IAF MiG-21 shoots down Pakistani F-16

[Armand2REP]

Aircraft losses coincide with sorties as well as threat. The fact is Afghanistan is a low intensity conflict where the French fly a fraction of the sorties compared to the United States hence the lower attrition rate.

As for France "Battling Daesh" in Syria that has never happened besides for propaganda purposes and there are dozens of other terrorist organizations that France never bothered bombing unlike Russia. French aircraft on rare occasions flies into Syria and drops a few bombs from high altitude which they prefer targeting the Syrian military. The vast majority of ISIS was defeated by Syria and Russia with France nowhere to be seen except on occasions bombing Syrian targets. The rest of ISIS east of the Euphrates was defeated predominantly by Kurds with US air power.


Russian forces have battled ISIS, Al-Quida and many other groups. When did France ever help? You are bragging that the French Air Force is great and the Russian Air Force is pitiful based on the fact that the Franch Air Force rarely operates in Syria while the Russian air force flies combat sorties day and night including against militants with MANPADS in urban combat. The Russian Air Force also has/had forward operating basis deep in militant controlled areas. France on the other hand was again nowhere to be seen.

At the end of 2018 Operation Chammal air power had achieved 8750 sorties / 1507 air strikes / 2314 neutralized targets. Another 1000 targets dispatched with Caesar artillery. A combat sortie lasts over 5 hours requiring tankers on ingress and egress. With that many flight hours it dwarfs the little 30 minute sorties Russia carries out right down the road from their base. We had ZERO losses, Russia lost dozens of aircraft, some of which had very big death tolls. The Syrian Air Force lost at least half of their aircraft. Russia couldn't even defend their own air base losing several aircraft to rebel attack much less clear the runways of birds so their planes would stop dropping like flies.

Here let me help you understand with pictures:

Yes, France now controls everything to the Euphrates River, thank you for info-graphics showing French expansion.

Showing a detonated missile doesn't mean squat. Of course it would leave wreckage after destroying its target.

You saw how easy Israel takes out Panstir with antiquated radio guided missiles, if it cannot defend itself from that it is of no use.

In other words you are acknowledging that you will continue to derail the thread and troll. Make more tall claims expect to be exposed some more.

Technically, you are the one derailing it. I just respond to what others post. If they want to talk about French aircraft I am more than happy to go there. If you want me to stop then stop replying. I speak when spoken to.

 

[Neptune]

At the end of 2018 Operation Chammal air power had achieved 8750 sorties / 1507 air strikes / 2314 neutralized targets. Another 1000 targets dispatched with Caesar artillery.

France also had less casualties in WW2 compared to the Soviet Union and United States because it surrendered. Quick start boasting about how great France is.

In 4.5 years France flew a whopping 8750 sorties in Syria while Russia flew well over 40,000 sorties in 3.5 years and deployed over 63,000 troops in which they provided close air support for many. France on the other hand had almost no troops on the ground. Again this is another case of you bragging about how great France is when they hardly do any of the fighting.



And do I need to bring up the Gulf War numbers again to prove France leads from behind?

A combat sortie lasts over 5 hours requiring tankers on ingress and egress. With that many flight hours it dwarfs the little 30 minute sorties Russia carries out right down the road from their base. We had ZERO losses, Russia lost dozens of aircraft, some of which had very big death tolls.

Once again you are comparing France with Russia and the US claiming France is superior because its Air Force had less losses when in reality France flew a tiny portion of the sorties and had a fraction of the troops on the ground and did nothing worth while.

Tells us how many French troops were on the ground and in the air during the battle of Aleppo, Palmyra, Deir-Ez Zior, or dozens of other large scale battles?

Don't hold your breath. The only thing France did was drop a few bombs east of the Euphrates where ISIS was weakest, the US and Kurds again did most of the work there anyways. West of the Eurphrates the French presence was almost none existent. If France rotated 63,000 troops in Syria, had multiple bases to protect, had to fight in urban areas and as a result had to provide close air support for its soldiers as well as Syrian, had to perform air extractions, air evacuations, search and rescue and tens of thousands of sorties they would see losses as well.

Russia couldn't even defend their own air base losing several aircraft to rebel attack much less clear the runways of birds so their planes would stop dropping like flies.

And a NATO base in Afghanistan was attacked with 9 aircraft destroyed. You have selective memory and clearly can't argue without being completely one sided. The fact is France hardly lifts a finger, uses US cover and then you brag how France is better then everyone while France sits back and letting others do the heavy lifting.

Yes, France now controls everything to the Euphrates River, thank you for info-graphics showing French expansion.

Not only can you not argue but can't read maps. Let me help you understand. Prior to Russia joining pretty much all of Syria was under ISIS or other terrorist control.


Red is Syrian controld, yellow Kurdish and Green/gray terrorists.

After Russia:


Red is Russian and government controlled, yellow is Kurdish and US controlled.

East of the Eurphrates is mostly empty wasteland, there are no large cities. France was "fighting" ISIS along with the US and tens of thousands of Kurds. Russia on the other hand has fought ISIS as well as dozens of other terrorist organizations such as Nusra and the FSA in the largest cities in Syria.



Still seeing imagery French forces fighting in places controlled by Russia and Syria?

You saw how easy Israel takes out Panstir with antiquated radio guided missiles, if it cannot defend itself from that it is of no use.

The only thing I seen is you trolling. Again those Pantsir were empty, out of missiles and the radars were not even on but I don't expect any honesty from you. The fact is instead of owning up and apologizing or simply not speaking of the Pantsirs again you have the audacity to continue to brag about empty Pantsirs being destroyed as if that proves anything.


The Israelis overwhelming those Pantsir by launching volleys of missiles. Eventually after the Pantsirs were out of ammunition and abandoned they were destroyed.

Technically, you are the one derailing it. I just respond to what others post. If they want to talk about French aircraft I am more than happy to go there. If you want me to stop then stop replying. I speak when spoken to.

Multiple members have called you out and not me. You have low quality content and are going into off topic rants about how great France is.

 

[Armand2REP]

France also had less casualties in WW2 compared to the Soviet Union and United States because it surrendered. Quick start boasting about how great France is.

France also had less casualties liberating the Americans in their revolution because we came in and captured Cornwallis and defeated the Royal Navy in one action giving them their freedom. Then Napoleon came in and conquered continental Europe with far less casualties than he caused, but that is history. We are in modern times now so get with the programme.

In 4.5 years France flew a whopping 8750 sorties in Syria while Russia flew well over 40,000 sorties in 3.5 years and deployed over 63,000 troops in which they provided close air support for many. France on the other hand had almost no troops on the ground. Again this is another case of you bragging about how great France is when they hardly do any of the fighting.

When a French flight op is 10X longer than a Russian one, that is still twice the hours. With their carpet bombing tactics they would need to fly that many. It is mostly helicopters which we don't operate there. The Russians have never deployed large numbers of ground forces so that is a rotational number, France has also had half the army rotate out of the theatre during that at some point, but most of them go to the Sahel.

And do I need to bring up the Gulf War numbers again to prove France leads from behind?

Do I need to bring up Libya again? No one is claiming to be a Hyper Power, and Russia is no Super Power much less Hyper Power. They can't even keep their much larger fleet of aircraft in the air as long as we can a much smaller fleet.

Once again you are comparing France with Russia and the US claiming France is superior because its Air Force had less losses when in reality France flew a tiny portion of the sorties and had a fraction of the troops on the ground and did nothing worth while.

I will be more than happy to compare ourselves to Russia. Our quality is greater than their quantity.

Tells us how many French troops were on the ground and in the air during the battle of Aleppo, Palmyra, Deir-Ez Zior, or dozens of other large scale battles?

I was too busy liberating Mali to care what a bunch of rebels were doing in Syria. It is just another day in the Armée de Terre.

Don't hold your breath. The only thing France did was drop a few bombs east of the Euphrates where ISIS was weakest, the US and Kurds again did most of the work there anyways. West of the Eurphrates the French presence was almost none existent. If France rotated 63,000 troops in Syria, had multiple bases to protect, had to fight in urban areas and as a result had to provide close air support for its soldiers as well as Syrian, had to perform air extractions, air evacuations, search and rescue and tens of thousands of sorties they would see losses as well.

All we did was defeat Daesh and train the Kurds to be our proxy army. What have you done lately?

 

[Neptune]

When a French flight op is 10X longer than a Russian one,

Absolutely rubbish claims. Russia has flown strategic bombers from Russia to Syria and Iran. France launched strikes from neighboring Jordan and the Mediterranean. Exactly where is the proof France flew longer missions? France dropped a lot less bombs and flew less sorties so your claims makes no sense.

that is still twice the hours.

Stop making up things. You haven't backed any of your past claims with sources while I have provided many.

With their carpet bombing tactics they would need to fly that many. It is mostly helicopters which we don't operate there.

Yet they are the most vulnerable and most useful aircraft.

The Russians have never deployed large numbers of ground forces so that is a rotational number, France has also had half the army rotate out of the theatre during that at some point, but most of them go to the Sahel.

Russia has had over 4,000 personnel deployed in Syria that they admitted to.

Do I need to bring up Libya again? No one is claiming to be a Hyper Power, and Russia is no Super Power much less Hyper Power. They can't even keep their much larger fleet of aircraft in the air as long as we can a much smaller fleet.

The Charles De Gaulle can carry up to 40 aircraft. The French used additional aircraft such as Mirages launches from neighboring countries.


Russia had at most about 32 fixed wing aircraft deployed in Syria, mostly SU-24s and about 12 of them. Occasionally some TU-160s, Mig-29s, or SU-57s would deploy and leave shortly. They also had a few dozens helicopters and constant heavy transport aircraft flying people and equipment in and out of the base. There is no possible way the French flew longer missions based on available data.



From 2015-2017 Russian aircraft averaged 42 sorties per day with over Syria. They at times exceeded 100 sorties a day and hit over 96,000 targets by 2017.

And you were bragging French aircraft destroyed 2,314 targets in 4.5 years.



https://www.cna.org/CNA_files/PDF/COP-2018-U-017903-Final.pdf

I will be more than happy to compare ourselves to Russia. Our quality is greater than their quantity.

Russia produced more weapons systems in the past 3 years then France has in over a decade. Russia has and is developing weapons that France doesn't have and won't have in the foreseeable future.

All we did was defeat Daesh and train the Kurds to be our proxy army. What have you done lately?

France never defeated anyone. Most of ISIS was defeated by Syrian/Russian forces. Even Russian forces aided the Kurds. The US and Kurds played a smaller role and France played the smallest.

 

[Immanuel]

All we did was defeat Daesh and train the Kurds to be our proxy army. What have you done lately?

:bs:

The only one who already claimed he defeated ISIS is the Trumpster. You're way too late for your claim.


To compare yourself to Russia let alone US is laughable at least.
How about focus on keeping your country from turning into permanent EU shithole? How about you get rid of the soy-boy leader you have in power?

 

[***Vo!D***]

When the hell did this thread turn into a French bashing one? Last I checked this was supposed to be a thread about the air engagement between India and Paxtan! And why are we even trolling the French now, we're supposed to be friends with them.

@sayareakd @LurkerBaba Requesting clean up.

 

[Neptune]

When the hell did this thread turn into a French bashing one? Last I checked this was supposed to be a thread about the air engagement between India and Paxtan! And why are we even trolling the French now, we're supposed to be friends with them.

@sayareakd @LurkerBaba Requesting clean up.

You are mistaken go through the last 3 or so pages, it is the Frenchmen bashing the United States and Russia by claiming the French are superior and Russian weapons systems are garbage. I have told him he is derailing the thread but he did not care, he doubled up on him claims.

This thread is about the the Indian Pakistani air clashes and not French mochoism.

 

[Armand2REP]

Absolutely rubbish claims. Russia has flown strategic bombers from Russia to Syria and Iran. France launched strikes from neighboring Jordan and the Mediterranean. Exactly where is the proof France flew longer missions? France dropped a lot less bombs and flew less sorties so your claims makes no sense.

France launches strikes from Jordan and the UAE. Sorties from Jordan can take over 5 hours.

On the 12th of June 2015, during a mission that lasted more than 5 hours, a patrol of two Mirage 2000D in reconnaissance mission engaged three fighting positions of Daech in the region of Tall Afar:

https://www.defense.gouv.fr/english/actualites/newsletter/back-on-the-operation-chammal

Once arrived at the deployed air base in Jordan, the two single-seater Rafale were put in war configuration... Engaged since November 25, 2018, the four Rafale Bs carried out 300 sorties, totaling nearly 1,500 flight hours, and over 700 in-flight refuelings.

1500/300 = 5hr combat missions

https://www.defense.gouv.fr/english...-deploye-dans-le-cadre-de-l-operation-chammal

They don't just fly to point A and point B, they loiter as the patrol must be up at all hours of operation for "dynamic targeting." The missions of Rafale from UAE last far longer. That is the advantage of being able to use a fighter aircraft strategically. We don't need Tu-22s when the Rafale can match a bombers range. Backfires carpet bomb an area to destroy one target and turn home. Rafale carries PGMs and loiters for hours until the next target pops up. Quality > Quantity

Stop making up things. You haven't backed any of your past claims with sources while I have provided many.

You posted pictures of a detonated missile and claimed it as shot down. That isn't evidence, that is Paki style propaganda.

Yet they are the most vulnerable and most useful aircraft.

I cannot deny the usefulness of attack helicopters. They were a powerful addition to our operations in Libya when we projected them from one of our three Mistrals. It is a capability Russia longs for yet alludes them. Now that the PD-50 drydock is lost in Russia, their only carrier has no way to be repaired. Is carrier aviation lost to the Russians for all time?

Russia has had over 4,000 personnel deployed in Syria that they admitted to.

Personnel isn't many combat troops. Most of them are training advisers, support personnel, air crews ect. The peace keeping force they have there is very small just as the ground forces we used with the Kurds. Both sides let the locals do the grunt work while we provide fire support.

The Charles De Gaulle can carry up to 40 aircraft. The French used additional aircraft such as Mirages launches from neighboring countries.

Russia had at most about 32 fixed wing aircraft deployed in Syria, mostly SU-24s and about 12 of them. Occasionally some TU-160s, Mig-29s, or SU-57s would deploy and leave shortly. They also had a few dozens helicopters and constant heavy transport aircraft flying people and equipment in and out of the base. There is no possible way the French flew longer missions based on available data.

Unfortunately for us we had to recall the CdG from its third deployment against Daesh to complete her refit and modernisation. It is complete and she is back off of Cyprus conducting operations. With her air wing and the other Rafale in Jordan and UAE it is more numbers than Russia has fixed wings in Syria and several times the capability.

Unfortunately for Russia the Kuznetsov air wing lost several aircraft trying to conduct operations in Syria, it suffered a major electrical fire and had to return to port only to have her dry dock sink beneath her and tear her super structure apart.

From 2015-2017 Russian aircraft averaged 42 sorties per day with over Syria. They at times exceeded 100 sorties a day and hit over 96,000 targets by 2017.

42 half hour sorties carpet bombing to little effect. If they destroyed that many targets it would have either been over in months or they didn't know what they were carpet bombing. The rebels were only 40-50k strong so they must have killed them 5X over again? Russia doesn't use dynamic targeting where you answer a call for fire support at any hour of the day, they bomb a reported target from 3 days ago and hope they hit something with dumb bombs. Russia found its answer for fire support with Krasnopal guided artillery directed by observation UAVs, but they only had a few hundred rounds that ran out quickly.

And you were bragging French aircraft destroyed 2,314 targets in 4.5 years.

If you believe Russia destroyed twice as many rebel targets as there are rebels then you must be an easy sell. Do I believe they carpet bombed Syria to dust? it is their typical MO.

Russia produced more weapons systems in the past 3 years then France has in over a decade. Russia has and is developing weapons that France doesn't have and won't have in the foreseeable future.

No one is debating that they produce more, the issue is Quality > Quantity. Russia will carpet bomb 3 square blocks of a city with suspected rebel positions, send in Assad's Tiger Brigade just to find out that those rebels had already moved into the next district before their bombs fell. That is not how to conduct air operations in the 21st century, that is obsolete. You need fluid intel and you drop PGMs on the target as it happens = dynamic targeting.

France never defeated anyone. Most of ISIS was defeated by Syrian/Russian forces. Even Russian forces aided the Kurds. The US and Kurds played a smaller role and France played the smallest.

Yeah, yeah... Qaddafi is dead, Mali is liberated and Daesh is defeated. The US has abandoned the Kurds and we are in control from West Africa to Syria. It is amazing how we play such a small part and end up with all of the control.

 

[Armand2REP]

:bs:

The only one who already claimed he defeated ISIS is the Trumpster. You're way too late for your claim.


To compare yourself to Russia let alone US is laughable at least.
How about focus on keeping your country from turning into permanent EU shithole? How about you get rid of the soy-boy leader you have in power?

He should be claiming defeat since he can't even protect the Kurds. He forgets who did all of the fighting and dying. We do not forget and we will move forward with our loyal proxy army and rebuild their country bringing many contracts and wealth to French corporations.

I do not compare us to US might, Russia I will do it all day. Their numbers don't match our quality. They can't even repair their carrier which is the ultimate symbol of sovereignty.

If they want to waste their time protesting instead of looking for a job that is their business, Macron is not on the top of my list either.

 

[asianobserve]

Did India Shoot Down a Pakistani Jet? U.S. Count Says No.


https://foreignpolicy.com/2019/04/04/did-india-shoot-down-a-pakistani-jet-u-s-count-says-no/

 

[ezsasa]

Did India Shoot Down a Pakistani Jet? U.S. Count Says No.


https://foreignpolicy.com/2019/04/04/did-india-shoot-down-a-pakistani-jet-u-s-count-says-no/

If it is not F-16 then it is a JF-17.
Your choice......

 

[Enquirer]

Did India Shoot Down a Pakistani Jet? U.S. Count Says No.


https://foreignpolicy.com/2019/04/04/did-india-shoot-down-a-pakistani-jet-u-s-count-says-no/

The Americans will do a full accounting - both the F16s and the AMRAAMs.
Their concern is not to check if an F16 went down or not, but to see if Pakistan abided by the contract of NOT using US armaments in its aggression with India (especially the AMRAAMs that Pakis got in "US Surplus arms sale").

So any US statement on the issue will first establish if US aircraft and missiles were employed in the aggression with India & then it may release information on any losses that may or may not have been incurred.

If the 'counting' has indeed happened then Pentagon will put out an official statement, as it promised to do.

This FP journalist not reporting on the issue that Pentagon would be most concerned about (from a contractual purpose) i.e. use of ANY US weapons in conflict with India but reporting on the crash-no-crash makes the reporting very suspect!!!!

 

[asianobserve]

The Americans will do a full accounting - both the F16s and the AMRAAMs.
Their concern is not to check if an F16 went down or not, but to see if Pakistan abided by the contract of NOT using US armaments in its aggression with India (especially the AMRAAMs that Pakis got in "US Surplus arms sale").

So any US statement on the issue will first establish if US aircraft and missiles were employed in the aggression with India & then it may release information on any losses that may or may not have been incurred.

If the 'counting' has indeed happened then Pentagon will put out an official statement, as it promised to do.

This FP journalist not reporting on the issue that Pentagon would be most concerned about (from a contractual purpose) i.e. use of ANY US weapons in conflict with India but reporting on the crash-no-crash makes the reporting very suspect!!!!

I think the US likes Modi to win. So there will be no official announcement of this F-16 count until after the Indian election. What happened here is a kind of leak by some over eager official.

Also, I think there will be some consequences for Pakistan for its offensive use of F-16s.

 

[Enquirer]

I think the US likes Modi to win. So there will be no official announcement of this F-16 count until after the Indian election. What happened here is a kind of leak by some over eager official.

Also, I think there will be some consequences for Pakistan for its offensive use of F-16s.

Any true Pentagon journalist would first check if Pentagon's contractual dictates were safeguarded or violated; but she reports none on that!
This journalist (whose previous article on the same subject made her seem like an arms lobbyist - do read it) is clearly not concerned about anything but to safeguard the reputation of F16 aircraft!

 

[asianobserve]

I can bet that Pakistan can start kissing their F-16s good bye as the US will most likely slowly tighten the screws on its support.

 

[Enquirer]

I can bet that Pakistan can start kissing their F-16s good bye as the US will most likely slowly tighten the screws on its support.

That support was already tightened by Trump....who put an stop to training and other assistance.

 

[asianobserve]

Any true Pentagon journalist would first check if Pentagon's contractual dictates were safeguarded or violated; but she reports none on that!
This journalist (whose previous article on the same subject made her seem like an arms lobbyist - do read it) is clearly not concerned about anything but to safeguard the reputation of F16 aircraft!

There can be no gain from the US side in hyping this kind of story since clearly American strategic posture is focused on India and away from Pakistan. Second, if the intention is to sell F-16s to India then poking IAFs eyes by leaking this kind of damning story is tge worst sales pitch. The IAF will reach to their pride no matter what. The best way to sell F-16s to India right now is total silence until passions starts coming down.

But of course this is still a developing story. We'll see if defense observers will pick this up or mainstream media can verify this story. What is sure is that expect more and more information about this incident to come out as we go further from the actual time of incident.

 

[Enquirer]

There can be no gain from the US side in hyping this kind of story since clearly American strategic posture is focused on India and away from Pakistan. Second, if the intention is to sell F-16s to India then poking IAFs eyes by leaking this kind of damning story is tge worst sales pitch. The IAF will reach to their pride no matter what. The best way to sell F-16s to India right now is total silence until passions starts coming down.

But of course this is still a developing story. We'll see if defense observers will pick this up or mainstream media can verify this story. What is sure is that expect more and more information about this incident to come out as we go further from the actual time of incident.

Arms lobbyists world over bribe journalists to plant good stories about their products and hide the bad ones.
Check India's own news stories...one Michel Christian has confessed yesterday to paying Indian journalists to write favorably about Agusta Westland Helicopters!

This female Lara Seligman firstly is not a senior or reputed journalist. Just weeks ago she wrote a gloating review of how Indian Air Force is archaic compared to Pakistan's because of the F16 factor; and that India should buy US aircraft

So, I'll take her reporting with a pinch of salt. Let's wait for the official confirmation one way or the other.

 

[asianobserve]

Arms lobbyists world over bribe journalists to plant good stories about their products and hide the bad ones.
Check India's own news stories...one Michel Christian has confessed yesterday to paying Indian journalists to write favorably about Agusta Westland Helicopters!

This female Lara Seligman firstly is not a senior or reputed journalist. Just weeks ago she wrote a gloating review of how Indian Air Force is archaic compared to Pakistan's because of the F16 factor; and that India should buy US aircraft

So, I'll take her reporting with a pinch of salt. Let's wait for the official confirmation one way or the other.

This could be a possibility. But as I said I expect more stories about this incident to come out as we move forward.

 

[asianobserve]

Still if this kind of "good" stories are intentionally leaked to favored reporters to give a particular weapon a good review, it does not necessarily mean that the "good" story is not true.