The real Red Flag facts...USAF briefing about IAF participation

[p2prada]

Prada,

Not true. Even if Mig-21 gets the first look visually, both F-15 and F-16 have better flight characteristics to get out of a messy situation. If they are piloted bad then yes even a Mig-21 can take them out.

Off course! The Mig-21 is not something that can survive a F-15 without help from a wingman.

As much as it may make you feel good, against F-16s and F-15s in a turning fight (equipped with HMS etc.), Mig-21 Bison is not the aircraft I would bet on. Mirage 2000 has flight characteristics that vastly exceed those of the Mig-21. The USAF was surprised by the Bison (due to its upgrades),

But, the mirages, though good, dont carry the same capacity for jamming as the Migs with the ALQs.

but nowhere have they said that this aircraft is a game changer even versus the legacy US fighters.

Actually, during Cope india 2004, the Migs were praised the most from both sides. the USAF saw the Migs as the biggest threat in 2004. The americans were flying 4 F-15C.

Again you are mistaken in your understanding my friend (the USAF pilot is not teaching a aviation 101 class for him to say everything. You need to understand and read between the lines). There is a difference in detecting and tracking via radar, and locking on. Even with locking on, there is a difference because WVR and BVR missiles use different types of guidance to home into a target. The Bison is no F/A-22 in that it is not seen on the radar. The Viper and Eagle pilots see it just fine, when you try to queue a SRAAM missile against it, then the jamming gets in the way. The same goes on with Rafales with Spectra, F-16s with their ECM suites etc. etc. The Mig-21 is no match for either the F-16 and F-15 if the latter are flown with skill. We have had kills against USAF F-15s with non-AI radar equipped F-6s and Mirages and that had all to do with pilot skills. So pilot skills and tactics that surprised US pilots should not be mistaken for some sort of a capability on the aircraft itself.

You are just jumping to many different scenarios while we are only talking about the Pilots words. We are not talking about the pilot skills, but technology.
Listen to the PART II of the video from 8:40 to 9:02.
He was asked a question about the F-15 being the last dog fighter. The pilot say NO and goes on to say that the GUN is very much required even for the F-22. Then he gives the example of the Mig-21 against a F-15.

His words:The Raptor is very capable and we are going to need 'em(he means GUNS). Because the Bison Mig-21 I talked about earlier, when he gets in UNSEEN cause hes got a small RCS, a BIG jamming pod and he gets here in the last minute and you ....... against this, this active radar missile that just showed up, luckily our RWR sees it; Holy ****!! Where Did that come from?? That little son of a *****, i need to kill him. Now you are gonna need that new capability.

He clearly mentions that no radar gave info on the Mig-21 when it flew in close. It was only the F-15 RWR that spotted the homing missile and assumed the presence of a small fighter in the viscinity.

The viper and eagle pilots have no idea the Mig is already there until the Mig shoots a missile or comes in for a merge. Atleast that is what he says.

During the exercises the F-15s were fed live pictures from AWACS except in CI 2004, where the F-15s used their onboard legacy radars. It is the same exercise the pilot was talking about. The F-15s couldnt pick up the Mig 21 on their radars cause of the jamming and could only see the Migs when the Migs engaged them in battle and not before that.

The point the pilot was trying to make was that the Migs couldnt be picked up on the legacy radars and not the new AESA. I was only stressing on his words.

So pilot skills and tactics that surprised US pilots should not be mistaken for some sort of a capability on the aircraft itself.

So, u mean to say the Mig-21 pilot somehow got close without being seen through skill rather than technology.


One more important point is that in 1v1 the MKIs were beaten only when the F-15s took advantage of the situation when the MKI stalled and dropped. Then he goes on to say that the MKI is "a bit better" since we are only learning to fly the aircraft, a new platform. Once we learn to fly it well, then the legacy F-15s and F-16s will be beaten regularly.

 

[blain2]

You are just jumping to many different scenarios while we are only talking about the Pilots words. We are not talking about the pilot skills, but technology.
Listen to the PART II of the video from 8:40 to 9:02.
He was asked a question about the F-15 being the last dog fighter. The pilot say NO and goes on to say that the GUN is very much required even for the F-22. Then he gives the example of the Mig-21 against a F-15.

His words:The Raptor is very capable and we are going to need 'em(he means GUNS). Because the Bison Mig-21 I talked about earlier, when he gets in UNSEEN cause hes got a small RCS, a BIG jamming pod and he gets here in the last minute and you ....... against this, this active radar missile that just showed up, luckily our RWR sees it; Holy ****!! Where Did that come from?? That little son of a *****, i need to kill him. Now you are gonna need that new capability.

He clearly mentions that no radar gave info on the Mig-21 when it flew in close. It was only the F-15 RWR that spotted the homing missile and assumed the presence of a small fighter in the viscinity.

The viper and eagle pilots have no idea the Mig is already there until the Mig shoots a missile or comes in for a merge. Atleast that is what he says.

During the exercises the F-15s were fed live pictures from AWACS except in CI 2004, where the F-15s used their onboard legacy radars. It is the same exercise the pilot was talking about. The F-15s couldnt pick up the Mig 21 on their radars cause of the jamming and could only see the Migs when the Migs engaged them in battle and not before that.

The point the pilot was trying to make was that the Migs couldnt be picked up on the legacy radars and not the new AESA. I was only stressing on his words.

I think we are going round and about about what the pilot meant by "jamming". So you avoid detection or lock-on via jamming and then get killed in the dogfight with the Viper or Eagle. Taking a look at what the previous folks have said about the Bison, yes it has a good jamming kit, but it can't turn with either the Viper or the Eagle in a WVR fight (if the latter are flown well). Secondly, there are so many variables here on the jamming side, how do we know what ECCM measures were deployed by the F-15 pilots? I am sure the Bison has a decent jamming kit however what you do not know of or hear anyone talk about is what impact the F-15/16 jamming had on the Bison and other IAF aircraft. Both might as well may have gotten to the merge unable to lock on and track.

So, u mean to say the Mig-21 pilot somehow got close without being seen through skill rather than technology.

Yes its quite possible. This happens all the time in DACT and BFM type engagements and against aircraft with AI radars.

One more important point is that in 1v1 the MKIs were beaten only when the F-15s took advantage of the situation when the MKI stalled and dropped. Then he goes on to say that the MKI is "a bit better" since we are only learning to fly the aircraft, a new platform. Once we learn to fly it well, then the legacy F-15s and F-16s will be beaten regularly.

Yeah but he said that as he was making the point about needing the F/A-22. Lets not forget that. Also he only talked about one scenario where the MKI did the stall manuever, there were many more engagements over the 3 days in 1v1 dog fighting (@ Mountain Hope AFB) after which the IAF said, lets move on. So what was not said does not mean that it did not happen. I am sure not every single pilot on the MKI did the same stall maneuver. The large size of the MKI and the fact that it was flying "clean" (with one ACMI pod) against a fully loaded out F-15 is another indication that F-15/16s are pretty amazing at what they do. As I said before, beating the F-15/16 regularly depends on the pilot. You learn to employ the aircraft and you hope to do better, however I would take his comments about "beaten regularly" in the context of the need for the F/A-22. Given the long controversy over "does the USAF really need F/A-22", you will not find a lot of F-15 fighter jocks arguing against the new aircraft as most of the F-15 jocks would be the first ones to get on the F/A-22s. Also lets not forget about the "tad bit" comment.

I guess this particular debate is one where perception about the comments makes a big difference. I guess we will have to see additional feedback to come to the conclusion that MKI is hands-down a better aircraft than the Viper and Eagle. I personally am not convinced (but then I am biased towards the American aircraft ).

 

[shehbazi2001]

First of all the speaker of this video should not be taken as a God of air combat. He has just presented his views of an exercise where the participants were hopefully not showing all the tricks up their sleeves.

A jammer shall not make the Bison stealth but yes it may delay having a radar lock. An attacking Bison, using datalink, may attack in silence using target coordinates from other fighters.

With the datalink, it may be possible that one aircraft fires his BVR without turning on his radar. He may get target coordinates from another fighter or perhaps from AWACS. It means that the automatic threat prioritization systems (part of EW suites) should no longer be trusted. The RWR may itself classify the threats but it may be dodged. The threat evident on RWR may not be the one that fires the missile.

Kiowa Warrior scout helicopter can transfer the target coordinates to Apache and Apache can attack without exposing itself to the target. The same would be possible in air combat with fighter aircrafts.

Generally jammers are used at long range to deny lock-on to the opponent. At close range, the opposite radar starts to "burn through" the jammer and pilot can see this process on an intelligent RWR.A RWR that shows the strength of radar signals can easily do this.

But for a long/med range shot (more than about 15km), BVR AAM shall need the target position updates and fighter AI radar needs to be turned on. For targets at short ranges of about 15km, BVR should not need updates.

Although the short-range IR-guided missiles does not require radar guidance or say radar lock but for a good shot, its useful to have certain target parameters like target range, bearing, speed, altitude and all this data is provided by the onboard AI radar. Target parameters are used to establish whether the target is within the DLZ of the missile.

Even the gun requires input from radar. Even in 1950s, the F-86's gunsight used radar-ranging. The small black patch on the nose of F-86 was the radar-ranging set. Mig-15s did not have it at the start of Korean war and Sabres had an edge.

A good jammer can distort the ranging information, thus feeding wrong parameters to the opponent. Another popular jammer trick is feeding wrong velocity/speed information to the opponent.

Therefore, it seems that jammer can even affect the dogfights. To overcome this, training is the answer. Training for using alternate methods like for ranging of gun, F-86 pilot could see whether the target's wing-span is covering the ten dots of gunsight or not?

For gunnery, the HUD of F-16/F-15 shows ranging information through a round strip on the gun reticle (hopefully not all HUDs). The length of strip is used for ranging information. If radar is off, it would be difficult to get ranging information. The HUD should have a back-up gun mode that works even with radar off. This mode should include some symbology (like a circle or dots) representing gun boresight only.

Ranging information and expected impact point be left to the pilot to guess himself. Size of the target aircraft relative to the reticle size should give the pilot some idea of the range. But this shall constitute just a back-up mode.

For the jammers, I would say that we should not just be satisfied by what we know about jammers and EW. The critical nature of EW means that latest developments must be a closely guarded secret and thus the capabilities unkown. A constant effort is required to judge the new developments in EW from recent conflicts/events and at the same time an effort to understand it technically is also required.

 

[shehbazi2001]

An important aspect not discussed is the performance of IRST of Su-30MKI. Was it used? Was it effective? and how in the Red Flag the kills were assigned through the use of IRST, ie , if the missiles are designated using IRST....

No discussion means perhaps that IRST was not used but I am not sure......

Its amazing that in general, US fighters use FLIR for A2G missions but have stopped using IRST for A2A missions (seems so), at least after 1970s where F-4 Phantoms carried IRSTs under the nose.....IRST of F-4 could provide the direction but not the ranging information.......

Theoretically Su-30MKI should not have difficulty in target acquisition with IRST, BARS radar and AWACS link but there may be some loop holes in this scenario. In a way, even RWR is a source of target acquisition.

 

[Munir]

What about RWR that warn about other plane (not much further away) scanning you?

What about MAWS that screams like crazy if something is launched?

AIM9X has a different kind seeker. It can even lock on the pilot area if needed...

The rest of the info is indeed very true.

 

[p2prada]

I think we are going round and about about what the pilot meant by "jamming". So you avoid detection or lock-on via jamming and then get killed in the dogfight with the Viper or Eagle.

From what I know about CI 2004, the fighters used were Su-30k, Mig-27, Mirage 2000 and Mig 21. The mig 27s were simulating bombers and took no part in the action. The Su-30k, mirage 2000s actively took part in the fighting while the Mig-21s backed out in the beginning. As the mirages and su30 kept the F-15 engaged, the Mig-21s came in from nowhere and took shots at the F-15s and retreated. Thats what the US pilot was trying to say. The migs would come in silently, fire R-73s and get out as quickly as they had come.
This made the F-15s work more difficult by having to fend off the mirages and flankers and also manage more missiles coming from "nowhere." This is what makes the Mig-21 lethal. Anyways, in this scenario, where is the question of the Eagles having to engage the Migs, they have their hands full already.

As for the AWACS support that the indians enjoyed, it was still verbal. the F-15s were using their own radars, which means they can easily detect the 12 aircraft grouped together. The Migs would have "used" the AWACS radars and not their own. Or even used data link on the mirages to target the F-15s.
In such a scenario, the Migs have a high chance of survival and are also capable of defeating the enemy with minimal loses.

Taking a look at what the previous folks have said about the Bison, yes it has a good jamming kit, but it can't turn with either the Viper or the Eagle in a WVR fight (if the latter are flown well).

The scenario doesnot include 1v1, eagle against mig-21. Anyways, the first shot the mig-21 takes matters. If the eagle manages to avoid the missile somehow, then the migs have no chance of survival, ie, if the F-15 is already not engaged with another fighter.

Secondly, there are so many variables here on the jamming side, how do we know what ECCM measures were deployed by the F-15 pilots? I am sure the Bison has a decent jamming kit however what you do not know of or hear anyone talk about is what impact the F-15/16 jamming had on the Bison and other IAF aircraft. Both might as well may have gotten to the merge unable to lock on and track.

The Bisons BVRs were obviously jammed if they had to actually get close to use R-73s. Remember the R-73 is IR guided and the russian OLS systems are supposed to be better, atleast when compared to the F-15C.

Yeah but he said that as he was making the point about needing the F/A-22. Lets not forget that. Also he only talked about one scenario where the MKI did the stall manuever, there were many more engagements over the 3 days in 1v1 dog fighting (@ Mountain Hope AFB) after which the IAF said, lets move on. So what was not said does not mean that it did not happen. I am sure not every single pilot on the MKI did the same stall maneuver. The large size of the MKI and the fact that it was flying "clean" (with one ACMI pod) against a fully loaded out F-15 is another indication that F-15/16s are pretty amazing at what they do.

The MKI is like 4 years old. How long do you think any airforce in the world would take to completely learn a whole new platform, plus when the platform is already 20 tons heavier than anything else in its inventory. There are not many moves that can actually be used in such a short time.

there were many more engagements over the 3 days in 1v1 dog fighting (@ Mountain Hope AFB) after which the IAF said, lets move on

There are so many other ways to actually see the statement. The pilot said it as a joke. The IAF may have just become tired of doing the same thing over and over again(1v1). Their priorities may have been more than just some silly dog fights to prove their planes capabilities. We have been doing 1v1 since 2004 anyways. IAF came to the RF to take part in large scale maneuvers and not do 1v1.

As I said before, beating the F-15/16 regularly depends on the pilot. You learn to employ the aircraft and you hope to do better,

Thats why he says, they are only learning and Once they have "learnt" they would be able to beat the F-15s and F-16s regularly. He was being "general." He was talking about the capabilities of the MKI with respect to the F-15 and not just pilot skills and experience. What he meant is, if 2 pilots with the same skill level were flying against eachother, the MKI would win.

however I would take his comments about "beaten regularly" in the context of the need for the F/A-22. Given the long controversy over "does the USAF really need F/A-22", you will not find a lot of F-15 fighter jocks arguing against the new aircraft as most of the F-15 jocks would be the first ones to get on the F/A-22s. Also lets not forget about the "tad bit" comment.

Of course the comments reek of his discontentment with congress objections to the F-22. But, he also says what the USAF really want. They want overwhelming superiority and not a "tad bit" inferiority against their enemies.

I guess this particular debate is one where perception about the comments makes a big difference. I guess we will have to see additional feedback to come to the conclusion that MKI is hands-down a better aircraft than the Viper and Eagle.

True. But, we might never know.
Details after 2004 have not been as infomative.

I personally am not convinced (but then I am biased towards the American aircraft ).

HeHe!! The US pilot and I see eye to eye though.

 

[p2prada]

First of all the speaker of this video should not be taken as a God of air combat. He has just presented his views of an exercise where the participants were hopefully not showing all the tricks up their sleeves.

Excellent point!!!

A jammer shall not make the Bison stealth but yes it may delay having a radar lock. An attacking Bison, using datalink, may attack in silence using target coordinates from other fighters.

Its possible the Bisons have been verbally communicating lock on via AWACS.

With the datalink, it may be possible that one aircraft fires his BVR without turning on his radar. He may get target coordinates from another fighter or perhaps from AWACS. It means that the automatic threat prioritization systems (part of EW suites) should no longer be trusted. The RWR may itself classify the threats but it may be dodged. The threat evident on RWR may not be the one that fires the missile.

It depends on how good the frequency hoppers are. The MKIs are clearly at an advantage considering the F-15C is an older aircraft. They may not have had the necessary upgrades.

Kiowa Warrior scout helicopter can transfer the target coordinates to Apache and Apache can attack without exposing itself to the target. The same would be possible in air combat with fighter aircrafts.

So, does the MKI, mirage-2000, mig-21 etc in india. We have had russian datalinks since 1998.

Generally jammers are used at long range to deny lock-on to the opponent. At close range, the opposite radar starts to "burn through" the jammer and pilot can see this process on an intelligent RWR.A RWR that shows the strength of radar signals can easily do this.

Again depends on the FH systems. Anyways the AESA radars that the koreans used can easily eat through the jamming used by the MKIs in close range. thats where the OLS comes in.

But for a long/med range shot (more than about 15km), BVR AAM shall need the target position updates and fighter AI radar needs to be turned on. For targets at short ranges of about 15km, BVR should not need updates.

You mentioned about the Datalink anyways. Eg: the MKIs can provide target coordinates to the Mig 21 while actively taking part in a skirmish. the mig-21 can sneak in from behind, take pot shots and leave without being detected with their radars OFF.

Even the gun requires input from radar. Even in 1950s, the F-86's gunsight used radar-ranging. The small black patch on the nose of F-86 was the radar-ranging set. Mig-15s did not have it at the start of Korean war and Sabres had an edge.


Yeah! I wanted to ask you about that. Are the present day guns capable of moving a few degrees on either sides for better aim?? Are they capable of automatically targeting after measuring external conditions like wind speed etc??

I know helicopter gunship canons follow the HMS on the pilots. Can the fighters have the same control or even similar control??

A good jammer can distort the ranging information, thus feeding wrong parameters to the opponent. Another popular jammer trick is feeding wrong velocity/speed information to the opponent.

Now, imagine the six jammers that the Growler carries.

Therefore, it seems that jammer can even affect the dogfights. To overcome this, training is the answer. Training for using alternate methods like for ranging of gun, F-86 pilot could see whether the target's wing-span is covering the ten dots of gunsight or not?

Training, we need more of that.

For the jammers, I would say that we should not just be satisfied by what we know about jammers and EW. The critical nature of EW means that latest developments must be a closely guarded secret and thus the capabilities unkown. A constant effort is required to judge the new developments in EW from recent conflicts/events and at the same time an effort to understand it technically is also required.

And hence the good Learning curve for the MKIs.

Looks like the French got the most out of it though.

 

[p2prada]

An important aspect not discussed is the performance of IRST of Su-30MKI. Was it used? Was it effective? and how in the Red Flag the kills were assigned through the use of IRST, ie , if the missiles are designated using IRST....


No discussion means perhaps that IRST was not used but I am not sure......

That part may or may not be announced in the near future.

Its amazing that in general, US fighters use FLIR for A2G missions but have stopped using IRST for A2A missions (seems so), at least after 1970s where F-4 Phantoms carried IRSTs under the nose.....IRST of F-4 could provide the direction but not the ranging information.......

huh! The F-35s carry an impressive IRST.

Theoretically Su-30MKI should not have difficulty in target acquisition with IRST, BARS radar and AWACS link but there may be some loop holes in this scenario. In a way, even RWR is a source of target acquisition.

The problem is the BARS was OFF, except for training bands.
The AWACS datalink was not compatible, so "verbal" link.

The RWR did pick up info, but the info picked up was clearly not enough to identify friend or foe.

 

[blain2]

From what I know about CI 2004, the fighters used were Su-30k, Mig-27, Mirage 2000 and Mig 21. The mig 27s were simulating bombers and took no part in the action. The Su-30k, mirage 2000s actively took part in the fighting while the Mig-21s backed out in the beginning. As the mirages and su30 kept the F-15 engaged, the Mig-21s came in from nowhere and took shots at the F-15s and retreated. Thats what the US pilot was trying to say. The migs would come in silently, fire R-73s and get out as quickly as they had come.
This made the F-15s work more difficult by having to fend off the mirages and flankers and also manage more missiles coming from "nowhere." This is what makes the Mig-21 lethal. Anyways, in this scenario, where is the question of the Eagles having to engage the Migs, they have their hands full already.

As for the AWACS support that the indians enjoyed, it was still verbal. the F-15s were using their own radars, which means they can easily detect the 12 aircraft grouped together. The Migs would have "used" the AWACS radars and not their own. Or even used data link on the mirages to target the F-15s.
In such a scenario, the Migs have a high chance of survival and are also capable of defeating the enemy with minimal loses.




The scenario doesnot include 1v1, eagle against mig-21. Anyways, the first shot the mig-21 takes matters. If the eagle manages to avoid the missile somehow, then the migs have no chance of survival, ie, if the F-15 is already not engaged with another fighter.




The Bisons BVRs were obviously jammed if they had to actually get close to use R-73s. Remember the R-73 is IR guided and the russian OLS systems are supposed to be better, atleast when compared to the F-15C.




The MKI is like 4 years old. How long do you think any airforce in the world would take to completely learn a whole new platform, plus when the platform is already 20 tons heavier than anything else in its inventory. There are not many moves that can actually be used in such a short time.



There are so many other ways to actually see the statement. The pilot said it as a joke. The IAF may have just become tired of doing the same thing over and over again(1v1). Their priorities may have been more than just some silly dog fights to prove their planes capabilities. We have been doing 1v1 since 2004 anyways. IAF came to the RF to take part in large scale maneuvers and not do 1v1.




Thats why he says, they are only learning and Once they have "learnt" they would be able to beat the F-15s and F-16s regularly. He was being "general." He was talking about the capabilities of the MKI with respect to the F-15 and not just pilot skills and experience. What he meant is, if 2 pilots with the same skill level were flying against eachother, the MKI would win.



Of course the comments reek of his discontentment with congress objections to the F-22. But, he also says what the USAF really want. They want overwhelming superiority and not a "tad bit" inferiority against their enemies.



True. But, we might never know.
Details after 2004 have not been as infomative.



HeHe!! The US pilot and I see eye to eye though.

Prada I thanked you for your responses. I think I am ok with your perception of the exercise. I am sure there is room for different interpretations here. I was taken aback by the forceful denials of the Indian community after the comments were made by the USAF pilot. In light of the fact that when anything positive has come from the American side with regards to the IAF, it had been taken at face value, yet the critique goes through the worst form of doubting (even attacks on the credibility of the ones making the critique). So I am sure the truth is somewhere in the middle. In either case, I think we all agree the key thing is training hard and learning the appropriate employment of the assets available.

 

[blain2]

huh! The F-35s carry an impressive IRST.

Prior to F-35 and after the F-4s, the only teen fighter which carried an IRST system was the F-14. None of the rest did.

 

[p2prada]

Prada I thanked you for your responses.

You are welcome blain. Thank you for your responses too.

I think I am ok with your perception of the exercise. I am sure there is room for different interpretations here. I was taken aback by the forceful denials of the Indian community after the comments were made by the USAF pilot.

I dont speak for all indians (and neither does bal thakrey). The max I can do is support my country and still be respective of the other persons opinion. I always do my best at that.

In light of the fact that when anything positive has come from the American side with regards to the IAF, it had been taken at face value, yet the critique goes through the worst form of doubting (even attacks on the credibility of the ones making the critique). So I am sure the truth is somewhere in the middle.

This might be true in some cases but there are moderate people in both our countries, wishing for peace. The words of these moderate people are more important. It is better to just ignore the right wing when it doesn't affect your life.

Lets do our best to dig out the truth.

In either case, I think we all agree the key thing is training hard and learning the appropriate employment of the assets available.

Definitely. Our Mig-21s have been an asset and the mig-21 pilots will continue to be a good role model for the rest of our airforce.

 

[shehbazi2001]

Yeah! I wanted to ask you about that. Are the present day guns capable of moving a few degrees on either sides for better aim?? Are they capable of automatically targeting after measuring external conditions like wind speed etc??

I know helicopter gunship canons follow the HMS on the pilots. Can the fighters have the same control or even similar control??

:

All aircrafts in my knowledge have fixed forward-firing guns. I dont think that a fighter's gun can move with the HMS because the gun is fitted inside the aircraft with the firing barrel in front of the gun port.

If the gun of fighter aircraft is fitted with gun muzzle looking downward, the jet would not have to make a steep diving attack for ground targets but it would pose serious problems for aerial targets. Similarly if the gun is fitted with the muzzle upwards, it would certainly give an edge in shooting a target during a turning fight but then it would require the jet to make a very steep dive for ground strafing. Therefore a compromise is to leave it straight on boresight.

 

[Munir]

Here we were talking about coffins of he IAF and now some starts calling it the best asset. If ever used what is the practical value?

Indeed small plane, 2 bvr... What will be the range? If 2 BVR's fired the opponent will be warned. If not fired then it will have to do WVR with planes that are designed to outperform. So even in the hypothetical world I personally see Mig21 even as Bison not enough to make you change tactics. If it has jamming then you can detect that. When it tries to brake your lock you can lock on that. And the mig21 is not going to risk long fights...

If Mig21 Bison is valuable then we might also agree that PG is not that bad either. I heard so often that PG is worst plane in PAF service... Or are we good in chearing for Indian planes even if they are 40 years old?

It reminds me of the days that I called MKI a big dor in the sky... People laughed. Let us not forget the past. Gnat was very intresting and small. Still it did not change the war.

 

[p2prada]

Here we were talking about coffins of he IAF and now some starts calling it the best asset. If ever used what is the practical value?

Nope these are not the coffins we are talking about. I dont blame you for not noticing the difference cause they share the same names. The ones crashing are not the Mig-21bison but the Mig21M/MF versions. The bisons are not the so called coffins.

Indeed small plane, 2 bvr... What will be the range? If 2 BVR's fired the opponent will be warned. If not fired then it will have to do WVR with planes that are designed to outperform. So even in the hypothetical world I personally see Mig21 even as Bison not enough to make you change tactics. If it has jamming then you can detect that. When it tries to brake your lock you can lock on that. And the mig21 is not going to risk long fights...

No doubt the plane lacks in some quarters. But, what it lacks in mobility it compensates with firepower. As the USAF pilot mentioned, the Mig-21 gets to shoot the first shot. No matter what platform they are shot from, the R-73 and R-77 are no pushovers. The mig-21 bison is a 2nd generation platform with 4th generation avionics and firepower. It would be stupid to underestimate 4th gen weapon systems. The R-73 is more potent than the AIM-9X.

If Mig21 Bison is valuable then we might also agree that PG is not that bad either. I heard so often that PG is worst plane in PAF service... Or are we good in chearing for Indian planes even if they are 40 years old?

You are mixing up the 2. The bison has 4th gen avionics. Israeli radars and jammers, MFDs, HOTAS control, navigational aids like sextents, the Tarang RWR etc. along with BVR capability. Heck, not to mention it has autopilot too. The same cannot be said for the PG. The PGs equivalent would be the Mig-21 Ms and MFs and not the bison.

It reminds me of the days that I called MKI a big dor in the sky... People laughed. Let us not forget the past.

I for one can support you at that. The plane is 22m in length. I dont know, maybe you were talking to kids. The MKI is not stealth. Even, the F-15 will look like a black spot on the radar. Why else do u think the MKI carries a radar as powerful as a ground station radar. It is not trying to hide. You can see it with your RWR at a distance of 200+km. The MKI and F-15 are not meant to hide. The MKI's mission priorities include anti-air, SEADs and mini AWACS functions. Getting close to and bringing down the MKI is easier said than done.

Gnat was very intresting and small. Still it did not change the war.

The wars we have had until now have not changed equations anyway, not the pattons, centurions, migs, sabres, starfighters, hunters, gnats, frigates, carriers etc. Neither india nor pakistan have been able to claim any kind of decisive edge anyways. We continue to hold what we had since partition. So, why bring poor gnat into the picture. It was just one platform out of many that were employed and none have contributed to change.

All india and pak did in the west pak border is move some troops a few kilometres on either side of the border, fight as long as our economy allowed us to. Then retreat and start chest thumping using the media even to this day.

 

[p2prada]

Blain I found out one more handicap. The MKIs were not allowed to use flares and chaffs. Ground based SAMs had a field day bringing down the MKIs. Furthermore most of the MKIs during the exercises were equipped with A2G ordinance along with rafale and F-15C fighter escorts.