Discuss PAK-IND air wars

[kashith]

seriously guys stop hanging on history...it is opium for people who want to avoid present and future.You downed a few iaf fighters,but there is no reason that you will be able to repeat it again in future.

 

[KS]

Karthic then please help us out here...Will history change?? No..so why don't you share your thoughts...I love to change my stance because i am not a fanboy...Just wanted to find out the truth...

I have posted few posts with relevant links and have asked few questions...Why don't you answer them and help me out with my dillusion??

Actually sir i tried getting a few links...but since im in office now most of the sites are blocked....Sorry for not being there..
hope to join tomo....


p.s.: One important question that needs to answered is wat advantage Pakistan got from attaining the so called air superiorty..?

 

[honour]

There was no need for this but anyways Growler answered it comprehensively.



I won't blame you. All Indians were doing the same in this thread. You are not the only one.

I have to do spoon feeding even I hate it.





Growler has already cleared that globalsecurity reports are based on different sources many of which are unauthentic and many times it uses Indian sources also. Can you tell me how many times the globalsecurity has used Indian sources in their report in the link that you provided to me.

seems like you trust Growler,Fricker,Windjammer more than the
Globalsecurity.com
B.henry
Lt.Gen. Nazi
Lt.Gen shaukat
Library of Congress
orbat.com
Chris Bishop, Indo-Pakistan wars 1965-71, p.386, "The Encyclopedia of 20th Century
Air Warfare", 2001 Aerospace publishing ltd, 2001 edition
Wikipedia
World Air Power Journal
Sqn Ldr Shuaib Alam Khan

Oops that's right your avatar name is AR(er)EESH

to tell you all the above links i mentioned have been provided earlier
i can provide them again if you want as personal MSG...as i dont want to repeat it here again......

 

[honour]

Actually sir i tried getting a few links...but since im in office now most of the sites are blocked....Sorry for not being there..
hope to join tomo....


p.s.: One important question that needs to answered is wat advantage Pakistan got from attaining the so called air superiorty..?

they got a so called "blast before PC advantage "

 

[deckingraj]

I see that you have some affinity with bigger fonts...I hope you know in internet world they means shouting..so please refrain from doing so???

Please read again, they were offered in Sept. 1970, three months before the war, and Pakistan refused as it was anticipating second batch of Mirages to replace the earlier F-86 and the Starfighter.

My information is there were seven, none the less, until the induction of the Mirage-3, PAF had to hold on to it for fast deep strike capability which otherwise was redundant to the PAF.

This is what i am trying to argue....F-104 did pretty well against IAF in 1965(as per PAF)...This is a plane that was inducted in 1961...Are you telling me that right after its induction PAF decided they no longer need this plane in 6 years of induction and that too when it did well against IAF???

Buddy, no one is in denial that the MIG-21 indeed out fought the F-104, but the claim of some 9 F-104s falling prey to the Soviet fighter are absurd, however two were indeed shot down by the MIGs. Kindly read my posts again, some Jordanian aircraft were indeed shipped to Pakistan but they never participated in any action, the general theory is that they arrived at the end of hostilities.

Thanks for saying the bolded part...Now i have some questions for you...please answer them in sincerity...

a) What do you mean bu MIG-21 out fought F-104 but did not achieve as many kills as accounted for??? B/w as per my calculation it is atleast 6(considering all PAF claims of accidents are true)
b) Does it sound logical to you that you have 10 F-104 fighters which were equipped with deadly missile and had an edge over other IAF fightes apart from MIG's would be kept in reserves??? How come PAF with just 280 fighters against 650+ combats(as per Growler 800+) of IAF have the luxuary to put a prime fighter as reserve??? Can you please provide any source which suggest that F-104 were indeed put in reserves and not used in Combat???

You see before and after is the fine line, scroll back and observe what i said and in any case it's mentioned in the last page of the article Growler posted. You have misread me. Jordan did send it's aircraft over which didn't participate in the hostilities,

I might have misread you...Sorry about that...Anyways see if you can provide any substantial link to support it...The one you did do not adhere to any theory...However the one that i did support that F-104 were used...

the F-104, even at it's peak wasn't in full squadron's strength and operated as a single flight and by destroying six Indian aircraft for the loss of three, still aquited it'self. It's not always the dismal performance in a war that renders an aircraft as obsolete, several other aspects come into play, for example, IAF lost more Hunters than SU-7s in the war, yet it held on to the older Hunter while disposing the SU-7 much earlier than anticipated. If you can't find the reason, by all means come back.

Comon Windjammer...You know it better than me....First F-104 was inducted in 1961 and arms embargo was placed right after 1965...That would be one reason to go after Mirages because Mig-21 was created by Russia against F-104....It did well(you acnowkedged that) and that's why there was no reason to carry on with the fighter even if US offered you more....Make sense??

 

[indiarocks]

No problem I would create a blog today and post the same in that blog. It would be the most recent link available on the web. Don't you think your criteria of authenticity is very silly.




And that "neutral" source is uncertain about Pakistan F-104 losses and then claims that PAF suffer significant losses of F-104. Lollzz Who is the creator of this site. Albert Einstein??? Looks like a big genius.

And this web site also claims that Pakistanis also accept these so called significant losses which PAF or GOP never did. What a neutral, credible source. And I never said that you should accept what PAF says just telling you that your "neutral" site is pretty stupid.




There was no need for this but anyways Growler answered it comprehensively.



Why go to Post # 41. Let's start from the beginning. In post#15 WJ provided official docs of PAF about Squadron # 14 and then in post # 21 you asked for the source. So WJ provided the source which you neglected saying that it is a PAF source. That source of WJ was about 1965 war. In response to your post Growler in post#30 posted the scans of UK based, Air enthusiast Magazine MAY 1972. This source was about 1971 was and was posted on your request. Then since we were talking about 1965 war we continued posting about our achievements in 1965 war. Then in post # 32 I posted about how our falcons hunted CM of Gujrat in 1965 war. Then just after my post Growler posted link about Pakistan's air parade after 1965 war. So this post is again related with 1965 war. Then just after Growler post in WJ post # 34 posted scans of John Fricker findings about M M Alam hunt of Indian aircrafts in 1965 war. Then in post # 44 again I posted IAF claims of kills against PAF in 1965 war. So in short we were talking or discussing about 1965 war. When in the very next post you decided to derail the topic and jumped to 1971 war.

Your post was post # 45 in which tried to derail the discussion without any conclusion about 1965. You said:



The above post of yours clearly shows that you jumped to 1971 from the ongoing discussion of 1965.

I won't blame you. All Indians were doing the same in this thread. You are not the only one.

I have to do spoon feeding even I hate it.





Growler has already cleared that globalsecurity reports are based on different sources many of which are unauthentic and many times it uses Indian sources also. Can you tell me how many times the globalsecurity has used Indian sources in their report in the link that you provided to me.

all the sources which we have provided are neutral but the thing is your mind is not trying to be neutral...try to rise above the narrow patriotism ...really its gonna help you
and to add we don't trust growler so we are not bothered by his view on global security.....

 

[Areesh]

all the sources which we have provided are neutral but the thing is your mind is not trying to be neutral...try to rise above the narrow patriotism ...really its gonna help you
and to add we don't TRUST growler so we are NOT bothered by his view on global security.....

One needs to have a eye and a functional mind to see the sources and their nationality. Anyways welcome to PDF after a suspension. Hope you won't go to afBANistan this time.

 

[Areesh]

Air Cdre Patrick. D. Callaghan at the wreckage of an Indian Su-7 shot down near Sargodha in 1971. Callaghan was then the PAF Chief Inspector. He held among other responsibilities, in charge of the verification of Pakistani claims of enemy airplane kills.

 

[indiarocks]

One needs to have a eye and a functional mind to see the sources and their nationality. Anyways welcome to PDF after a suspension. Hope you won't go to afBANistan this time.

Thanks for your welcome...appreciate it...

Moreover tell me Do you trust the air enthusiast magazine from the scans provided by growler/windjammer...?

 

[indiarocks]

Air Cdre Patrick. D. Callaghan at the wreckage of an Indian Su-7 shot down near Sargodha in 1971. Callaghan was then the PAF Chief Inspector. He held among other responsibilities, in charge of the verification of Pakistani claims of enemy airplane kills.

Just a hint how the American/western military officials were tilted to your side due to India-Soviet relations


In 1971, Yeager was assigned to Pakistan to advise the Pakistan Air Force at the behest of then-Ambassador Joe Farland.Prior to the start of hostilities of the Bangladesh War he is reported to have said that the Pakistani army would be in New Delhi within a week. During the war, his twin-engined Beech craft was destroyed in an Indian air raid on the Chaklala air base - he was reportedly incensed and demanded US retaliation.[/B] Despite Pakistan's surrender to India in the Indo-Pakistani War of 1971, Yeager stayed in Pakistan until March 1973, and recalled his stay in Pakistan as one of the most enjoyable times of his life. During his stay he spent most of his time flying in an F-86 Sabre with the Pakistan Air Force and making several expeditions to the K2 mountain, vacationing in Swat, Pakistan, trekking and hunting in the Northern Areas and learning the Urdu language.
Chuck Yeager - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

2.

It was the morning after the initial Pakistani strike that Yeager began to take the
war with India personally. On the eve of their attack, the Pakistanis had been prudent
enough to evacuate their planes from airfields close to the Indian border and move them
back into the hinterlands. But no one thought to warn General Yeager. Thus, when an
Indian fighter pilot swept low over Islamabad's airport in India's first retaliatory strike,
he could see only two small planes on the ground. Dodging antiaircraft fire, he blasted
both to smithereens with 20 -millimeter cannon fire. One was Yeager 's Beech craft. The
other was a plane used by United Nations forces to supply the patrols that monitored the
ceasefire line in Kashmir.
I never found out how the United Nations reacted to the destruction of its plane, but
Yeager's response was anything but dispassionate. He raged to his cowering colleagues
at a staff meeting. His voice resounding through the embassy, he proclaimed that the
Indian pilot not only knew exactly what he was doing but had been specifically instructed
by Indira Gandhi to blast Yeager's plane. ("It was,' he relates in his book, "the Indian
way of giving Uncle Sam the finger.')
The destruction of the Beech craft was the last straw for Yeager. He vanished from his office, and, to the best of my knowledge, wasn't seen again in Islamabad until the war was over.
Edward C. Ingraham, "The right stuff in the wrong place" - Chuck Yeager's crash
landing in Pakistan, Washington Monthly, Oct, 1985

The right stuff in the wrong place - Chuck Yeager's crash landing in Pakistan | Washington Monthly | Find Articles at BNET

 

[honour]

Air Cdre Patrick. D. Callaghan at the wreckage of an Indian Su-7 shot down near Sargodha in 1971. Callaghan was then the PAF Chief Inspector. He held among other responsibilities, in charge of the verification of Pakistani claims of enemy airplane kills.

December 26, 2006 14:14 IST

A few months ago, the Office of the Historian at the US State Department released Volume XI of the Foreign Relations of the United States devoted to the 'South Asia Crisis, 1971': in other words, the Bangladesh War.
This 929-page publication groups together documents which were already known like the minutes of Henry Kissinger's secret visit to China in July 1971 as well as scores of freshly declassified material available for the first time to the public.

some parts of it are....

But events in the subcontinent and the Chinese factor forced Nixon to change his stand. The new closeness between Washington, DC and Beijing and the involvement of the Pakistan president as a secret go-between greatly influenced US policy.

Then US President Richard Nixon According to the State Department historian, 'When the fighting developed, the Nixon administration tilted toward Pakistan. The tilt involved the dispatch of the aircraft carrier USS Enterprise to the Bay of Bengal to try to intimidate the Indian government. It also involved encouraging China to make military moves to achieve the same end, and an assurance to China that if China menaced India and the Soviet Union moved against China in support of India, the United States would protect China from the Soviet Union. China chose not to menace India, and the crisis on the subcontinent ended without a confrontation between the United States and the Soviet Union.'

The first US documents deal with the background of the conflict. Nixon's position was clear: 'We should just stay out -- like in Biafra, what the hell can we do?'

But everybody did not agree with him. In a telegram sent on March 28, 1971, the staff at the US consulate in Dhaka complained, 'Our government has failed to denounce the suppression of democracy. Our government has failed to denounce atrocities. Our government has failed to take forceful measures to protect its citizens while at the same time bending over backwards to placate the West Pak dominated government... We, as professional public servants express our dissent with current policy and fervently hope that our true and lasting interests here can be defined and our policies redirected in order to salvage our nation's position as a moral leader of the free world.'

When US Secretary of State Will Rogers received this 'miserable' cable, he informed President Nixon that the 'Dacca consulate is in open rebellion.' This did not change Nixon's opinion: 'The people who ***** about Vietnam ***** about it because we intervened in what they say is a civil war. Now some of the same bastards...want us to intervene here -- both civil wars.'

From the start, the Nixon administration knew 'the prospects were "poor"... the Pakistani army would not be able to exert effective control over East Pakistan.' Washington believed India was bound to support Mujibur Rahman. The CIA had reported that 'India would foster and support Bengali insurgency and contribute to the likelihood that an independent Bangladesh would emerge from the developing conflict.'

It is here that the Chinese saga began. In a tightly guarded secret, Nixon had started contacts with Beijing. The postman was Pakistani dictator Field Marshal Yahya Khan.

When on April 28 1971, Kissinger sent a note defining the future policy option towards Pakistan, Nixon replied in a handwritten note: 'Don't squeeze Yahya at this time.' The Pakistan president was not to be squeezed because he was in the process of arranging Kissinger's first secret meeting to China. The events of the following months and the US position should be seen in this perspective.

Indira GandhiIn May, Indira Gandhi wrote to Nixon about the 'carnage in East Bengal' and the flood of refugees burdening India. After L K Jha, then the Indian ambassador to US, had warned Kissinger that India might have to send back some of the refugees as guerillas, Nixon commented, 'By God we will cut off economic aid (to India).'

A few days later when the US president said 'the goddamn Indians' were preparing for another war, Kissinger retorted 'they are the most aggressive goddamn people around.'

During the second week of July, Kissinger went to Beijing where he was told by then Chinese prime minister Zhou Enlai: 'In our opinion, if India continues on its present course in disregard of world opinion, it will continue to go on recklessly. We, however, support the stand of Pakistan. This is known to the world. If they (the Indians) are bent on provoking such a situation, then we cannot sit idly by.' Kissinger answered that Zhou should know that the US sympathies also lay with Pakistan.

On his return, during a meeting of the National Security Council, Nixon continued his India bashing. The Indians, he noted, are 'a slippery, treacherous people.'

The State Department historian says, 'in the perspective of Washington, the crisis ratcheted up a dangerous notch on August 9 when India and the Soviet Union signed a treaty of peace, friendship and cooperation.' It was a shock for Washington as they saw a deliberate collusion between Delhi and Moscow .

During the following months, the situation deteriorated and many more refugees came to India. The Indian prime minister decided to tour Western capitals to explain the Indian stand. On November 4 and 5, she met Nixon in Washington, who told her that a new war in the subcontinent was out of the question.

The next day, Nixon and Kissinger assessed the situation. Kissinger told Nixon: 'The Indians are bastards anyway. They are plotting a war.'

To divert the pressure applied by the Mukti Bahini on the eastern front, the Pakistan air force launched an attack on six Indian airfields in Kashmir and Punjab on December 3. It was the beginning of the war.

The next day, then US ambassador to the United Nations George H W Bush -- later 41st president of the United States and father of the current American president -- introduced a resolution in the UN Security Council calling for a cease-fire and the withdrawal of armed forces by India and Pakistan. It was vetoed by the Soviet Union. The following days witnessed a great pressure on the Soviets from the Nixon-Kissinger duo to get India to withdraw, but to no avail.

The CIA reported to the President: 'She (Indira Gandhi) hopes the Chinese (will) not intervene physically in the North; however, the Soviets have warned her that the Chinese are still able to "rattle the sword" in Ladakh and Chumbi areas.'

Henry Kissinger For Kissinger it was clear that Indira Gandhi wanted the dismemberment of Pakistan.

On December 9, when the CIA director warned Nixon that 'East Pakistan was crumbling', Nixon decided to send the aircraft carrier USS Enterprise into the Bay of Bengal to threaten India.

Let me recount an anecdote related to me by Major General K K Tewari (retd), Chief Signal Officer, Eastern Command, during the 1971 War.

General Tewari was present at a briefing the three defence services held for Indira Gandhi. She was seated at a large table. On one side was General S H F J Manekshaw, the army chief, and on the other Admiral S M Nanda, the navy chief.

During the course of the presentation, the admiral intervened and said: 'Madam, the US 8th Fleet is sailing into the Bay of Bengal.' Nothing happened; the briefing continued. After sometime, the admiral repeated, 'Madam, I have to inform you that the 8th Fleet is sailing into the Bay of Bengal.' She cut him off immediately: 'Admiral, I heard you the first time, let us go on with the briefing.'

All the officers present were stunned. Ultimately, their morale was tremendously boosted by the prime minister's attitude. She had demonstrated her utter contempt for the American bluff.

On November 10, Nixon instructed Kissinger to ask the Chinese to move some troops toward the Indian frontier. 'Threaten to move forces or move them, Henry, that's what they must do now.'

This was conveyed to Huang Hua, China's envoy to the United Nations. Kissinger told Huang the US would be prepared for a military confrontation with the Soviet Union if the Soviet Union attacked China.

On December 12, the White House received an urgent message. The Chinese wanted to meet in New York. General Alexander Haig, then Kissinger's deputy, rushed to the venue, but was disappointed. Huang just wanted to convey his government's stand in the UN, no words of an attack in Sikkim or in the then North East Frontier Agency (now, the northeastern states).

The myth of the Chinese intervention is also visible in the secret Pakistani dispatches. Lieutenant General A A K Niazi, the Pakistani army commander in Dhaka, was informed: 'NEFA front has been activated by Chinese although the Indians for obvious reasons have not announced it.'

Until the last day of the war, Pakistan expected its Chinese saviour to strike, but Beijing never did.

In Washington, Nixon analysed the situation thus: 'If the Russians get away with facing down the Chinese and the Indians get away with licking the Pakistanis...we may be looking down the gun barrel.' Nixon was not sure about China. Did they really intend to start a military action against India?

Finally, on December 16, Niazi surrendered to Lieutenant General Jagjit Singh Aurora. Nixon and Kissinger congratulated themselves for achieving their fundamental goal -- the preservation of West Pakistan. They were also happy for having 'scared the pants off the Russians.They now started to think how to glorify the outcome as a success of their foreign policy.Best way was suggested to kissinger by Gen Tikka that he should try to convince the senate that indian losses were more than the Pakistan'

Kissinger's South Asia policy upset many in the US, not only the American public, the press but also the State Department, and more particularly, Secretary of State Rogers who was kept in the dark most of the time.

It is worth mentioning an episode which, of course, does not appear in the American archives -- The Tibetan participation in the conflict. After the debacle of 1962, the Government of India had recruited some Tibetans youth in the eventuality of another conflict with China. The Special Frontier Force was trained in Chakrata in Uttar Pradesh under the command of an Indian general.

In 1971, nine years after its creation, the SFF was sent to East Pakistan to prepare for the arrival of regular Indian troops. Their saga is one of the least known parts of the Bangladesh war.

Late October 1971, an AN-12 airlifted nearly 3,000 Tibetans who later assembled at Demagiri close to the India-East Pakistan border. On the other side of the border were the Chittagong Hill Tracts. Armed with Bulgarian-made assault rifles, the SFF was given the task of organising guerrilla raids across the Chittagong Hill Tracts. Opposite the SSF, in thick jungles and leech-infested marshes, was stationed a Pakistan brigade, including a battalion of its elite Special Services Group.

The Indian army knew this brigade was a threat to one of its corps preparing to advance on Dhaka.

During the second week of November, Operation Eagle began. Leaving Demagiri in canoes, the Tibetans commandos entered East Pakistan. The SFF then started overrunning one Pakistani post after another.

By the time the war was officially declared, the Tibetans had already been inside East Pakistan for more than three weeks. Using both their Bulgarian rifles and native knives, they advanced swiftly. Their Indian commandaner, Major General S S Uban later said, 'They were unstoppable.'

On December 16, the SSF was 40 kilometers away from Chittagong port, having successfully managed to neutralise the Pakistani brigade.

After Pakistan's surrender, they paraded through Chittagong. Unfortunately, 49 Tibetans lost their lives for a nation which was not theirs.

The release of the State Department volume on the 1971 conflict is a posthumous homage to the courage of the Indian Army which despite heavy odds and the might of the United States freed Bangladesh from Pakistani clutches.

Some aspects are still missing to make the puzzle complete.

First, the Indian history from the Ministry of Defence does not detail the political compulsions of Indira Gandhi's government. Second, the secret operation involving the Tibetan Special Frontier Forces in the Chittagong Hill Tracts is virtually unknown. Lastly, the Chinese involvement from the Chinese point of view remains unexamined.

Like the Henderson Brooks' report on the 1962 border war with China, it may take a few decades more to be revealed.

 

[Myth_buster_1]

Ok guys i have some more neutral articles that claim F-104 indeed was outclassed by its demise the MIG-21...

Like i said. F-104 was never a dog fighter and that against a generation ahead Mig-21. Only 2 were lost due to enemy action.

Lockheed F-104 Starfighter - History, Specifications and Pictures - Military AircraftMikoyan-Gurevich MiG-21 (Fishbed) - History, Specifications and Pictures - Military Aircraft

In this link it claims there were two F-104 planes shot one each on Dec 6 and Dec 12...(this is PAF official version)
Warbirds in Pakistan

The ratio was 2:0 in IAF Mig-21 favor no dough.

On some more research i found this one
F-104 Starfighter at AllExperts
Another interesting claim in the same link is

So much for your "neutral" link which is a copy past job of wikipeida.

Now i was wondering how come PAF grounded 12 F-104 when they had only 6 left...I did some calculation based on different links...Just to satisfy my Pakistani friends i concentrated on only on these links... http://en.allexperts.com/e/f/f/f-104_starfighter.htm(To get the number of F-104's grounded by Pak after 1971 )


[3.0] F-104 In Foreign Service (2) data regarding F-104)
http://www.916-starfighter.de/F-104_PAF_web.htm(This link tells us PAF counts of F-104)

This link suggest PAF had 14 F-104 in total...6 were preserved and rest were either lost in accidents or combat...Now as we have agreed that Jordians gave 10 F-104 to pakistan which as per growler were later returned i would like to ask how many fighters were actually grounded.....

Now here are my calculations

14 F104 + 10 F104 = 24 F014
8 F104 - Claimed by Pak to be lost due to accidents or combat
24 F104 - 8 F104 = 16 F104
12 F104 Grounded after 71 war due to lack of spares(Arms Embargo by US)
16 F014 - 12 F104 = 4 F104(We do not know what happened to them)

2 F014 kills accepted by Pak and if i add 4 unknown F014 to this list then totals match...which is in synch with my link that suggest 6 claims...

What rubbish?
Why do i have to repeat over and over again to make you understand?
SIPRI is perhaps the most accurate arms transfer data base.
During 71 War PAF operated 10 Jordanian Starfighters under a almost year loan contract which were returned back in 1972 and operated 8 of their own ex-USAF Star Fighters and total of 18.
However only 7 of PAF StarFighters were air worthy after US agreed for a shipment. So 17 Starfighters were operating in 71 war not 24!

LINKDue to the poor economic situation and Western arms embargos, the condition of the PAF F-104-fleet by the early 1970s was so poor, that most of the aircraft were non-operational and the sole unit that flew the type, No.9 Squadron, was provided with old F-86Fs to keep pilot hours up. The situation improved significantly in March 1971, when the USA channelled a shipment of spares to Pakistan, enabling the PAF to make the remaining five F-104As and two F-104Bs operational again. Nevertheless, the depleted fleet of the No.9 [/URL]Squadron was reinforced on 10 December 1971, when ten F-104As from the No.9 Squadron Royal Jordanian Air Force (RJAF) arrived. These became operational two days later, but were not wired for AIM-9Bs: their capability as intercepted was thus very limited and they were mainly deployed as airfield-interdictors. Most – but certainly not all – of Jordanian Starfighters should have been camouflaged by the time they arrived in Pakistan.

Their is no dough that India had claimed a kill of un operational starfighter that was un worthy of flying due to lack of spares.
Then again. If you go to Sipri site and in 1972 PAF transferred not 4 or 6 or 8 but 10 Star fighters back to Jordan.
So out of 17 operational Starfighters 2 were lost to enemy fire 10 were returned back to Jordan leaving with 5 operating Starfighter and 1 unoperational star fighter.
So when these "neutral" sources look at PAF F-104 figures they see PAF operated 17 star fighters and in the end were left with 5 operating and 1 unoperational starfighter and then they come up with a conclusion that PAF lost soooo many starfighters in 71 war.

Unfortunate for you, your analysts is wrong. Perhaps you are proved wrong again just like in Mirage-III topic.

 

[honour]

Like i said. F-104 was never a dog fighter and that against a generation ahead Mig-21. Only 2 were lost due to enemy action.



The ratio was 2:0 in IAF Mig-21 favor no dough.




So much for your "neutral" link which is a copy past job of wikipeida.



What rubbish?
Why do i have to repeat over and over again to make you understand?
SIPRI is perhaps the most accurate arms transfer data base.
During 71 War PAF operated 10 Jordanian Starfighters under a almost year loan contract which were returned back in 1972 and operated 8 of their own ex-USAF Star Fighters and total of 18.
However only 7 of PAF StarFighters were air worthy after US agreed for a shipment. So 17 Starfighters were operating in 71 war not 24!


Their is no dough that India had claimed a kill of un operational starfighter that was un worthy of flying due to lack of spares.
Then again. If you go to Sipri site and in 1972 PAF transferred not 4 or 6 or 8 but 10 Star fighters back to Jordan.
So out of 17 operational Starfighters 2 were lost to enemy fire 10 were returned back to Jordan leaving with 5 operating Starfighter and 1 unoperational star fighter.
So when these "neutral" sources look at PAF F-104 figures they see PAF operated 17 star fighters and in the end were left with 5 operating and 1 unoperational starfighter and then they come up with a conclusion that PAF lost soooo many starfighters in 71 war.

Unfortunate for you, your analysts is wrong. Perhaps you are proved wrong again just like in Mirage-III topic.

but most of the sites claim jJordan donated the aircraft's to Pakistan
what about that....even Air Aviation claims this....i gave link earlier....which is from the same publications of Air enthusiast...

 

[Windjammer]

I see that you have some affinity with bigger fonts...I hope you know in internet world they means shouting..so please refrain from doing so???

Since you seem to miss the line between past, present and future, i merely highlight the magic word, nothing to do to what it may imply.

This is what i am trying to argue....F-104 did pretty well against IAF in 1965(as per PAF)...This is a plane that was inducted in 1961...Are you telling me that right after its induction PAF decided they no longer need this plane in 6 years of induction and that too when it did well against IAF???

Since you are not an ardent aviation enthusiast hence you seem oblivious to certain points, the F-104 inducted in 1961 were not brand new aircraft like the MIG-21, all were ex-USAF machines produced in 1956 as any random image proves, by 1971 they were 15 year old fighters under sanctions . Within the USAF, the F-104 didn't have a healthy reputation for safety and the Americans were somewhat dismay as how the PAF still had over half of it's fleet after ten years of service and fighting a 22 day war. The retirement of the F-104 was already on the cards well before the war since Pakistan was hoping to acquire 24 F-5s, but Americans were only willing to sell 12.
So contrary to your claim, it was no knee jerk reaction.

Thanks for saying the bolded part...Now i have some questions for you...please answer them in sincerity...

a) What do you mean bu MIG-21 out fought F-104 but did not achieve as many kills as accounted for??? B/w as per my calculation it is atleast 6(considering all PAF claims of accidents are true)
b) Does it sound logical to you that you have 10 F-104 fighters which were equipped with deadly missile and had an edge over other IAF fightes apart from MIG's would be kept in reserves??? How come PAF with just 280 fighters against 650+ combats(as per Growler 800+) of IAF have the luxuary to put a prime fighter as reserve??? Can you please provide any source which suggest that F-104 were indeed put in reserves and not used in Combat???

There you go again, back to square one. The PAF in all earnest started operations with 7 F-104s,( remember the Jordanian aircraft arrived much later than reported), at the end PAF was left with four, two were lost to MIGs and one to ground fire hence the claim of six is irrelevant.
Since the PAF only had seven in inventory, ten equipped with sidewinders is the luxury which it didn't enjoy and albeit three PAF squadrons were kept in reserve but that doesn't concern the F-104.

I might have misread you...Sorry about that...Anyways see if you can provide any substantial link to support it...The one you did do not adhere to any theory...However the one that i did support that F-104 were used...

It's ironic the F-104 has caught your imagination, albeit some tall claims were made on the Mirages and no accusation made on the F-5s. Since the otherwise lack luster MIG-21 had a little success against an American fighter of same performance, capitalizing on it diverted the flack on dismal performance of the SU-7 squadrons.
Remember, no gun camera shots, no wreckage, and above all no post war intelligence to confirm the claim.

Comon Windjammer...You know it better than me....First F-104 was inducted in 1961 and arms embargo was placed right after 1965...That would be one reason to go after Mirages because Mig-21 was created by Russia against F-104....It did well(you acnowkedged that) and that's why there was no reason to carry on with the fighter even if US offered you more....Make sense??

I believe, i have already answered you above in detail.

 

[deckingraj]

Since you seem to miss the line between past, present and future, i merely highlight the magic word, nothing to do to what it may imply.

Better way is to bold...And no i am not in a habit of missing past, present and future....

Since you are not an ardent aviation enthusiast hence you seem oblivious to certain points, the F-104 inducted in 1961 were not brand new aircraft like the MIG-21, all were ex-USAF machines produced in 1956 as my random image proves, by 1971 they were 15 year old fighters under sanctions . Within the USAF, the F-104 didn't have a healthy reputation for safety and the Americans were somewhat dismay as how the PAF still had over half of it's fleet after ten years of service and fighting a 22 day war. The retirement of the F-104 was already on the cards well before the war since Pakistan was hoping to acquire 24 F-5s, but Americans were only willing to sell 12.
So contrary to your claim, it was no knee jerk reaction.

You are wrong when you say i am not an ardent aviation enthusiast...However i have limited knowledge and had to rely on lot of reading before replying back....As far as knee jerk reaction is concerned then my friend Mig-21 was russian replty to F-104...IN fact there are reports that F-104 was rushed to Pakistan when news were out that Indians were after Mig-21 way back in 1961...As i have said before F-104 followed hit and run strategy and was not manouevarable...This is what was exploited by MIG-21...So in short we both agree that Mig-21 outrun F-104 but for some strage reason we are not agreeing about the possible kills???? How come a fighter which out run other is not going to kill it in combat???Also if F-104 was 15 years old platform then mig-21 was 8-10 years old platform...

Obviously it was not a knee-jerk reaction to replace F-104.....But isn't it obvious that no Aif-Force simply put a fighter to ground unless and until it has lost its significance??? You kept on working with F-86F's till 1980 however simply put F-104 to ground....What could be the possible reasons???
a) Higher number of F-86 and thus it will take time
b) F-104 cannot fulfill its mission since adversary has Mig-21 and thus needs to be immediately phased out and replaced with better platform...

Anyways seems like we are beating a dead horse here...I have provided you a link that claims not only Jordan Fighters were used in combat but also there were 6 kills....please debunk that link by provinding something more concrete...Also please do look at the sources who have provided the information.....

There you go again, back to square one. The PAF in all earnest started operations with 7 F-104s,( remember the Jordanian aircraft arrived much later than reported), at the end PAF was left with four, two were lost to MIGs and one to ground fire hence the claim of six is irrelevant.
Since the PAF only had seven in inventory, ten equipped with sidewinders is the luxury which it didn't enjoy and albeit three PAF squadrons were kept in reserve but that doesn't concern the F-104.

Exaplined above...

It's ironic the F-104 has caught your imagination, albeit some tall claims were made on the Mirages and no accusation made on the F-5s. Since the otherwise lack luster MIG-21 had a little success against an American fighter of same performance, capitalizing on it diverted the flack on dismal performance of the SU-7 squadrons.
Remember, no gun camera shots, no wreckage, and above all no post war intelligence to confirm the claim. I believe, i have already answered you above in detail.

No F-104 has not caught my imagination...there is no point in talking about every angle and then end up getting nothing out of it...lets conclude about F-104 and move on...what say???