PAF locked on 9 shoot only two...PAF official....0n 27 Feb....

[thinkingcap81]

A lock is never a kill, you can lock a large fighter at ranges beyond when your missile can engage. What matters is the lock and the launch parameters of the missile. So locking up a bandit heading towards you within the higher kill probability zone of your missile is a good indication that the lock will be converted.
For those Su-30’s and M2k’s trying to intercept PAF strike fighters, those locks were mostly in that category.

The category of higher kill probability? Even if not, can opposing fighters detect if the missile aimed at them has a higher kill probability?

 

[El Sidd]

there is a hell lot of difference considering the nature of conflict .... Second we were not defending that day but were aggressors.... so again....a huge difference!

That is just a matter of perception. The conflict began with Pakistan as a defending force, it does not change which day of the conflict it was during the war.

Historians nor war strategists go by daily technical details when they document war and conflicts.

 

[BATMAN]

So locking up a bandit heading towards you within the higher kill probability zone of your missile is a good indication that the lock will be converted.

When the bandit is riding a truck, kill is 100% confirm.
It's all technical and i don't have slightest of the doubts in it.

 

[Adios Amigo]

If the limited “diplomatic” language was always the focus, we would not have carried out the operation and waiting when those 100 would reduce to the minimum.

To quote the cliche Sun Tzu line “The victorious general only seeks battle after the victory has been won” . We knew we were going to give them a thrashing based on setting up the scenario on our terms.

A lock is never a kill, you can lock a large fighter at ranges beyond when your missile can engage. What matters is the lock and the launch parameters of the missile. So locking up a bandit heading towards you within the higher kill probability zone of your missile is a good indication that the lock will be converted.
For those Su-30’s and M2k’s trying to intercept PAF strike fighters, those locks were mostly in that category.

Thank you

 

[RoshiniVenegal]

A picture is worth a thousand words.

Considering these words the only possibility left is that; you have some unknown condition that enforces selective comprehension for issues that might effect notional prestige.

I can accuse you of the same. I already told that I accept PAF outclassed IAF on 27th, both sides seem to hide facts. IAF seems to have lost more than one plane. PAF seems to have lost one. If it was of prestige I have no need to admit IAF failures.

 

[Ultima Thule]

That is just a matter of perception. The conflict began with Pakistan as a defending force, it does not change which day of the conflict it was during the war.

Historians nor war strategists go by daily technical details when they document war and conflicts.

we were aggressor and defender at same time, and we are not in the middle of full blown war, you lack logic and commonsense

 

[Adios Amigo]

That is just a matter of perception. The conflict began with Pakistan as a defending force, it does not change which day of the conflict it was during the war.

O bhai kia kar rahay ho..... PAF actions on 27 were purely offensive in defense of its country.....

 

[El Sidd]

O bhai kia kar rahay ho..... PAF actions on 27 were purely offensive in defense of its country.....

seedhi baat kar raha hon. jang jisne cheri thi usper zimedari ati ke 9 gire ya 100. roz nama jang akhbaar nahi horahi thi. proper jang horahi thi. ulta ek aur qarz barha liya hai kay wo proper territory me aye or ham sirf jammu tak rahe. ab ye qarz bhi utaro imf ke qarz bhi utaro. duniya ko valima party samjha hua hai

PAF actions may have been aggressive but the country was fighting a defensive war throughout that conflict.

 

[Invicta]

I can accuse you of the same. I already told that I accept PAF outclassed IAF on 27th, both sides seem to hide facts. IAF seems to have lost more than one plane. PAF seems to have lost one. If it was of prestige I have no need to admit IAF failures.

Lost one how. Just assuming your adversary lost a plane because you lost a plane is bit farcical.

 

[NA71]

My Dearest MK,

Perhaps, you have answered your question yourself in the very same post. Guess what ? We need a change if President and influence over such Military decisions since there might be a third party involved in restricting military’s Work in war time. Why would a pilot as for permission if it is already in air after a thorough briefing session pre op. This means that the bureaucracy has its disgusting hands stretched even on military... It doesn’t make sense to ‘NOT’ shoot down a hostile which will, if the tables turn, be as forgiving to you.

On the other side, This decision was good in a sense that this prevented further escalation, 10+2 would be a big number, India would have been demoralized, ego shattered, media black out, Indian public confused with the so called Mighty SupaPawa regular chants, Soldiers demoralized and fear grows. With all this, Pressure on top leadership to save faces would have ultimately resulted into heavier retaliation, something to a huge scale.

Now i know, people like you, have a different approach to such situations, probably my observation claims that you might think

“2 ho ya 10, ego to tooti hai, then why not 10”
“2 bhi avenge hi honge kisi na kisi din, kyun na abhi 10 hi girado jab jawab har soorat mein aaega kabhi”
“Jang to hogi hi har haal mein, undeniable fact, Jitna damage abhi karsakte ho kardo”

I like these stances, but there are various mindsets in the world, let’s live with what it is now. Forget 27 February.
@Mangus Ortus Novem

@The Eagle Bhaijan, sometimes, Some convos lead to no outcome, You know what i am suggesting the rest. And btw, i like MK, don’t want to see him banned. You can counter his arguments, but no one can change his, my or your mindset. Kindly go through my post in khalil qamar, have tagged you, would love to hear

You should also be PDF Mod....cool man.

 

[Ultima Thule]

PAF seems to have lost one.

Proofs, pentagon deny it and its technically impossible to shoot down our F-16 by your upgraded Mig-21, you upgraded Mig-21 can't fire BVR (BEYOND VISUAL RANGE AIR TO AIR MISSILE) because of radar ranges, your all COM and equipment were jammed by our ECM aircraft (DA-20 Falcon)

 

[Windjammer]

I can accuse you of the same. I already told that I accept PAF outclassed IAF on 27th, both sides seem to hide facts. IAF seems to have lost more than one plane. PAF seems to have lost one. If it was of prestige I have no need to admit IAF failures.

We have discussed this subject to the bone but then another allegedly new Indian member crops up and starts the same argument.....let me say this with a conviction that the only thing PAF lost on 27th Feb. was two AMRAAM missiles.....one hit Abhinandan's Mig while the IAF found the second one struck inside the SU-30 wreckage.

 

[StormBreaker]

You should also be PDF Mod....cool man.

Not into parenting sorts of things...

 

[NA71]

Not into parenting sorts of things...

sometime it becomes a requirement ...a necessity... specially when all members pretend to be war experts

 

[Salman876]

Proofs, pentagon deny it and its technically impossible to shoot down our F-16 by your upgraded Mig-21, you upgraded Mig-21 can't fire BVR (BEYOND VISUAL RANGE AIR TO AIR MISSILE) because of radar ranges, your all COM and equipment were jammed by our ECM aircraft (DA-20 Falcon)

AND WE DON'T/CAN'T HIDE F16s FROM USA