highsea

They already have 2 MLU'd F-16's. Which ones do you think will be the first ones in the air??

Your opinions about the MiG-21's BVR capabilities are unproven IRL, so that is just what you think will happen. Until there are some real world encounters, it will remain speculation. Air Combat doesn't happen in a vacuum- there is ECM and jamming, maneuvering, supporting assets, etc. Most A2A battles are won or lost before the engagement even begins, and most shootdowns happen without the victim even knowing he was targeted.

Russian A2A missiles have a lousy track record, and the ones exported are worse yet. All of the current crop are compromised.

When the MiG-21 Bison was fitted with the Kopyo radar and tested with the R-77, they called it a success when they shot down the target drone at 6 km. Well within the range of a sidewinder. And that is in a clean EM environment, which no battlefield conditions will ever match.

Sales brochures are meaningless, and discounting the lethality of the F-16, any version, is just plain stupid. I guarantee you that IAF pilots are no where near as complacent/arrogant as you wrt the relative capabilities of the types.

The days of the Red Baron and Biggles are over. "This plane beats that plane" arguments are idiotic and for kids. Wars are not fought that way.

__________________
My baby called me up. She said- Why don't you ever take me out? Pick me up in your brand new car....You shake the short change from the old fruit jar...

Tronic

2 BVR F-16s on one side, over 150 BVR Mig-21s on the other... I wonder what will happen....

errmm... yea... your point? The fact that India jammed Paks air defense network all along the LOC and Indian Mirages freely pounded positions along the LOC while the Pak F-16s kept a safe distance away and watched on... still not enough for you to prove India's ECM and jamming capabilities vis-a-vis Pak???

yes ofcourse... Russian missiles are bad hence they will never hit the target right? I don't know about such test of a R-77 hitting a drone at 6 km... that is a pointless test for a medium-range missile... besides, IAF is quite aware of the record of Russian missiles... we found that out first hand in the 1965 war when the IAF pilots discovered that their guns were more reliable then their newly supplied Russian missiles... so i'm pretty sure we carry out the user trials to the full extent before buying them and inducting them....

I'm arrogant??? dude... you're the one completely bent upon proving the superiority of a 1980s rusted up F-16(most of which have been cannibalized for spares) going up against BVR Mig-21s with the most recent avionics for its type.....

heh... If I talked about wars, Pak F-16s would get raped even worse....

__________________
Nabha Sparasham Deeptam
-Touch The Sky With Glory

SRB

Bush senior:
"42 intercept,41 kill" this was kill ratio of Patriot against Scud in first Gulf,at least it was what USA army said to Bush. But my friend real number was 0 kill.

Dont belive in everything what army said.

Read alternative sources, for example there is very good Russian book about Mig-15 in Korea. Russian veterans of that war estimate that Sabre vs Mig was 4:1 for Sabre.

So 320 destroy Mig-15 and 80 Sabre. If we look preformances of Mig and Sabre, Mig was better plane, on Discovery, NG, Via History or on internet, everywere you will find that MIG outperform Sabre.Please dont compare any plane with F-22.

And biggest evidence is that Soviet pilots had 2:1 ratio in Korea against Sabre.

So what was so wrong with Migs in Korea? After all they lost 320 planes . Pilots.
Majorty were Chinese and Koreans, many of them had only basic traning on prop. planes.

Also mission.Mig mission was to stop B-29 to drop bombs.They succeed.Day bombings are abanded by USAF.
Sabre had easer mission, simple word kill Mig.

Major problem with F-4 in Nam was order not to use guided missile until pilot is sure it is enemy plane F-4 was build for new era of war what we call video-game war not for dog fight.Same we can say for Mig-21 but Mig-21 was inferior to F-4 in electronics and missiles,also it was much cheaper plane, F-4 was one of most expencive plane in whole history of USAF.Major killer of F-4 was Mig-17(upgraded Mig-15)best dog fighter of that time.

P.S. Harriers didnt protected Shefild, right? And couple of more ships(one cargo ship and two more) Mirrages missions was attack on ships, far from land with limited fuel,limited number of missiles,without powerfull radars, against thick air defence it was easy for Harriers to kick them. But if Harriers attack them over Argentina what result you would expect?

There was one joke in my airforce from early 80'.
Two pilots talks and third(older) listen.

First pilot(Pero): I can get in F-16's tail with my Mig-21.

Second pilot(still in training program) is dumbfounded after all F-16 is new plane and our
Mig-21 bis are state of art for Mig-21 but much older planes.

Then third pilot say: Yes Pero you can get in F-16's tail with your Mig-21 only on runway.

avon1944

What statistic are you referring to "31-1"? Number one, the IAF has not lost an F-15 or F-16 to any of its neighbors. Number two, the IAF F-15's have a kill ratio of 63:0 and their F-16's 52:0.

They did earlier this year in an exchange exercise like Cope India. Not rediculous ROEs cope India had and neither country is talking publically.

Being a great pilot has nothing to do with nationality. The statement of US pilots is difficult to back up when bush's budget cuts have eliminated most of the aggressor training programs. There are only a few dedicated aggressor squadrons in the entire USA!
While the USA showed the world how to effectively train combat fighter pilots, that information has been passed on around the world.
Cope India was not just about fighter aircraft but, also an exchange of logistic and maintenance programs. That was not as exciting as the fighter program exchange and therefore did not make the news.


The Sabres were better in sustained dives because they were more stable and at Mach 0.92 the MiG.-15 had automatic speed brakes would deploy. Remember, the Sabre was the first aircraft to use 'stablators'. Finally, the MiG's cockpit would often fog up in a steep dive, cutting the pilot's ability to see outside.

Actually, training was the greatest factor.... all the USAF pilots were former WW2 fighter pilots. The MiG.-15 also required a lot more physical force to move the stick and rudder.

That figure does not match the loss of pilots and or aircraft. Currently, this is the latest aerial combat figures for the Korean War. A historian and a Soviet pilot worked together to determine fact from fiction.
"Red Devils over the 38th Parallel," Igor Seidov and Askold German (courtesy of Nikolai Bakalov and Rubén Urribarres).
The latest figures show and 8:1 kill ratio of Sabres over MiGs, not the 13:1 orignially thought. The biggest difference was the number of MiGs while going down from high altitude smoking badly, often made it back to base! Many MiGs had over one hundred fifty calibre bullet holes in it and made it back to base safely. After that many hits and the aircraft smoking to consider it as killed.

It is not difficult when an interceptor is engaged with the strike package's 'top cover' for a fighter-bomber comming off a target to take a shot at an interceptor.

I am closer to the true number than your estimates. The North Viet Namese (NPAF) were only part of the total number of pilots in combat. Soviet, Warsaw Pact, North Korean, etc. pilots fought for North Viet Nam. Just as now Russia is being open about the Soviet pilots fighting in the Korean War, more information is comming to light on the outside participation during the Viet Namese War.
When you check lost pilots, POWs and add a factor for CSAR versus NVAF claims, they are wildly off base.


I would question any source that states the number of F-5's lost! The USAF did not operate the F-5! The F-5 did not have the range to go into NV and the MiG.-21 did not come south. The F-5 and MiG.-21 are both point defense fighters, the fight has to be brought to them.
USA combat losses were high due to ground defenses not air to air.
Soviet figures are among the 'most' doctored figures. If there were American aircraft shot down on a particular day, the Soviets would say there pilots made the kills. If the Americans claimed they shot down several MiGs that day, the Soviets would say their pilots weren't flying that day! Eight MiG.-21's shot down in one month (01/67), they squadron was sat down for about two months before they were flying again. Replace a half a squadron in sixty days! Aircraft were supplied to the VPAF as fast as SAMs were supplied.
The only problem in the re-supply was that most of the aircraft went through PRC. Many MiG.-21's of later models were takened by the PLAAF and substituted with older model MiG.-21's. The Soviets did not like this because they wanted to see how well the new models would do in combat. So the Soviets started send the aircraft by ship until Hanoi and Haiphong Harbors were mined.


Thank You!

Adrian

highsea

150 MiG's scattered all over a large country, less than half of which are probably combat ready...
Pak didn't have a credible air defense network at the time, so it doesn't say much. Since there were no encounters with PAF F-16's, your belief in the MiG-21 has no basis in real world scenarios. As to why they didn't use them, I will leave that to someone more familiar with the situation in Pakistan at the time to answer.

In the real world- Syria, Serbia, etc, the most a MiG pilot has been able to acheive is to not get shot down. Most of them do not acheive that much. None of them have shot down the opposing F-16, BVR or otherwise.
Odd that that is the range they used then, right? BTW, that came from B-R, and wasn't 1965, but ~1990. You bought them and inducted them because that is what Russia gave you.
Suggest you see SRB's comment on the comparison. He is a bit more realistic than you are. I'm sure India has never cannibalized MiG or Sukhoi parts from their planes either, right? Lol. You guys are the experts on that one.

If 34 PAF F-16's are still flying (which they are, btw), they must not have had to cannibalize too much, huh?
Yeah, yeah. We hear this all the time from you guys. Point is, I was talking about your remarks vis a vis the F-16 vs. MiG-21, not India's overall military superiority, which is not in question.

The real world encounters say the the F-16 spanks the MiG every time. Sorry if this hurts your tender ego, but blind faith in unproved systems gets pilots dead.

Tronic

ha!!!, and 2 BVR Pak F-16s will cover entire Pak right???

yea??? so what new system do they have now???

Well... its obviously sensible not to use them.. Why would I call in a strike on the enemy when I know my aircraft are being tracked as long as they are up in the air and in close proximity to the LOC...

uh... I hope you realize that in Indo-Pak.. the situation is reversed then in those conflicts... in those conflicts the F-16s were flying with a huge numerical superiority against the MiGs... in the Indo-Pak scenario, it is the MiGs and the Sukhois which are flying with a huge numerical superiority...

in terms of the Syria... it has to do with the Israelis... they are simply too good for the crusty Arabs to handle... heck, give Israel the crappiest rundown Migs and the Arabs would still be falling out of the sky...

uhh... we had more options then Russia... if we weren't satisfied we could've bought missiles from elsewhere....

uh... there are more variants then simply a Mig-21... a Bison will rape a normal MiG-21 anyday...

and yet we always have the choice to import our spares... you don't see our most advanced aircraft being cannibalized, only the crusty ones... in terms of Pak, the F-16 is its most advanced aircraft... too bad its in such a bad condition...
bottom line, they still cannibalized their most advanced aircraft.... and running it for 2 decades without any spares coming in... yup... they are still deadly, high quality killing machines...

hah, really??? let me quote you on that...
and I was merely telling you how the war would go...
lol.... why would it hurt my ego??? the difference is, Indian MiGs are superior then those crusty Migs flown by rogue states... and Pak F-16s are WAY crappier then those flown by the West/Israel... and thats the bottom line...

SRB

I like Mig-21 bis but it is very old plane. Look that plane it is big engine with small wings. It radius turn on maxium speed is huge.It doesnt have capabalty to evade modern missiles.If Mig-21 are better than F-16 why India and China bought Su-30?

Please HighSea dont talk about Serbia, we had 16 Mig-29 against 1000 NATO planes.We didnt send our Mig-21 bis( in very good state in comparason with our 29) because we didnt had missiles for them and many of them would get in airspace of our neigboors and AAA would kill them. And our pilots many times go in battle without radar or with breakdown fire system sanction on arm sale are there to provide USA total superiorty over enemy(it is like beating handcuffed man by whole police station)

Tronic

the Bison is much better then the MiG-21bis...

highsea

Sorry SRB, I didn't mean to rub it in. I was actually very impressed by the Serbian pilots who went up in such miserable conditions. The fact that some of them even managed to evade multiple missiles while their equipment was falling apart shows some very brave pilots and skillful flying against extremely bad odds. Yet they kept going back up when they could. That takes a hell of a lot of guts.

Just trying to talk some sense into Tronic, which I should already know is wasted effort.

Tronic

no probs... any time bro... IAF Bisons are still leading...

SRB

No problem highsea I just what to say that if we had F-22 instead of Mig-29 we would lose.It was 1000:16.
Mig-29 in air like otter in water.

Tronic

I said Mig-21 Bison is better then F-16As... F-16Cs and F-16Ds would rape the Mig-21.... and F-16A/Bs would rape a normal Mig-21...... Bison is not a normal Mig-21... it has BVR, F-16As which I was comparing to don't... and since in todays world, it all depends on who locks on and fires first, the Bison has that capability over the F-16As in Pakistani service... Su-30s play a different role then the Bisons...

Captain Drunk

But remember some PAF F-86s were armed with AIM-9B/GAR-8 Sidewinder missiles whereas none of the IAF Hunters or Gnats had missiles, yet they shot down so many enough to earn themselves the title "Sabre-Killer".

Those weren't the Russian but Arab AF Migs with no BVR AAMs, Russian Mig-23s have shot down PAF F-16s during the Afghan campaign.

Captain Drunk

Highsea, there were in 1999 during Kargil, when Mig-21s shooed off PAF F-16s. Thats what thwarted them from sending in their PAF fighters while the IAF finished off their infantry on Tiger Hill. They were probably aware of the Bisons being armed with R-77RVV-AEs, a match better than their F-16s. Now that combo, is something like an F-104G with AIM-120s, a match no F-16A can take.

Its like good ol' Dirty Harry with Bond's latest P99!

AviramDj

dont forget the israelis have now new versions of f16's . the f16-i's .
Who knows what they can do exept flying longer ranges .

http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/f-16i/