soldiers with equipment to reduce their IR signature on the hills with snipers and atgm supported by mortars/artillery.

Negative. Mi-24/35 not suitable for high altitude. That's why the indian air force could not use it in the 1999 war against Pakistan. Mi-8/Mi-17 can be used as a gunship, but again, as the Indians found out during the 1999 war against Pakistan, Mi 17 is vulnerable to MANPADS. Indian Mi 17s do not even have any countermeasures, like chaffs, flares and possibly not even EW jamming.

Isos wrote:Tanks are not suited for high altitudes. Drones would be affected by mountains blocking the signals. Airforces will spend their time escaping the enemy airforce.

Air Force best suited for striking infantry, mechanized units at such high altitudes.

India needed something like the 2S25 Sprut-SD and BMD-4 to strike Chinese Type 15 tanks and infantry. 2S25 Sprut-SD, BMD-4 well suited for high altitude warfare. Can be airdropped too.