U.S. can’t interfere in our strategic decisions

[Samsung J7]

Yeah and when was the last time US fought a decent army? There are lies , damned lies and statistics. IAF has enough experience wiping the floor with so called american planes like sabres and starfighters. If F-16's are stupid enough to cross their path they will be taken care off.
You still haven't answered when did US ever fight when they did not have 10:1 numerical superiority??

Lol US is the only country which is in a constant state of war since its independence. They are/were fighting in almost all countries. Even their Civil war is more brutal .

 

[mayfair]

Forget about others, focus on India. In our combat history our Russian (and Western) jets have bested the Napaki Western jets in every combat.

Even in bilateral exercises,we have have had our successes against all kinds of Western aircraft including F-15s, F-16s, Mirages, Rafales, Typhoons.

We regularly conduct DACT exercises where different types of jets in the IAF are pitted against each other and also those from other countries such as Singapore (they regularly fly their F-16s Blk52 in India). Which means we have a very good understanding of different systems and their strengths and weaknesses.

Eventually that is what matters.

 

[Immanuel]

The F-16s, F-15s, F-18SH are good fighters, any fighter pilot who knows anything in real about fighter aircraft knows this. It would be silly for anyone to take the teens lightly be it in BVR or WVR especially since the newest versions come with AESA, decent electronics and a wide set of weapons. Training, tactics make a big difference on how effectively one fights. IAF dedicates atleast 200-270 hrs of flying every year for pilots depending on platform type. IAF's training doctrine also pushes us to have very adaptive pilots who can switch tactics. Now training excercises are nice but often not a very good indicator of how combat will take place. Sure, MKI did swat the F-16s, F-15s, Rafales, EFs during excercises but it too got killed in BVR, WVR several times, it was also found vulnerable to SAMs which is why there is an urgent rush to have high end EW Pod on it asap.

Also thanks to the Israelis and Singapore we know the F-16 really well. Many years ago, these was a pilot exchange of Indian Mig-29 pilots with Israeli F-16 pilots for a whole year. This is where IAF learned the most on how to counter the F-16 and the Israeli's learned how to counter the Irani Mig-29.

Any good pilot in IAF wouldn't underestimate the JF Bandar either. The goal is always stay several steps ahead of the enemy & shoot to kill. The US pilots also underestimated Indian pilots in the early exchanges which is also why they got humiliated.

 

[Flame Thrower]

Why it is hard for you guys to accept pathetic performance of Russian jets against western jets? Just because our entire inventory is filled with soviet relic jets?

Just look at the statistics

http://www.migflug.com/jetflights/the-combat-statistics-for-all-the-aircraft-currently-in-use.html

The same Soviet jets performed well in the hands of Indian and vietnam pilots.

Fighter is only as good as it's pilot is.....

Forget the data, Su-30MKI in the hands of indian pilot is still respected.

 

[Immanuel]

Yeah and when was the last time US fought a decent army? There are lies , damned lies and statistics. IAF has enough experience wiping the floor with so called american planes like sabres and starfighters. If F-16's are stupid enough to cross their path they will be taken care off.
You still haven't answered when did US ever fight when they did not have 10:1 numerical superiority??

when did US really fight a real decent army? By that standard it seems even the Taliban is a decent army since it's US's longest running war. It is very naive to quantify the strength of an army to things like weapons. Fighting even with rather basic gear & brutal tactics one can bring the biggest of enemies to heel. Did the Afghan rebels have an AF when they with the help of the US took down the Soviets or did ISIS have an AF for it to consume a significant chunk in Iraq, Lybia & Syria?

Actually, the cheapest counter for Paki & Chinki AF is a shite load of SAMs, MR-SAM, Akash, Spyder ADS, S-400 all to be aquired is good numbers. The S-400, MR-SAM are therefore designed to swat their birds in their skies while IAF's birds take out any straglers.

 

[Samsung J7]

I dont think our air force(Russian jets) did anything spectacular against paki airforce(western jets ) in past conflicts. In both 65&71 war pakis had higher air to air kill ratio than IAF.

 

[Kalki_2018]

NO they did not. Are you paki or just an ignorant idiot? Unlike PAF which refused to fight or give cover to PA, IAF went all out. Most of IAF's losses were to ground fire not air to air. Pakis were happy to run and hide in Iran.

 

[mayfair]

I dont think our air force(Russian jets) did anything spectacular against paki airforce(western jets ) in past conflicts. In both 65&71 war pakis had higher air to air kill ratio than IAF.

Go read your history again. In both the wars, our maximum losses were from the ground based systems because we flew more sorties every day and during the course of entire the war and targetted their logistics and infrastructure, which brought our jets within the range of anti-aircraft systems as they made low passes to hit the ground targets.

In fact during the 1971 war, PAF had nearly stopped flying as Indian jets had a field day bombing all the way from Lahore to Karachi.

Please post a neutral unbiased source that supports your claims that PAF had a better air-to-air kill ratio.

Let me cite a Shitistani source- straight from the horses mouth...

http://www.thefridaytimes.com/tft/the-rise-and-fall-of-pia-i/

On Friday afternoon, the 3rd of December, 1971, I took an Islamabad-bound flight that made a transit stop. Whilst checking in at Hotel Intercontinental I was surprised to find all Islamabad-bound passengers being brought into the hotel lobby. India had attacked West Pakistan. All PIA planes had to fly out to safety. An emergency was declared and all PIA personnel were required to report back to their bases. But how were they to do so? There were no flights and the trains were attacked by the Indian Air force at will! Unlike the 1965 war, Indian aircraft now virtually controlled our skies. The sirens would keep screaming the whole night, whilst frightened and sleepy guests would be rushed to the basement of the hotel. On the evening of the 4th of December I ventured out to the Lahore Railway Station hoping to catch a train to Karachi. The platform was filled with dead and injured brought by a train that had been attacked in the Sialkot sector. In spite of this, I proceeded with this frightful journey that took me 41 hours to reach Karachi. Every time there was the fear of an air strike, all passengers were asked to disembark from the train and run in all directions for cover.

So you see this was December 3, when Pakistan first launched air strikes on Indian airbasesd and immediately IAF hit back and by December 4, West Pakistan skies were completely bereft of PAF jets and IAF jets were striking at will and laying waste to large parts of the country.

Care to explain how would PAF which only a day before was launching strikes on IAF airbases had completely disappeared from their skies if they had "better air-air kill ratios"?

 

[Samsung J7]

NO they did not. Are you paki or just an ignorant idiot? Unlike PAF which refused to fight or give cover to PA, IAF went all out. Most of IAF's losses were to ground fire not air to air. Pakis were happy to run and hide in Iran.

You r one ignorant idiot here. Pakis definitly had higher air to air kill ratio than IAF in 65 war. Even in 71 war paki airforce had more air to air kill ratio than IAF .

 

[singhboy98]

You r one ignorant idiot here. Pakis definitly had higher air to air kill ratio than IAF in 65 war. Even in 71 war paki airforce had more air to air kill ratio than IAF .

Prove your statements or --------- But again, that is too much to expect from you.

 

[binayak95]

You r one ignorant idiot here. Pakis definitly had higher air to air kill ratio than IAF in 65 war. Even in 71 war paki airforce had more air to air kill ratio than IAF .

What kind of logic are talking of? Just to prove your point that western jets are better than Russian jets, you are saying that Pakistanis were better than us at Air War? Dude, what the absolute fuck?

This is beyond hilarious. Most of our losses were incurred while the sorties were being conducted in support of ground forces, and most of these from ground fire.

We wiped out almost the entirety of the PAF, to the point that entire squadrons of planes and pilots were being dispatched from the Middle East to bolster their fighting strength!

And about the whole moronic Russian vs Western Jets - it all boils down to the pilot. A skilled veteran in a MiG 29 UPG is more dangerous than a rookie in a F22. Not that there'll ever be a rookie in a F22.

And kill to death ratio is NOT how to jugde an Air Force's performance. By that logic, the US military lost 2789 aircraft in the Vietnam war! That should be counted as a disastrous operation. But no, it's a mere 0.4 loss per 1000 sorties! That's a complete air dominance!

 

[Kshithij]

What kind of logic are talking of? Just to prove your point that western jets are better than Russian jets, you are saying that Pakistanis were better than us at Air War? Dude, what the absolute fuck?

This is beyond hilarious. Most of our losses were incurred while the sorties were being conducted in support of ground forces, and most of these from ground fire.

We wiped out almost the entirety of the PAF, to the point that entire squadrons of planes and pilots were being dispatched from the Middle East to bolster their fighting strength!

And about the whole moronic Russian vs Western Jets - it all boils down to the pilot. A skilled veteran in a MiG 29 UPG is more dangerous than a rookie in a F22. Not that there'll ever be a rookie in a F22.

And kill to death ratio is NOT how to jugde an Air Force's performance. By that logic, the US military lost 2789 aircraft in the Vietnam war! That should be counted as a disastrous operation. But no, it's a mere 0.4 loss per 1000 sorties! That's a complete air dominance!

India did have higher casualty in 1965 in air force. In 1971, Pakistani airforce was humiliated. But, in 1965, Indian airforce was not well equipped and had old and underpowered fighters whereas Pakistanis had got new fighters from USA.

 

[binayak95]

Yeah, we lost 45 IAF aircraft over 5000 sorties!! That's a loss rate of 0.009 per sortie or 9/1000 sorties! By any and all standards this is brilliant performance, except apologists and idiots who are so thick headed that they are impermeable to reason.

 

[mayfair]

It's not about casualties, but specifically about air-air-kills.

IAF flew far more more aggressive sorties per day, throughout the course of both the war wars and undertook many risky manoeuvres compared with the PAF.

Therefore IAF suffered correspondingly greater attrition over the course of the war, most of it from ground-based AA systems.

 

[binayak95]

It's not about casualties, but specifically about air-air-kills.

IAF flew far more more aggressive sorties per day, throughout the course of both the war wars and undertook many risky manoeuvres compared with the PAF.

Therefore IAF suffered correspondingly greater attrition over the course of the war, most of it from ground-based AA systems.

48% were from AAA fire. Only 30% were Air combat losses.

 

[Immanuel]

The only reason why PAF did better in 65 was because the then PAF Chief Nur Khan was originally from Royal IAF and he was trained/indoctrined in the ethos, tactics & strategies of the IAF. He was commander of No.4 SQD in RIAF before joining PAF. Such training even back then was formidable and he was quite good in using it against us, he knew our weaknesses.

Keep in mind while we are today vastly different to Pak in terms of training, capability and capacity. Back then we were more similar in ways than being different militarily and till 65 both India & Pak were making similar mistakes in some battles where they dominated and in most others where we did. After 62 & 65 we had to learnt the hardway to revamp all our doctrines & strategies. 71 saw the execution of this change and you see vastly better perfoming military overall.

 

[Samsung J7]

Even in 71 war paki airforce did decently.
https://theprint.in/opinion/iaf-win...x-indian-naval-chief-debate-with-facts/36740/

The reason is simple pakis had access to more modern western jets and training. IAF also did a good job with Russian jets

 

[Samsung J7]

The only reason why PAF did better in 65 was because the then PAF Chief Nur Khan was originally from Royal IAF and he was trained/indoctrined in the ethos, tactics & strategies of the IAF. He was commander of No.4 SQD in RIAF before joining PAF. Such training even back then was formidable and he was quite good in using it against us, he knew our weaknesses.

Keep in mind while we are today vastly different to Pak in terms of training, capability and capacity. Back then we were more similar in ways than being different militarily and till 65 both India & Pak were making similar mistakes in some battles where they dominated and in most others where we did. After 62 & 65 we had to learnt the hardway to revamp all our doctrines & strategies. 71 saw the execution of this change and you see vastly better perfoming military overall.

Good observation. PAF did a decent job in both wars. Definitely with the help of western support(pakis r part of western backed ceato,cento organisation)

 

[binayak95]

Even in 71 war paki airforce did decently.
https://theprint.in/opinion/iaf-win...x-indian-naval-chief-debate-with-facts/36740/

The reason is simple pakis had access to more modern western jets and training. IAF also did a good job with Russian jets

The article you quote fucking proves our point. They had lost 75 aircraft in a fortnight! An attrition rate of 5 per day (in actuality, most losses were in the first 10 days). After the first 10 days, the PAF simply deserted the field of battle, refused to sortie out.

Western aircraft or no, PAF failed in its duties. And for your kind information, the latest fighter that they had was the F-104 Starfighter. Guess which aircraft shot it down? The MiG 21.

In recent times, we have used Su-30MKIs to convincingly and soundly triumph over F-15s, F-16s, Typhoons. And we are not the only ones to do it.

The Luftwaffe after the reunification used its MiG 29s to thrash US F-15s too.
https://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/how-to-win-in-a-dogfight-stories-from-a-pilot-who-flew-1682723379

Do remember that this is early generation MiG 29s. Modern MiGs with upgraded Zhuk ME radars and the new improved R-27s is a nightmare. (for adversaries)

How did a MiG-29 in skilled hands stack up against NATO fighters, especially the F-16 and the F-15?

From BVR (beyond visual range), the MiG-29 is totally outclassed by western fighters. Lack of situation awareness and the short range of the AA-10A missile compared to the AMRAAM means the NATO fighter is going to have to be having a really bad day for the Fulcrum pilot to be successful.

In the WVR (within visual range) arena, a skilled MiG-29 pilot can give and Eagle or Viper driver all he/she wants. When I was flying the MiG-29, the way I prosecuted the visual arena depended on the scenario. If it was 1 v 1 BFM and we only called kills with a gun shot, I flew the jet differently than if missiles and guns were in play. If the BFM scenario was guns-only, I flew the jet more like an F-16, knowing I had a lot more angle-of-attack (than an F-16) available if required. If missile shots were in play then I would pull as hard as I could to place the other guy in Archer parameters as quickly as I could and make him at least feel threatened by my nose position; hopefully, forcing him into making a mistake. In a many versus many scenario in which missile shots were generally counted for kills, I was hesitant in bleeding off all my airspeed to get the quick Archer shot since I probably needed the energy to maneuver against other aircraft in follow-on engagements.

 

[Immanuel]

Look folks India did kick ass in all wars after intial losses, PAF did well in 65. It is very silly to underestimate those unwashes Abduls, they being the instigators of violence have in the past used the element of surprise and the momentum that comes from being the aggressor to their advantage usually during the first 24-48 hrs, this resulted in early victories for them but when IAF catches on and begins to hit it back hard, they cannot continue to sustain the conflict. Paki are only good for short term prowess, they don't have the ability to take losses and sustain any fight beyond 72 hrs because by then tables have usually turned completely.

Often it's the ability to absorb punches that counts more than the strength of one's punch, while Pak can probably hit hard for the first 24-48 hrs even today, they'd eventually be picked off piece by piece by a far more resilient military.