# 1965 War Aircrafts head on Comparison



## Tipu7

1965 air combat was decisive victory for PAF over much larger IAF.
Below is head on comparison of each air craft that took part in 65 war.



















@Windjammer @Bilal Khan (Quwa) @Bilal Khan 777 @Arsalan @TaimiKhan @Oscar @RAMPAGE @Side-Winder

Reactions: Like Like:
17


----------



## ebrahym

Tipu7 said:


> 1965 air combat was decisive victory for PAF over much larger IAF.
> Below is head on comparison of each air craft that took part in 65 war.
> 
> 
> View attachment 330978
> 
> 
> View attachment 330980
> 
> 
> View attachment 330981
> 
> 
> 
> @Windjammer @Bilal Khan (Quwa) @Bilal Khan 777 @Arsalan @TaimiKhan @Oscar @RAMPAGE @Side-Winder


so we only had starfighter and saber against four different IAF aircrafts Gnat,MiG 21, mysere and Hawker

MiG 21s out-matched Sabres

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Tipu7

Correct.
Mig21 was most superior air craft in 65 war ..........


ebrahym said:


> so we only had starfighter and saber against four different IAF aircrafts Gnat,MiG 21, mysere and Hawker
> 
> MiG 21s out-matched Sabres

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Windjammer

ebrahym said:


> so we only had starfighter and saber against four different IAF aircrafts Gnat,MiG 21, mysere and Hawker
> 
> MiG 21s out-matched Sabres


It was mostly the Sabres as we only had about a dozen Star fighters.
Although unknown at the time, the very first encounter between the two air forces in which four Indian Vampire fighter/bombers were shot down, resulted in the IAF strength getting reduced by about 30% as it decided to withdraw all the Vampires and Ouragan aircraft from combat service.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## zebra7

Tipu7 said:


> Correct.
> Mig21 was most superior air craft in 65 war ..........



And when did India Inducted MIG-21. Can you comment on the capability of the MIG-21 FL at that time, and was it absorbed completely, and all Indian pilots were familar with this bird ?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Genghis khan1

*This Crazy Soviet Pilot Flew a MiG 17 Under A Bridge!*

COLD WAR
INSTANT ARTICLES
MILITARY VEHICLES
Aug 28, 2016 Nikola Budanovic






16.7k
SHARES
FacebookTwitter


In 1965 an incredible stunt was pulled by a Soviet pilot named Valentin Privalov, who managed to fly his MiG 17 jet fighter under a bridge on the Ob River in Western Siberia. The event was described by witnesses who claim this actually happened, even though the credibility of the photograph depicting the flight has often been debated for being edited.

Nevertheless, the story remains. It was a sunny day, on 4th of June 1965, when Privalov flew under the central span of the Communal Bridge in Novosibirsk. The riverbanks were filled with people on vacation and officers from the nearby base, strolling and enjoying the sunshine. All of a sudden, a silver jet in the sky was performing the acrobatic. Everyone was amazed. It was an act of magnificent skill since the jet was never before seen performing a flight with such accuracy.





Restored MiG-17 in the markings of the Polish Air Force. By Stuart Seeger from College Station, Texas, USA / Wikipedia / CC BY-SA 2.0
It was reported that Privalov did this on his own initiative, and without any orders whatsoever. The hotshot pilot wanted to pull this stunt for personal glory and to exhibit his flying skills. The crowd gathered on the bridge started to applaud spontaneously, but Privalov’s superiors weren’t so happy. He got a suspension. This almost cost him his career in the Soviet Air Force. He was threatened with disciplinary action, but the Minister of Defense himself,  Marshall Rodion Malinovsky, saw the stunt as an advertisement of the military. The people were in awe. The word soon spread all over the USSR, and it soon evolved into a legend.


Privalov was sent to the elite Moscow squadron stationed at the Kubinka military airfield. The airfield is home to the aerobatic team “Swifts” and “Russian Knights,” and Privalov joined their ranks.

The photograph started circling the internet recently. It found its way through various Russian-language forums to worldwide attention. The origin of the photo is disputable, but it seems that the event depicted on it isn’t. Various reports confirmed that Privalov flew under the Communal Bridge, which is 120 meters wide between its pillars and 30 meters high. He was flying approximately 700 miles per hour.





_An article mentioning Privalov’s stunt in the American press. Public Domain._
Some claim that the photo was made only to illustrate the event, for it happened without prior warning; thus it was impossible to document it. It was published in Soviet newspapers and the stunt even echoed in the American press, when it was mentioned an article dating from 27th of August, 1965. The article included three weird stories all taking place in the Soviet Union: “a drunk who stole a streetcar,” “an aircraft mechanic who went on a joyride up and down runways in an Ilyushin 4 transport,” and “a stunt flier who flew under bridges.”


Valentin Privalov, “a stunt flier who flew under bridges” pursued a lavish and successful career in the Soviet Air Force, and ended up as a deputy head of Russia’s civil aviation air traffic control center in Moscow. Little is known about his personal life, and whether or not the man is still alive, but his stunt remains unforgettable.

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## untitled

We should have opted for the F4 Phantom instead of the F104.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Genghis khan1

ebrahym said:


> so we only had starfighter and saber against four different IAF aircrafts Gnat,MiG 21, mysere and Hawker
> 
> MiG 21s out-matched Sabres


Still kicked A$$.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## ebrahym

Genghis khan1 said:


> Still kicked A$$.


of course we did


----------



## Ghazwa e Hind

PAF will repeat the history once again inshaAllah. There are many Alams, Rafiquis present in the airforce.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## SSGcommandoPAK

Nice thread but can we also compare rest of the capabilities also like Navy fleet and Army tanks /Artillery . Weapons used by the two armies .


----------



## zebra7

ebrahym said:


> so we only had starfighter and saber against four different IAF aircrafts Gnat,MiG 21, mysere and Hawker
> 
> MiG 21s out-matched Sabres



Which was more superior Starfighter or Mig 21 ?

Which Airforce was having A2A Missile Sidewinger ?

Do you think first-generation subsonic fighters like Vampire and Dassault Toofani as superior ?

Do you think IAF Mystere was capable of fighting with F 86 Sabre ?

What about 13 of IAF's 28 squadrons had been deployed in the eastern and central sectors to tackle the Chinese threat ? Does that means IAF was superior in number with PAF ?

What about the GNAT twin gun problem, which gets Jammed in several occasion ?

Do you think a single squardon of MIG-21 FL inducted, without night fighting capability was superior minus supersonic speed and no A2A missile ?

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## ebrahym

zebra7 said:


> Which was more superior Starfighter or Mig 21 ?
> 
> Which Airforce was having A2A Missile Sidewinger ?
> 
> Do you think first-generation subsonic fighters like Vampire and Dassault Toofani as superior ?
> 
> Do you think IAF Mystere was capable of fighting with F 86 Sabre ?
> 
> What about 13 of IAF's 28 squadrons had been deployed in the eastern and central sectors to tackle the Chinese threat ? Does that means IAF was superior in number with PAF ?
> 
> What about the GNAT twin gun problem, which gets Jammed in several occasion ?
> 
> Do you think a single squardon of MIG-21 FL inducted, without night fighting capability was superior minus supersonic speed and no A2A missile ?


no one remembers the circumstances 
everyone remembers the conclusion

what could have happened is one thing what did happen is other
1971
what about Soviet naval blockade?
atlantique
what about its being unarmed?
Kargil?
what about the fact that that not only soldiers were outsourced but were being pursued to retreat by the top brass when Indians attacked their position but still were able to hold them off for a whole week?

no one remembers the consequence but conclusion

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## zebra7

ebrahym said:


> what about Soviet naval blockade?



LOLZ, Lets start from here -- According to most of the Indian Members and many Pakistani members Soviet helped India, by deploying their subs in support to counter the U.S carrier group.

Here is the reality, -- It was a common drill by the Soviet Subs to chase the U.S/NATO carrier group.



ebrahym said:


> atlantique



What ??



ebrahym said:


> what about its being unarmed?



What about its flying close to border, where there was no Sea/ocean despite being Naval plane, and training ? Lol close to International border.



ebrahym said:


> what about the fact that that not only soldiers were outsourced but were being pursued to retreat by the top brass when Indians attacked their position but still were able to hold them off for a whole week?



Simple fact is the same reason, why the SSG Comando and GEN Parvez musharaf was unable to dislodge the Indian solders from the fortified top position in Siachin aka the ones who is on top have the upper hand.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## ebrahym

zebra7 said:


> LOLZ, Lets start from here -- According to most of the Indian Members and many Pakistani members Soviet helped India, by deploying their subs in support to counter the U.S carrier group.
> 
> Here is the reality, -- It was a common drill by the Soviet Subs to chase the U.S/NATO carrier group.
> 
> 
> 
> What ??
> 
> 
> 
> What about its flying close to border, where there was no Sea/ocean despite being Naval plane, and training ? Lol close to International border.
> 
> 
> 
> Simple fact is the same reason, why the SSG Comando and GEN Parvez musharaf was unable to dislodge the Indian solders from the fortified top position in Siachin aka the ones who is on top have the upper hand.


trying to divert thread?
US support was clearly neutralized by Soviet "drill"
atlantique?
you said close to border not into Indian airspace
curious for an Indian to claim this 
but still you claimed
Kargil ?
again comes to circumstances

now do ur LOL go above and read my above post carefully as it clearly says

No one remembers the circumstances but conclusion
now if you dont have something nice to add and just want to ruin the thread
go poke someone else 
dont quote me


----------



## zebra7

ebrahym said:


> trying to divert thread?
> US support was clearly neutralized by Soviet "drill"
> atlantique?
> you said close to border not into Indian airspace
> curious for an Indian to claim this
> but still you claimed
> Kargil ?
> again comes to circumstances
> 
> now do ur LOL go above and read my above post carefully as it clearly says
> 
> No one remembers the circumstances but conclusion
> now if you dont have something nice to add and just want to ruin the thread
> go poke someone else
> dont quote me



Are Janab aap to Gussa Ho Gaye. I was always on the topic, but you shifted, and I only answered you post.

On topic, this thread is really confusing. The OP posted the PAF aircraft in 1965, but didn't posted the IAF planes, their numbers.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Tipu7

zebra7 said:


> And when did India Inducted MIG-21. Can you comment on the capability of the MIG-21 FL at that time, and was it absorbed completely, and all Indian pilots were familar with this bird ?


I will not accept the same lone justification which is given every time by Indians when you mention in front of them that IAF lost half dozen Mig21 in 65 war.
No one deploy top notch air craft in FOB during a war unless and untill its combat ready ..........

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## zebra7

Tipu7 said:


> I will not accept the same lone justification which is given every time by Indians when you mention in front of them that IAF lost half dozen Mig21 in 65 war.
> No one deploy top notch air craft in FOB during a war unless and untill its combat ready ..........



I will answer you tommorow, in detail gotta go now.


----------



## Tipu7

zebra7 said:


> I will answer you tommorow, in detail gotta go now.


No problem.
I will be waiting .....


----------



## Viper 94

PAF should make a F-86 sabre, F-104 and a B-57 flyable 
for legacy flybys at air shows. It would be a really cool sight


----------



## ebrahym

zebra7 said:


> The OP posted the PAF aircraft in 1965, but didn't posted the IAF planes, their numbers


the OP also did not mention any number he just said these aircrafts were used in conflict 
he also says that Pakistan mostly used Sabre as canberras were only a dozen or so

about the gusa
just go through our posts again
all i said from start is that
no one remembers circumstances but conclusions


----------



## AZADPAKISTAN2009

It was a conclusive victory


----------



## thrilainmanila

AZADPAKISTAN2009 said:


> It was a conclusive victory


posts sources to substantiate your claims instead of your own made up BS
PAF performed well but the pak army didn't perform as well, pakistan lost more territory and couldn't achieve its main objective. Most neutral sources agree had the war continued Ayub khan would have surrendered. India was beaten badly at lahore but pakistan was beaten badly at assal-uttar aka patton naggar


----------



## Tipu7

Plz avoid cheap words & off topic discussion.
Thread is about Air craft comparison so remain be it. 

Rest, your claims that "might" has happened under "if this that" circumstances leading to "may be" events with great "possibility" ,....
Well open separate thread for that ....



thrilainmanila said:


> posts sources to substantiate your claims instead of your own made up BS
> PAF performed well but the pak army didn't perform as well, pakistan lost more territory and couldn't achieve its main objective. Most neutral sources agree had the war continued Ayub khan would have surrendered. India was beaten badly at lahore but pakistan was beaten badly at assal-uttar aka patton naggar





AZADPAKISTAN2009 said:


> It was a conclusive victory


Indeed it was ......


----------



## thrilainmanila

Tipu7 said:


> Plz avoid cheap words & off topic discussion.
> Thread is about Air craft comparison so remain be it.
> 
> Rest, your claims that "might" has happened under "if this that" circumstances leading to "may be" events with great "possibility" ,....
> Well open separate thread for that ....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeed it was ......


again i'm waiting for a source to back up your claim it was a conclusive victory, don't stand by a statement without an actual source. arabs calim they beat israel in 1973 but did they?


----------



## Tipu7

Open separate thread.
Don't bring off topic discussion .....



thrilainmanila said:


> again i'm waiting for a source to back up your claim it was a conclusive victory, don't stand by a statement without an actual source. arabs calim they beat israel in 1973 but did they?


----------



## GURU DUTT

Tipu7 said:


> Open separate thread.
> Don't bring off topic discussion .....


ok i dont get it why pakistani members keep on making one after another thread regarding air war in 1965

cause even if we indians agree pakistan won the air battles of 1965 did made india concede kashmir to pakistan for which ayub khan started operation gibralter and operation grand slam ?

and how is it a matter what was the technical diffrence between fighters of that era what about now

its 2016 almost 51 years since 1965 air batles can PAF do to to IAF as what it did in 1965 air battels ?

start thinking about future with facts as of now .... maazee me kab tak khoye rahoge mere dost

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## ThaniOruvan

Really an unnecessary thread to discuss a 50 year old thing. It is not constructive and useful....

I have read several articles that back in 1965 Pakistan had better equipment (thanks to USA) than India but still it was pounded mercilessly and faced a morale crushing defeat at India's hands. But past is past....we should all move on instead of arguing about 1965...


----------



## GURU DUTT

ThaniOruvan said:


> Really an unnecessary thread to discuss a 50 year old thing. It is not constructive and useful....
> 
> I have read several articles that back in 1965 Pakistan had better equipment (thanks to USA) than India but still it was pounded mercilessly and faced a morale crushing defeat at India's hands. But past is past....we should all move on instead of arguing about 1965...


well they still think pakistan won the war as pakistan was able to stop indian army having lunch at lahore gymkhana and that an indian brigadier ran after leaving his willies jeap in pakistan and that PAF defeated IAF in 1965 but they dont want to talk about why they started opreation gibralter and ended it after they went to tashkent and signed tashkent declaration i wonder why

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Tipu7

ThaniOruvan said:


> Really an unnecessary thread to discuss a 50 year old thing. It is not constructive and useful....
> 
> I have read several articles that back in 1965 Pakistan had better equipment (thanks to USA) than India but still it was pounded mercilessly and faced a morale crushing defeat at India's hands. But past is past....we should all move on instead of arguing about 1965...



If you find this thread un necessary then do not waste your time here. 



GURU DUTT said:


> ok i dont get it why pakistani members keep on making one after another thread regarding air war in 1965
> 
> cause even if we indians agree pakistan won the air battles of 1965 did made india concede kashmir to pakistan for which ayub khan started operation gibralter and operation grand slam ?
> 
> and how is it a matter what was the technical diffrence between fighters of that era what about now
> 
> its 2016 almost 51 years since 1965 air batles can PAF do to to IAF as what it did in 1965 air battels ?
> 
> start thinking about future with facts as of now .... maazee me kab tak khoye rahoge mere dost



Hi Guru G .......
How is life going?


----------



## ThaniOruvan

GURU DUTT said:


> well they still think pakistan won the war as pakistan was able to stop indian army having lunch at lahore gymkhana and that an indian brigadier ran after leaving his willies jeap in pakistan but they dont want to talk about tashkent declaration i wonder why



They won't. See it is pretty obvious. Can a government tell to its citizens that they were f*****d mercilessly in war by Indian forces ? That they were the ones who initiated the war and left empty-handed and severely wounded in the end.
They cannot answer to the public about the purpose of this war. So they do all these propaganda right from school text book. Now those brain-washed keyboard warriors swarm forums like these and try to upheave their nation's image. Reality ? No one gives a damn about Pakistani musings.....

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## GURU DUTT

Tipu7 said:


> If you find this thread un necessary then do not waste your time here.
> 
> 
> 
> Hi Guru G .......
> How is life going?


im good saeen ji but you dint tell me as what is the use of such threads as to who was superior in 1965 air war when dispite everything ayub khan and ZAB had to end the war by siging humiliation surrender for ceasefire at tashkent by siging takshkent declartaion 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Gibraltar

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tashkent_Declaration


----------



## ThaniOruvan

Tipu7 said:


> If you find this thread un necessary then do not waste your time here.



Some sane people will understand the meaning of my post and stop wasting their time on this useless thread.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Windjammer

ThaniOruvan said:


> They won't. See it is pretty obvious. Can a government tell to its citizens that they were f*****d mercilessly in war by Indian forces ? That they were the ones who initiated the war and left empty-handed and severely wounded in the end.
> They cannot answer to the public about the purpose of this war. So they do all these propaganda right from school text book. Now those brain-washed keyboard warriors swarm forums like these and try to upheave their nation's image. Reality ? No one gives a damn about Pakistani musings.....



Yup, and somehow 50 years after being f****d by Pakistan, the clowns in Delhi suddenly decided to save their citizen's sorry a$$.









QUICK PILL
*The celebration*

There is a proposal to celebrate 50 years of the 1965 war with Pakistan, even though it wasn't a clear victory.

The celebrations are planned for end August, early September in Rajpath. The scale is unprecedented.

Replicas of tanks and other weaponry will be on display across Delhi. Major Indian battle victories will be celebrated.
*The debate*

Pakistan attacked India in 1965 believing that India was vulnerable after the losses in the 1962 war with China.

By most accounts, neither side won an outright victory.

Indian veterans of the war cite successes such as the opening up of the Lahore and Sialkot sectors to claim that it was a victory.
*The politics*

This could be Narendra Modi government's attempt to appropriate Lal Bahadur Shastri's legacy the way it appropriated Sardar Patel.

Shastri's Jai Jawan Jai Kisan speech during the 1965 war will be broadcast at several places.



GURU DUTT said:


> im good saeen ji but you dint tell me as what is the use of such threads as to who was superior in 1965 air war when dispite everything ayub khan and ZAB had to end the war by siging humiliation surrender for ceasefire at tashkent by siging takshkent declartaion
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Gibraltar
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tashkent_Declaration


So a UN backed ceasefire commonly known as the Tashkent declaration, translates into surrender in your bankrupt school of thoughts.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## GURU DUTT

Windjammer said:


> Yup, and somehow 50 years after being f****d by Pakistan, the clowns in Delhi suddenly decided to save their citizen's sorry a$$.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> QUICK PILL
> *The celebration*
> 
> There is a proposal to celebrate 50 years of the 1965 war with Pakistan, even though it wasn't a clear victory.
> 
> The celebrations are planned for end August, early September in Rajpath. The scale is unprecedented.
> 
> Replicas of tanks and other weaponry will be on display across Delhi. Major Indian battle victories will be celebrated.
> *The debate*
> 
> Pakistan attacked India in 1965 believing that India was vulnerable after the losses in the 1962 war with China.
> 
> By most accounts, neither side won an outright victory.
> 
> Indian veterans of the war cite successes such as the opening up of the Lahore and Sialkot sectors to claim that it was a victory.
> *The politics*
> 
> This could be Narendra Modi government's attempt to appropriate Lal Bahadur Shastri's legacy the way it appropriated Sardar Patel.
> 
> Shastri's Jai Jawan Jai Kisan speech during the 1965 war will be broadcast at several places.
> 
> So a UN backed ceasefire commonly known as the Tashkent declaration, translates into surrender in your bankrupt school of thoughts.


well jammer bhiyye since im an indian i cant use the language you are using against my nation but then chalta hai 

thing is muhib e watan pakistani nation is feeling so helpless and frustated with ever growing indian power and repute that they cant do anything but try to carres there bruised antional ego and false bravado by draming about the joys of gazwa tull hind and keeping that flame alive by drumming about past when they know there presnt state of affairs in anything but positive and encouraging .... but then it works just fine for us if pakistani nation keeps thinking like this ... thanks


----------



## Stephen Cohen

Windjammer said:


> Yup, and somehow 50 years after being f****d by Pakistan, the clowns in Delhi suddenly decided to save their citizen's sorry a$$.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> QUICK PILL
> *The celebration*
> 
> There is a proposal to celebrate 50 years of the 1965 war with Pakistan, even though it wasn't a clear victory.
> 
> The celebrations are planned for end August, early September in Rajpath. The scale is unprecedented.
> 
> Replicas of tanks and other weaponry will be on display across Delhi. Major Indian battle victories will be celebrated.
> *The debate*
> 
> Pakistan attacked India in 1965 believing that India was vulnerable after the losses in the 1962 war with China.
> 
> By most accounts, neither side won an outright victory.
> 
> Indian veterans of the war cite successes such as the opening up of the Lahore and Sialkot sectors to claim that it was a victory.
> *The politics*
> 
> This could be Narendra Modi government's attempt to appropriate Lal Bahadur Shastri's legacy the way it appropriated Sardar Patel.
> 
> Shastri's Jai Jawan Jai Kisan speech during the 1965 war will be broadcast at several places.
> 
> So a UN backed ceasefire commonly known as the Tashkent declaration, translates into surrender in your bankrupt school of thoughts.



@Windjammer 

India won the 1965 war ; You wanted Kashmir but did not get anything


----------



## Windjammer

Stephen Cohen said:


> @Windjammer
> 
> India won the 1965 war ; You wanted Kashmir but did not get anything


Suck on this.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## muhammadali233

Stephen Cohen said:


> @Windjammer
> 
> India won the 1965 war ; You wanted Kashmir but did not get anything


beta ap moun dhoe baghir he ajatay ho,jo phele moun dho ao,ghalat typing kar rahe ho.


----------



## Stephen Cohen

Windjammer said:


> Suck on this.



You started the war for Kashmir -- DID you get it


----------



## Windjammer

Stephen Cohen said:


> You started the war for Kashmir -- DID you get it


We have made sure it's a fish bone stuck in your lousy throat, you can only rule by oppression, almost two month under curfew, you can't even hoist the Indian flag openly while Pakistani flags fly all over the valley. 





__ https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=1041464985950671

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Tipu7

Stephen Cohen said:


> You started the war for Kashmir -- DID you get it


Nope.
India started war by invading Pakistan by crossing INTERNATIONAL BORDER.


Stephen Cohen said:


> @Windjammer
> 
> India won the 1965 war ; You wanted Kashmir but did not get anything


Wrong again.
India wanted to cut Pakistan in half by capturing territory till Indus River where 90% road & railway network exist. Lahore & Sialkot were just "break stop" for bigger mission.
But too bad, the Indian military even failed to reach very first stop ......
Now here is 65 situation.l,
India was beaten in Kashmir.
India failed to capture Lahore
India failed to capture Sialkot
India was beaten in air combat
India was beaten in sea battle

And above all, an out numbered PA not only stooped over whelming Indian army advance but also delivered jaw breaking counter attack. India who was dreaming about capturing Pakistan major cities ended up in desperately defending her own Amratsir city.

Pakistan was not beaten in Kashmir, PA retreated her self as defense was too over stretched and it was useless to capture Kashmir at the price of provincial capital & other major cities. PA was not forced out by IA.

And rest a tip, when ever a bigger military attack on smaller nation, in thrust of their attack, they always capture more territory compared to her smaller enemy. As it is easy to beat border forces and move ahead compared to stopping invading enemy & push them back......

So a km captured by PA in 65 war carry more weight than 10km captured by IA.

And considering all this, if you still call it Indian victory then I wish for 1000 such victories of India against Pakistan 



GURU DUTT said:


> im good saeen ji but you dint tell me as what is the use of such threads as to who was superior in 1965 air war when dispite everything ayub khan and ZAB had to end the war by siging humiliation surrender for ceasefire at tashkent by siging takshkent declartaion
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Gibraltar
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tashkent_Declaration



Diplomacy is different thing,
Fighting war on ground is different thing.
I am surprised to see that this is scale for you to measure victory of war..... lol Guru G

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## GURU DUTT

Tipu7 said:


> Diplomacy is different thing,
> Fighting war on ground is different thing.
> I am surprised to see that this is scale for you to measure victory of war..... lol Guru G



well air or ground the only thing important at the end of the day is why was the war started in the first place and the person who started the war did he get what he started the war ... AK & ZAB started the war to get kashmir but ended it after saving lahore from IA ... what does that tells you 

for now look at 1965 id does not matter who won the air war or who was more powerfull them what matters is ayub khan started the war by sending SSG commanmdoes disguised as kashmiries to start a rebellion in kashmir but when they were detected and caught by villagers and handed over to IA ayub khan launched opreation grand slam to cut the road link of india to J&K but failed to get the objectives and ended the war by siging tashkent declaration when IA was at the gates of lahore


----------



## Tipu7

War started by BRAVE Indian army by attacking Lahore from three fronts at NIGHT when they were humiliated in Kashmir and were desperate to force down Pakistan Army 

In my humble opinion, it was cheap move.
Why BRAVE STRONG Indian army did not face PA in Kashmir head on???


GURU DUTT said:


> well air or ground the only thing important at the end of the day is why was the war started in the first place and the person who started the war did he get what he started the war ... AK & ZAB started the war to get kashmir but ended it after saving lahore from IA ... what does that tells you
> 
> for now look at 1965 id does not matter who won the air war or who was more powerfull them what matters is ayub khan started the war by sending SSG commanmdoes disguised as kashmiries to start a rebellion in kashmir but when they were detected and caught by villagers and handed over to IA ayub khan launched opreation grand slam to cut the road link of india to J&K but failed to get the objectives and ended the war by siging tashkent declaration when IA was at the gates of lahore


----------



## GURU DUTT

Tipu7 said:


> War started by BRAVE Indian army by attacking Lahore from three fronts at NIGHT when they were humiliated in Kashmir and were desperate to force down Pakistan Army
> 
> In my humble opinion, it was cheap move.
> Why BRAVE STRONG Indian army did not face PA in Kashmir head on???


well getting lahore was not the objective but stopping PAs much feared 1st armoured divission as we dint knew PA also had another armoured divission then so we attacked lahore to deviate attention from getting across river beas and taking over the vital bridge for the link to J&K but you wanted kashmir but ended up saving lahore without getting kashmir and loosing rann of katch , kargil , drass and batalick sectors to india


----------



## Tipu7

O ho.
Capturing Lahore was foremost objective.
dividing Pakistan in half in order to bargain entire Kashmir for sake of Lahore & Sialkot ....



This was plan in past, this is plan of now and same idea have birth to cold start doctrine... 


GURU DUTT said:


> well getting lahore was not the objective but stopping PAs much feared 1st armoured divission as we dint knew PA also had another armoured divission then so we attacked lahore to deviate attention from getting across river beas and taking over the vital bridge for the link to J&K but you wanted kashmir but ended up saving lahore without getting kashmir and loosing rann of katch , kargil , drass and batalick sectors to india


----------



## GURU DUTT

Tipu7 said:


> O ho.
> Capturing Lahore was foremost objective.
> dividing Pakistan in half in order to bargain entire Kashmir for sake of Lahore & Sialkot ....
> 
> 
> 
> This was plan in past, this is plan of now and same idea have birth to cold start doctrine...


well thats what told to you by your establishment but the fact is kashmir is and was 10X times more important to us that lahore as all owr rivers orignate from there plus the startegic location but you can dream what you want but it does not change that we still have kashmir despite all your wars and proxy wars and now all the world stands behind us and its just a matter of time till the... khair janne do .... cheers mate


----------



## Jaga Badmash

GURU DUTT said:


> we still have kashmir


How much? 35% with Pakistan and 10% with China and what rest you have to keep it under Indian occupation you people are spending billions plus your forces are being consumed so much that suicide rate of Indian forces in Kashmir highest in the world.
Sawal yeh nahien k bar mien kitni daru hai....Sawal yeh hey k TUM kab tak pee pao gey... aor kab tak?


----------



## GURU DUTT

Jaga Badmash said:


> How much? 35% with Pakistan and 10% with China and what rest you have to keep it under Indian occupation you people are spending billions plus your forces are being consumed so much that suicide rate of Indian forces in Kashmir highest in the world.
> Sawal yeh nahien k bar mien kitni daru hai....Sawal yeh hey k TUM kab tak pee pao gey... aor kab tak?


we have kashmir and we wont give it or let it go no matter whats the price if you have gutts come and take it by force


----------



## Jaga Badmash

GURU DUTT said:


> we have kashmir and we wont give it or let it go no matter whats the price if you have gutts come and take it by force


As i said Kab tak.....We will waiting for the right time which is very near in 1965 our operation was very successful but India opened Lahore and Sialkot front which forces superpowers to intervene and force Pakistan to accept Indian proposal of peace. Same thing happened during Kargil where US forces our political leadership to accept peace proposal but gentle men right time is coming brutal force against civilians by Indian forces not only force us to take action but also will force world to support our action.


----------



## GURU DUTT

Jaga Badmash said:


> As i said Kab tak.....We will waiting for the right time which is very near in 1965 our operation was very successful but India opened Lahore and Sialkot front which forces superpowers to intervene and force Pakistan to accept Indian proposal of peace. Same thing happened during Kargil where US forces our political leadership to accept peace proposal but gentle men right time is coming brutal force against civilians by Indian forces not only force us to take action but also will force world to support our action.


ohh im so scared


----------



## Jaga Badmash

GURU DUTT said:


> ohh im so scared


You should if you are able to think else enjoy the show under false propaganda of being supa dupa power or make in India slogans.....


----------



## GURU DUTT

to all pakistani members who think it was india who lost in 1965 or it was india who started the war @Tipu7 read this 

http://www.defencejournal.com/2000/sept/grand-slam.htm


----------



## Jaga Badmash

GURU DUTT said:


> to all pakistani members who think it was india who lost in 1965 or it was india who started the war @Tipu7 read this

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## GURU DUTT

Jaga Badmash said:


>


im sure you dint read an article written by your own *Maj (Retd) AGHA HUMAYUN AMIN *


----------



## Jaga Badmash

GURU DUTT said:


> im sure you dint read an article written by your own *Maj (Retd) AGHA HUMAYUN AMIN *


That drunk chap booted out army and now barking for his punishment...i posted news reports from neutral sources...

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## GURU DUTT

Jaga Badmash said:


> That drunk chap booted out army and now barking for his punishment...i posted news reports from neutral sources...


now this is the attitude for which no matter who he is i have stopped taking pakistanies serously ok ji lagge raho sannu ki 

here is the link again if you have guts read it or keep blaberring nobody cares

http://www.defencejournal.com/2000/sept/grand-slam.htm


----------



## Jaga Badmash

@GURU DUTT

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Tipu7

GURU DUTT said:


> to all pakistani members who think it was india who lost in 1965 or it was india who started the war @Tipu7 read this
> 
> http://www.defencejournal.com/2000/sept/grand-slam.htm


Oy kake......
Grand slam was limited to Kashmir. It violated LOC not international border.
Seriously where are you struck?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## GURU DUTT

Tipu7 said:


> Oy kake......
> Grand slam was limited to Kashmir. It violated LOC not international border.
> Seriously where are you struck?


did you read the article ? if not read it again


----------



## Hellfire

ebrahym said:


> so we only had starfighter and saber against four different IAF aircrafts Gnat,MiG 21, mysere and Hawker
> 
> MiG 21s out-matched Sabres



Only 09 x Mig-21s were available at the start of the war and they didn't see much action. You may like to read *Cold War Jet Combat: Air to Air Jet Fighter Operations 1950 - 1972 *by _Martin Bowman_. It is a neutral and realistic assessment of the war. Chapter 3 of the work provides a very well balanced view. (@war&peace if you can, read this guy's work for your thread)

@GURU DUTT As for Akhnoor, if you look at the Ceasefire Agreement as ratified by the Karachi Agreement of 1949 (between India & Pakistan), the ceasefire line extends from MANAWAR to the 'glaciers'.The boundary south of Manawar, namely Jammu-Kathua-Sambha-Katra is not in ceasefire ambit hence recognised as International Boundary by Pakistan by act of ommission, something they are trying to reverse by claiming it as "working boundary" which has found no mention in any bilateral/international agreement till date. Hence, the southern flank of Pakistan's attack, was across International Boundary. That was the rationale for Indian attack across IB in addition to the obvious of relieving the pressure as mounted by the excellent execution of offensive operations by PA in the sector. Collate with the agreement pdf link have posted a number of times, its on net and also with a map. Half framed sentences don't convey anything.

There is no doubt that PAF fought a superior force in terms of number, as also equally matched in terms of quality of platforms and later in terms of numbers, as vampires were found incapable in the famous air war over Chamb, where the gallant Vampires, leisurely shot up our own defending 20 Lancers who were preparing to defend against the attacking Pakistani force, and the excellent work of PAF Sqn Ldr Sarfraz Rafiqui , CO 5 Sqn PAF and Flt Lieutenant Imtiyaz Bhatti who scalped 04 Vampires and effected a removal of 130 Vampires and over 50 Dassault Ouragan for the remainder of war for IAF,by one single gallant action. This reduced IAF strength by 35% aprrox and few squadrons were in dissuasive posturing for a potential Chinese attack.

The effective ratio was about 1.5:1 (maybe a bit more) in IAF's favor as a result. While the initial air war saw the PAF establish its air superiority quickly, the heavy toll it suffered in bombing raids and CAPs soon created a situation wherein it flew increasingly night missions and more or less left IAF unchallenged in the day. This came about somewhere on 3rd-6th September.

However, the figure being randomly posted here in PDF as being 25(?) for Pakistani losses, is unrealistic and indeed meant purely as a propaganda and a figure of 73 has been documented by cine gun film records and wreckages(as also mentioned in aforementioned work). However, IAF losses were indeed higher and this was attributed to the comparative freedom to launch daylight strikes as PAF increasingly got into a defensive mode fo 5-6 Sept onwards.

The example of Badin raid on a Radar site during broad daylight with not a single PAF interception is quite a glaring example.

It is, though, noteworthy that Sqn Ldr MM Alam got a confirmed kill of 5 Hunters, a feat rare in the world and a testament to his abilities and skill.

@Abingdonboy your inputs/corrections, if any. @R!CK your inputs/corrections if any.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## wiseone2

zebra7 said:


> And when did India Inducted MIG-21. Can you comment on the capability of the MIG-21 FL at that time, and was it absorbed completely, and all Indian pilots were familar with this bird ?



unlikely ... the mig-21s were inducted in 1962



Tipu7 said:


> 1965 air combat was decisive victory for PAF over much larger IAF.
> Below is head on comparison of each air craft that took part in 65 war.
> 
> 
> View attachment 330978
> 
> 
> View attachment 330980
> 
> 
> View attachment 330981
> 
> 
> 
> @Windjammer @Bilal Khan (Quwa) @Bilal Khan 777 @Arsalan @TaimiKhan @Oscar @RAMPAGE @Side-Winder



Does the supposed tactical brilliance of PAF pilots matter ?? It does not alter the course of war. 

Both the IAF and PAF lacked the air to ground capabilities to win a war decisively. What good is your air superiority if you cannot attack enemy ground forces ?


----------



## Genghis khan1

http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20160826-the-1950s-jet-launching-tiny-satellites

The first fighter to fly twice the speed of sound, the Lockheed F-104 was a controversial design. Now, decades after retirement, the Starfighter is taking on a new role


By Stephen Dowling
29 August 2016
If you asked an eight-year-old to design a jet fighter, the end result might resemble the Lockheed F-104.

The F-104 looks less like a plane and more like a rocket with some extra bits added as an afterthought. Its long thin fuselage – with a tiny cockpit perched behind its pointy nose and short stubby wings either side – make it look state-of-the-art even today; one can only imagine how revolutionary it seemed when it was unveiled in the 1950s.

The F-104, designed just after the first jet-vs-jet air combat in The Korean War, was created to fly as fast as possible, hurtling past all the previous speed records. Less than a decade after test pilot Chuck Yeager first broke the speed of sound, it became the first jet to fly more than twice the speed of sound.

On top of a military career which lasted nearly 50 years, the F-104 found itself serving as an experimental testbed – a rocket-powered spacecraft stand-in that allowed pilots to practice the kind of rocket-thrust manoeuvring astronauts would use to control a spacecraft.

Now, some 60 years after the prototype first flew, the F-104 has found another role – as the launch vehicle for a new generation of tiny satellites.






The appearance of the Soviet MiG-15 spurred the development of the Starfighter (Credit: Calflier001/Wikimedia CC BY-SA 2.0)



It’s a surprising rebirth for an aircraft born almost at the very start of the jet age. The F-104 was the brainchild of the same man who would later design the world’s fastest plane, the SR-71 Blackbird. Clarence ‘Kelly’ Johnson interviewed fighter pilots who were shocked at the high performance of the Soviet Union’s MiG-15 fighter in Korea – which could outrun and out-turn any Western fighter – and asked them what they needed.

The F-104 is the perfect example of the compromises that come with trying to design high-performance aircraft

“They wanted a lot more speed, altitude, and maneuverability,” says aviation historian Ray Panko, of the Pacific Aviation Museum in Hawaii. “The F-104 gave them the first two but sadly not the third.”

In order to meet the need for speed, the F-104’s wing was very small and very, very thin. That helped create less drag, but it also prevented it from being able to turn tightly – and also cut down the amount of fuel that could be carried internally. The F-104 is the perfect example of the compromises that come with trying to design high-performance aircraft.

The F-104 first flew in March 1954, less than a year after Lockheed had been given the go-ahead to build a prototype. It made an almost immediate impact. The needle-nosed jet quickly earned the nickname ‘the missile with a man in it’; its official name was the Starfighter.

One pilot compared the experience to ‘driving a car while sitting on the hood’

The pilot sat close to the nose, in the plane’s cramped cockpit; he could only see his wings if he looked in rearview mirrors. Behind him was the General Electric J79 engine, an incredibly powerful engine that could push the aircraft to Mach 2 (1,500mph) and beyond. One pilot compared the experience to “driving a car while sitting on the hood”. As soon as the aircraft’s engine was revved up for take-off, the F-104 would shake and vibrate, Panko says, like a dog straining on its leash. When the brakes were released, the rocket-shaped F-104 would sprint down the runway.






With it's stubby wings and sharp nose, the Starfighter looked like a modified rocket (Credit: Nasa)



Its rate of climb was exceptional. The F-104 was designed to catch up with enemy aircraft before they could release their weapons – a role known as ‘interceptor’ – which meant it needed to reach its targets very quickly. A Starfighter pilot could reach 48,000ft (15 kilometres) in one minute, a feat still impressive 60 years later. The Starfighter would fly fast and straight, firing its missiles from many miles away, and turning back to base before its target had time to respond.

The F-104 was blessed with exceptional speed and climb, but also its fair share of idiosyncrasies – some of which made this rocket-shaped fighter incredibly challenging to fly. Because of the turbulence created by the small wings, the tailplane – essential for control – had to be moved to the top of the tail. This made the aircraft very hard to control at low speeds, and at high angles of attack (the direction of the wing relative to the air flow, such as when a plane is climbing). If it stalled, the plane wouldn’t drop nose down, allowing it to pick up speed and recover, but would drop tail first. At low level, that could be disastrous.

The high tailplanes also led to a very interesting design modification – because of the danger of an escaping pilot hitting the tailplane at high speed, the first F-104s had a downward-firing ejector seat. This made it almost impossible to escape from a low-level. (Later versions had more powerful seats fitted that could clear the tailplane even at high speeds).

Even at the high altitudes for which it was designed, the F-104 could be a handful

Even on the ground, the plane could still be dangerous. Ground crew had to install safety caps on the leading edge of the wings – which were sharp enough to cut paper – to stop them injuring themselves.

Even at the high altitudes for which it was designed, the F-104 could be a handful. One very nearly claimed a very high-profile victim. Chuck Yeager, the first pilot to fly faster than the speed of sound, flew a specialised version of the F-104 during his time at the Aerospace Research Pilot School in the 1960s. These three Starfighters had a rocket motor fitted so the aircraft could be flown to incredibly high altitudes. Once there, thrusters in its nose and wingtips helped the pilot control it for around 80 seconds; the air was so thin that the short stubby wings couldn’t generate enough lift to keep it aloft. It was the nearest anyone could get on Earth to the conditions astronauts would be controlling their spacecraft beyond the atmosphere.

On 10 December 1963, Yeager flew his modified Starfighter above the California desert. He activated the rocket motor, which tilted the aircraft up and pushed it past 100,000ft (around 30,500m). He then prepared to use the rocket thrusters. These, however, pushed the aircraft into a flat spin. Yeager stayed inside the spinning jet, hoping that he’d be able to regain control when the Starfighter entered heavier air closer to the ground.

The test pilot only put out the fire inside his suit by removing a glove and fanning the flames with his bare hand

Yeager soon realised his Starfighter was doomed – he couldn’t stop the aircraft from spinning. He launched his ejector seat, but as his parachute opened his helmet visor was struck by the bottom of the seat. Molten propellant from the seat’s rocket motor burned through the visor, turning to flame as it reached the oxygen in Yeager’s pressure suit. The test pilot only put out the fire _inside_ his suit by removing a glove and fanning the flames with his bare hand. Yeager floated to the ground – his face and half his hair burned out, and an eye socket cut from the collision with his chair – landing not far from the charred remains of his plane.






A terrifying incident in an out-of-control F-104 nearly killed test pilot Chuck Yeager (Credit: Wikimedia)



“The fact that Yeager was capable of regaining enough control to eject is an incredible testament to his flying abilities,” says Panko. “This is even more true because the problem occurred when he was above much of the atmosphere in his F-104 with an added rocket in its tail.”

Test pilots may have found plenty of use for the F-104, but military service was something different; the US Air Force quickly realised the Starfighter’s limitations, and cut its requirements. Less than 300 F-104s would end up flying in US service.

The problem is, for a great part of their lifetime, the Starfighter ended up doing jobs it was not designed for

However, European countries in the Nato alliance were in desperate need of new aircraft to counter the Soviet Union’s vast air forces. Lockheed pitched the F-104 – built to fly high and fast – as a jack-of-all-trades, from interceptor, to low-level attack and high-speed reconnaissance.

It became known as ‘The Deal of the Century’. So many Starfighters were ordered – no less than 1,000 by the West German Air Force alone – that Lockheed had to arrange licence production across the world. Their own factories couldn’t keep up with demand. Hundreds more served with air forces from Turkey to Norway, Denmark to Italy, and Japan to Canada.

The size of the deal – the majority of the nearly 3,000 F-104s built – embroiled Lockheed in a series of bribery scandals; in 1975 it turned out that the company had paid out more than $22mto foreign dignitaries to make sure their countries bought the Starfighter. The fallout tarnished Lockheed’s reputation for years.

For a great part of their lifetime, the Starfighter ended up doing jobs it was not designed for, even if – at first glance – the needle-nosed, stubby-winged F-104s seemed a good choice.






The F-104 was the first jet to fly at twice-the-speed of sound for sustained periods (Credit: Getty Images)



“For low-level, high-speed flight, small wings mean that the airplane bounces around a lot less, giving a smoother ride,” says Panko. “However, its small size meant limited fuel and therefore range. Range was increased somewhat in later models, but was never enough. For European air forces, whose missions were carried out over shorter ranges than those in the US, saw this as less of a problem.

They quickly found other problems, however.

Ferry van der Geest was one pilot who flew the Starfighter in a reconnaissance squadron of the Dutch Air Force. He flew the F-104 for a few years in the 1980s. Now an airline pilot, he remembers the exhilaration of flying the F-104 so close to the ground.

It wasn’t an easy plane to fly – Ferry van der Geest, Starfighter pilot

“We were flying extremely low and extremely fast, and on top of that we were unarmed. The gun was removed and all the ammo, and we had extra fuel tanks.” The reconnaissance Starfighters were designed to fly at low-level height, taking pictures of enemy units or infrastructure in a single high-speed pass. “In my squadron, taking pictures at low-level and surviving meant doing it as quick as you could. We could take razor-sharp pics flying in at 600 knots (1,110km/h).

“In training,” says van der Geest, “the lowest we were allowed to fly was 250ft (75m)... but in war time it would have been much lower.”

Barreling across the flat plains of Holland and the grey expanse of the North Sea at hundreds of miles an hour required concentration. “It wasn’t an easy plane to fly,” says van der Geest. “What made them so difficult to fly was that if you pushed the boundaries just a bit too much, you lost control of her.”






Nearly 300 of West Germany's Starfighters were lost in accidents (Credit: Getty Images)



The Nato air forces found Kelly Johnson’s ‘missile with a man in it’ much more challenging outside the hot, dry desert California air it was test-flown in. At such low altitudes there was the added danger of bird strike. And just a few hundred feet above the ground, there was very little time to react if something went wrong.

It was West Germany’s Luftwaffe that had the most problems. Out of the 1,000 F-104s it bought, nearly 300 were lost in accidents. German pilots dubbed the Starfighter the ‘Widow Maker’ or ‘Lawn Dart’. One widely known joke went: “How do you get your hands on a Starfighter? Buy a field – and wait.”

Dierk Pieter Merklinghaus was one German pilot who flew the F-104, and survived to tell the tale. “I flew it from 1970 through to 1973,” he says.

We lost many planes and pilots – Dierk Peter Merklinghaus, German Starfighter pilot

German pilots trained at lower altitudes than the Dutch. “In northern Germany, we could use the North Sea, and our minimum altitude was 150ft. In some areas that went down to 100ft.”

The Germans had to train this low because Soviet aircraft were expected to fly at this height – and higher altitudes would have made them an easier target for ground-launched missiles.

“The secret was, you had to fly it in the ‘environment’ it was meant for. If you tried to fly it slow, or at high angles of attack, or make high-g turns, well it wasn’t built for that.






Nasa used F-104s for research work for nearly 40 years (Credit: Getty Images)



“The German Air Force learned that the hard way. We lost many planes and pilots, but that’s because the plane was being flown in an environment it wasn’t meant for,” says Merklinghaus.

Most air forces phased out their Starfighters by the mid-80s, replacing them with aircraft more suited to the roles the supersonic jet had struggled to fill. But the F-104 soldiered on in a non-combat role elsewhere. Nasa had become one of the first operators in 1956, shortly after the aircraft first flew. In nearly four decades of service, Starfighters were used to train pilots who would later fly the hypersonic X-planes, as well as testing new materials, such as the heat-resistant tiles that were used on the Space Shuttle. The Starfighter only left Nasa service in 1994, and flew in Italian service – in a high-altitude interceptor role the aircraft was originally designed for – until 2004.

History may have been unkind to this groundbreaking plane, says Ray Panko, especially as it was designed at a time of incredibly rapid technical advances. “The Starfighter is a good example of the fact that a lot of the time, they didn’t understand the problems until the aircraft was in service for some time.”

I just think they’re beautiful aircraft. I’ve been drooling over them my whole life – Dustin Still, Cubecab

The F-104’s top speed is as fast as today’s fighter jets. “The things is, speeds have not really increased,” says Panko. “Designers realised that most battles take place around Mach 1 – and even an aircraft like the F-15, which can go really fast, it’s still optimised for combat at Mach 1.”

Take away the need to fly very fast and very low above the German countryside, and the Starfighter’s safety record would improve immensely. And there is one company that plans to take the 60-year-old fighter into service for some years to come.






Starfighters Inc will launch the satellites from their base in Florida (Credit: Nasa)



Cubecab plans to launch very small satellites – known as cubesats – using a rocket that weighs a similar amount. It’s much smaller, and therefore cheaper, than any other launch method currently available.

How will CubeCab launch these tiny satellites? Simple – they’ll use Starfighters.

Cubecab will strap its lightweight rockets, each carrying a satellite weighing around 10kg, on to the kind of underwing ‘pylons’ usually used to fire missiles. And Starfighters Inc, a Florida-based company which still flies a handful of F-104s, will take their pint-sized payloads up to the edge of the stratosphere and fire them into orbit.

It’s chief operating officer Dustin Still is something of a Starfighter fan. “I just think they’re beautiful aircraft. I’ve been drooling over them my whole life,” he says. “I’ve always said that if I came into a chunk of money – like a modest lottery win – well, this is something that I might be able to buy for $1m. And I would!”

For thousands of pilots the ‘104’ was really something very special – Ferry van der Geest

Still had been working on an idea for launching tiny satellites on the smallest possible delivery system for some years – and by random chance ran into someone from Starfighters Inc, who were wondering if their aircraft might be an efficient delivery system for small satellites. Currently, if you want to launch small cubesats , you have to wait until space is available on a conventional rocket, and you can’t choose the orbit.

“We intend to have very fast times between ordering and launching,” says Still. “We aim for 30 days from order to launch, most launch providers work on the timescale of about two-to-three years from order to launch. A typical mission might be getting an order from a college to launch a cubesat into a specific orbit.

“Within a few days later we should get the cubesat and load it into a rocket we have set aside for launch in Florida for regular equatorial orbits, or another facility or almost any location for a polar orbit launch.”

Still hopes the Starfighters will launch their first satellites sometime in 2018. The F-104s will fly over the Atlantic Ocean, their pilots taking the jets to around 60,000ft, the jets climbing at an acute angle to give the rockets the right trajectory to leave the pull of the Earth’s gravity. Once more, a Starfighter pilot will look out of the confines of his cockpit and see the curve of the Earth, the sky a rich blue-black above.

Ferry van der Geest, for one, is excited that this old jet is coming out of retirement.

“It is great that the guys in Florida keep this great lady aloft,” he says. “For thousands of pilots the ‘104’ was really something very special.”

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## ebrahym

hellfire said:


> Only 09 x Mig-21s were available at the start of the war and they didn't see much action. You may like to read *Cold War Jet Combat: Air to Air Jet Fighter Operations 1950 - 1972 *by _Martin Bowman_. It is a neutral and realistic assessment of the war. Chapter 3 of the work provides a very well balanced view. (@war&peace if you can, read this guy's work for your thread)
> 
> @GURU DUTT As for Akhnoor, if you look at the Ceasefire Agreement as ratified by the Karachi Agreement of 1949 (between India & Pakistan), the ceasefire line extends from MANAWAR to the 'glaciers'.The boundary south of Manawar, namely Jammu-Kathua-Sambha-Katra is not in ceasefire ambit hence recognised as International Boundary by Pakistan by act of ommission, something they are trying to reverse by claiming it as "working boundary" which has found no mention in any bilateral/international agreement till date. Hence, the southern flank of Pakistan's attack, was across International Boundary. That was the rationale for Indian attack across IB in addition to the obvious of relieving the pressure as mounted by the excellent execution of offensive operations by PA in the sector. Collate with the agreement pdf link have posted a number of times, its on net and also with a map. Half framed sentences don't convey anything.
> 
> There is no doubt that PAF fought a superior force in terms of number, as also equally matched in terms of quality of platforms and later in terms of numbers, as vampires were found incapable in the famous air war over Chamb, where the gallant Vampires, leisurely shot up our own defending 20 Lancers who were preparing to defend against the attacking Pakistani force, and the excellent work of PAF Sqn Ldr Sarfraz Rafiqui , CO 5 Sqn PAF and Flt Lieutenant Imtiyaz Bhatti who scalped 04 Vampires and effected a removal of 130 Vampires and over 50 Dassault Ouragan for the remainder of war for IAF,by one single gallant action. This reduced IAF strength by 35% aprrox and few squadrons were in dissuasive posturing for a potential Chinese attack.
> 
> The effective ratio was about 1.5:1 (maybe a bit more) in IAF's favor as a result. While the initial air war saw the PAF establish its air superiority quickly, the heavy toll it suffered in bombing raids and CAPs soon created a situation wherein it flew increasingly night missions and more or less left IAF unchallenged in the day. This came about somewhere on 3rd-6th September.
> 
> However, the figure being randomly posted here in PDF as being 25(?) for Pakistani losses, is unrealistic and indeed meant purely as a propaganda and a figure of 73 has been documented by cine gun film records and wreckages(as also mentioned in aforementioned work). However, IAF losses were indeed higher and this was attributed to the comparative freedom to launch daylight strikes as PAF increasingly got into a defensive mode fo 5-6 Sept onwards.
> 
> The example of Badin raid on a Radar site during broad daylight with not a single PAF interception is quite a glaring example.
> 
> It is, though, noteworthy that Sqn Ldr MM Alam got a confirmed kill of 5 Hunters, a feat rare in the world and a testament to his abilities and skill.
> 
> @Abingdonboy your inputs/corrections, if any. @R!CK your inputs/corrections if any.


nevertheless a war to remember
full fledge wars are now not on the table

all the conclusion of the war which is going to be remembered is
"Pakistan won"
PAF pilot skills were extraordinary
MM Alam and 8 pass charlie
no matter what happened 
as it ended in a stalemate
i will say again what i am saying since the start of the thread
no one remembers circumstances but conclusions

i would like to divert my own attention to understand modern wars and the situation we face currently
1965 was my grandpa's time he did his part now its time to do mine

rather then discussing a nearly half a century old war i would like you to tag me in your article you have promised me about.


----------



## Usman Saghir

Pakistan is still ahead of Indian regarding Air Force comparison.


----------



## Talha Baloch

waiting for gazwa e hind


----------



## Hellfire

ebrahym said:


> nevertheless a war to remember
> full fledge wars are now not on the table
> 
> all the conclusion of the war which is going to be remembered is
> "Pakistan won"
> PAF pilot skills were extraordinary
> MM Alam and 8 pass charlie
> no matter what happened
> as it ended in a stalemate
> i will say again what i am saying since the start of the thread
> no one remembers circumstances but conclusions
> 
> i would like to divert my own attention to understand modern wars and the situation we face currently
> 1965 was my grandpa's time he did his part now its time to do mine
> 
> rather then discussing a nearly half a century old war i would like you to tag me in your article you have promised me about.



Will do when I pen one. 

@Genghis khan1 thanks for the share. It was the first aircraft which was no doubt what one would call a modified rocket 
Second being Mig-25

Awesome machines


----------



## umair86pk

Indians won't admit it that they failed in in their primary and secondary objectives. Although Pakistan failed in its primary objective but achieved secondary objective to defend itself.


----------

