F-86 Kills MiG-21

[ares]

Any port in a storm, firstly the Gnat flew almost a decade later than the Sabre, and many times fell victim to the older aircraft both in 1965 and '71. One Gnat was also shot down during the above encounter you mentioned. !!

North American F-86
Role Fighter aircraft
National origin United States
Manufacturer North American Aviation
First flight 1 October 1947
Introduction 1949, with USAF
Retired 1994, Bolivia


Gnat T.1
Role Fighter and trainer
Manufacturer Folland Aircraft
Designer W.E.W. Petter
First flight 18 July 1955
Introduction 1959, RAF
Retired 1979, UK
Primary users Royal Air Force
Indian Air Force
Finnish Air Force
Number built 449 (including HAL Ajeet)
Developed from Folland Midge
Variants HAL Ajeet

1) No Gnat was shot down during this encounter on the other hand 2 PAF pilots were taken as POWs. One of whom(Parvez Mehdi Qureshi) went on to become PAF air chief.

2) Canadiar Sabres operated by No.14 PAF squadron were heavily modified versions of the original F-86 acquired by clandestine deal between Germany and Iran , they even had the new Orenda engines had better speed, range and climb rate and missile armament(2 sidewinder missiles). It is like F-16 block 52 is not the same fighter as the one which flew in 1979.

3) Where as Indian Foland Gnat was the same fighter, which flew in 1955 and acquired in 1958.

 

[SQ8]

That's untrue.

JF-17 has infact killed F-16 in mock-up fights and the ratio of JF-17s with F-16 kills is surprising for you.

When any Pakistani members posts about 'small victories' during 1971 land war or sea-war you said that they are just taking once small incident for their self-comfort and overlooking the bigger picture. But why this hypocrisy now when a Gnat killed a Sabre yet on the overall it was shameful defeat in 1965 and 1971 for IAF?

Gloating goes both sides.. and for them it is unbearable to see even the slightest ounce of credit to the Pakistani side.
I can only call those who bring in the JF-17 into this thread as downright juvenile and seem to have an understanding of aircombat as much as a five year old would understand hawkins and string theory.

 

[SwatCat]

That's untrue.

JF-17 has infact killed F-16 in mock-up fights and the ratio of JF-17s with F-16 kills is surprising for you.

When any Pakistani members posts about 'small victories' during 1971 land war or sea-war you said that they are just taking once small incident for their self-comfort and overlooking the bigger picture. But why this hypocrisy now when a Gnat killed a Sabre yet on the overall it was shameful defeat in 1965 and 1971 for IAF?

It is not that they completely dominated Indian skies, They may have won some battles in 1965, in 1971 PAF even refused to take off and protect pakistani assets.

Pakistanis take some battle victories and chest thump them as war victories.

F16 and JF17 comparison I have made is apt since gnat is a small fighter with limited capabilities.

 

[SQ8]

To the gentleman who believes that the JF-17 vs F-22 is a fair comparision.. lets return the rather incorrect idea in a language that all can understand.
The Ferrari Enzo was first thought up in 1999.. the car is a pinnacle of performance and even has electronics that are advanced in management of its performance today.
By contrast.. the Mitsubishi EVO X was first thought up in 2004.. hence in the logic of the gentleman the EVO should end up defeating the Enzo??..so to speak?

The F-22 was designed not to match aircraft from the 90's.. it was designed to match aircraft from the 2020's.
The Jf-17 was designed to provide some match against aircraft developed within the 2000 decade.

How this is even a match.. is beyond my mind.. and would result in peals of laughter if ever mentioned in front of people who are actually practice Air Combat within their daily lives.

It is not that they completely dominated Indian skies, They may have won some battles in 1965, in 1971 PAF even refused to take off and protect pakistani assets.

Pakistanis take some battle victories and chest thump them as war victories.

F16 and JF17 comparison I have made is apt since gnat is a small fighter with limited capabilities.

Read up on why? instead of making comments based on your reading of a single Indian propoganda book or probably wikipedia.
The PAF was tasked to provide support to the offensive by Tikka Khan(which never came) and for that it was to protect itself and maintain those assets till these were used in the offensive(that never came).
Even then, the PAF managed to provide semblance of support to the Army in its hapless failures notwithstanding Longewalla where the PAF had warned MUCH beforehand to the Army that it would not be capable of projecting itself that far unless a FOB was activated and that requires a weeks warning which the Army did not give.
Had the PAF support to the Army at Longewalla it would have been able to provide a CAP lasting no more than 120 seconds before its aircraft would have had to return for the lack of fuel.

Therefore,the sole blame for the Longewalla fiasco lies with the PA.

 

[SQ8]

It is not that they completely dominated Indian skies, They may have won some battles in 1965, in 1971 PAF even refused to take off and protect pakistani assets.

Pakistanis take some battle victories and chest thump them as war victories.

F16 and JF17 comparison I have made is apt since gnat is a small fighter with limited capabilities.

The F-16 vs JF-17 is a fairer comparison.. and in that sense the JF-17 does end up taking more than a few victories over the F-16 in exercises.
However, it is forewarned that the discussion stick to the topic instead of bringing in the JF-17 or other aircraft since these will lead to more trolling by members who I can tell are gnawing at their fingertips and raring to go .
If you wish to encourage a splattering of pink on this thread including yourself.. please go ahead.
Otherwise, maintain the topic line.

 

[Rajaraja Chola]

To the gentleman who believes that the JF-17 vs F-22 is a fair comparision.. lets return the rather incorrect idea in a language that all can understand.
The Ferrari Enzo was first thought up in 1999.. the car is a pinnacle of performance and even has electronics that are advanced in management of its performance today.
By contrast.. the Mitsubishi EVO X was first thought up in 2004.. hence in the logic of the gentleman the EVO should end up defeating the Enzo??..so to speak?

The F-22 was designed not to match aircraft from the 90's.. it was designed to match aircraft from the 2020's.
The Jf-17 was designed to provide some match against aircraft developed within the 2000 decade.

How this is even a match.. is beyond my mind.. and would result in peals of laughter if ever mentioned in front of people who are actually practice Air Combat within their daily lives.

Glad u spoke up. Now assume F 86 was Ferrari Enzo and Gnat was Mitsubushi Evo. F 86 was designated to be a aircraft for the future.
So how can u justify its induction dates as the reason that Gnat was advanced, just cos it started developing late?

Hope i am on topic this time, sine the reply was based on ur comparisons and idea.

 

[ares]

not really.. the f-86 first flew in 1947.. the gnat first flew in 1955.. so there's one logic fail.
second logic fail coming up.. the gnat was far more maneuverable and had a smaller profile than the hunter... hence not only was it a better aircraft in A2A combat it was also harder to spot.. so the whole generation logic fails too.

Agreed being smaller Gnat is more nimble fighter and harder to be seen. But F-86 had other advantages given to it by better engine constant modifications carried out in it through time. I believe the F-86 operated by No 14 sqadron were Mk.5 version of the original fighter.
On top of it F-86 is the only fighter in addition to Indian Mig -21 and Pakistani F-104, that had missile firing capability.

here is the excerpt that describes that incident



This is the factor known as lady luck, which when playing the opposite side during the laughable "sabre slayer" incident allowed ALL four Pakistani sabre's to exit the area and return to base with six gnats unable to bring down a single sabre then claiming that one damaged meant two to three kills and the gnat became a "sabre slayer" in the fog of war.

Each side boasted, each side has officers willing to disclose the true details.. it is better to stick to their accounts and not those released by official propaganda machines.

War had not officially started at this time. IAF had orders to intercept the Sabres with in Indian airspace. Many times that day Sabres escaped back into Pakistan, because Gnats were late to arrive at scene..but then they only had only get lucky once. And as we all know Battle of Boyra salient(the one which F-86 were providing air cover for) was won by India, with heavy material losses to Pakistani side.

 

[SwatCat]

Read up on why? instead of making comments based on your reading of a single Indian propoganda book or probably wikipedia.
The PAF was tasked to provide support to the offensive by Tikka Khan(which never came) and for that it was to protect itself and maintain those assets till these were used in the offensive(that never came).
Even then, the PAF managed to provide semblance of support to the Army in its hapless failures notwithstanding Longewalla where the PAF had warned MUCH beforehand to the Army that it would not be capable of projecting itself that far unless a FOB was activated and that requires a weeks warning which the Army did not give.
Had the PAF support to the Army at Longewalla it would have been able to provide a CAP lasting no more than 120 seconds before its aircraft would have had to return for the lack of fuel.

Therefore,the sole blame for the Longewalla fiasco lies with the PA.

I am not reading any Indian propaganda books I speak only truth, This is regarding the thread which says that Indian MIG was shot by inferior Sabre(according to the poster), In the context of the thread title and the content some comparisons will be drawn, It is in this context that I am replying with an example of JF17 and F16(JF17 may have scored kill on F16 but capabilty wise there exist a gap).

Regarding Longewala, I am replying to the poster who was replying me that IAF lost to PAF. You know war is a series of Battles and each battle is waged based on strategic interests, in this case PAF failed to engage over Longewala which it self comes under strategic failure.

IAF strategically made a good move and attacked the invading tanks and there by stopping the Pakistani thrust. My post do not come under trolling since one must also consider the context and explain the fact based on some comparisions.

 

[alikazmi007]

Ah! The scent of individual victories in a lost war. They are right when they say that every cloud has a silver lining

Is it Tappi Tappi Jalli Jalli or what?
Dude, appreciate the complexity of the feat and the skill of the pilot, even though it was a Pakistani pilot.

 

[SQ8]

1) No Gnat was shot down during this encounter on the other hand 2 PAF pilots were taken as POWs. One of whom(Parvez Mehdi Qureshi) went on to become PAF air chief.

2) Canadiar Sabres operated by No.14 PAF squadron were heavily modified versions of the original F-86 acquired by clandestine deal between Germany and Iran , they even had the new Orenda engines had better speed, range and climb rate and missile armament(2 sidewinder missiles). It is like F-16 block 52 is not the same fighter as the one which flew in 1979.

3) Where as Indian Foland Gnat was the same fighter, which flew in 1955 and acquired in 1958.

Wrong logic again. The Orenda Sabre was a better dogfighter than the F-86F but at no point did it create a generational gap between the Gnat and Sabre. The First Sabre 6 still flew a year before the Gnat and the ones in service on the Eastern front had no Gar-8 systems allotted to them as these were supposed to come with the F-6 squadron that never arrived.


Now in technical terms.. the F-86 mk6 had a roll rate of some 320 degrees a second whereas the Gnat could roll at 360.
So that is another myth busted that the Gnat was outmatched here.

Belittling the Gnat to try and prove it as some jalopy against the sabre just to compete against the idea that a subsonic aicraft brought down a Mach-2 capable one is seriously wrong and an insult to those Indian pilots who flew the gnat and loved it.

 

[alikazmi007]

look at you guys, that was not the purpose of the post!

 

[SQ8]

I am not reading any Indian propaganda books I speak only truth, This is regarding the thread which says that Indian MIG was shot by inferior Sabre(according to the poster), In the context of the thread title and the content some comparisons will be drawn, It is in this context that I am replying with an example of JF17 and F16(JF17 may have scored kill on F16 but capabilty wise there exist a gap).

Regarding Longewala, I am replying to the poster who was replying me that IAF lost to PAF. You know war is a series of Battles and each battle is waged based on strategic interests, in this case PAF failed to engage over Longewala which it self comes under strategic failure.

IAF strategically made a good move and attacked the invading tanks and there by stopping the Pakistani thrust. My post do not come under trolling since one must also consider the context and explain the fact based on some comparisions.

The context of loss and victory is fairly pointless to be used here..
for eg.. shall the USAF be declared victorious against the NVAF just because it managed to inflict more losses?
Yes, because the USAF did end up achieving most of its objectiveness within that war.

Shall the Luftwaffe be declared the losers because they failed to meet their objectives set out by the Reich?
Yes, the Third Reich fell.

The failure to meet objectives is the greatest loss in a war. The RAF supposedly lost at Dunkirk because it was forced to retreat along with the rest of the allied forces? or did it achieve a victory by meeting its objectives of providing sufficient aircover for the retreat to go along successfully.

Pakistan lost the war hence the PAF lost it.
However, the objectives of the PAF were to survive as much as it could against an IAF onslaught to be at maximum possible ORBAT provide support for the PA's counter offensive. In that context, the PAF survived the relentless onslaught.. delaying it through denial of usage of airfields.. provided commendable support in the Shakargarh areas where it promised on being able to deliver.. and managed to extract kills on the IAF within that process.
In the east, a single squadron of aircraft.. SINGLE.. with 12 aircraft.. operating from a SINGLE besieged airfield.. managed to hold out against TEN squadrons or with an average of 14 aircraft per squadron some 136 aircraft to 12 or a ratio of being outnumbered 11 to one with NO early warning other than that of some 3 minutes thanks to most of its MoU's being butchered.
managed to survive for over 48 hours.

Even the most proud and unflinching of generals would give credit to this performance as a victory of resilience.
At the end of the war, the PAF was still ready to put up a fight in the west... it MET its objectives against the IAF whose goal was to deter it from doing so.

You may not call it a victory, but it is certainly no defeat.

So how did the PAF fail

 

[SwatCat]

@Oscar and others,Speaking of attitudes here related to IAF pilots and PAF pilots, You people talk like IAF pilots are nothing compared to PAF pilots.

PAF may have some legends during 1965 and even in 1971 but that do not mean that IAF is no match and they haven't achieved any thing. IAF is not much flamboyant but it achieved its objectives in defence and offence, even in 1999.

The Air combat skill are largely down to technology, Fighter jets and the training.
Being with USAF also helped PAF.

I never said PAF was lost but I only said they failed because of the strategies they used (Not air combat but battle tactics).

 

[SQ8]

@Oscar and others,Speaking of attitudes here related to IAF pilots and PAF pilots, You people talk like IAF pilots are nothing compared to PAF pilots.

PAF may have some legends during 1965 and even in 1971 but that do not mean that IAF is no match and they haven't achieved any thing. IAF is not much flamboyant but it achieved its objectives in defence and offence, even in 1999.

The Air combat skill are largely down to technology, Fighter jets and the training.
Being with USAF also helped PAF.

Nobody does that, you are carrying that stigma from other posters and hence are only inclined to think in that perspective.
The idea is to give credit where it is due, IAF or PAF.

Air combat is largely down to the utilization of technology to its fullest.
in 65 the IAF was unable to utilize its technology to its fullest while the PAF was unable to utilize its initiative to its fullest.
The PAF actually failed in 65 contrary to all claims within propoganda.

The IAF was better placed to utilize its technology and numbers due to better training and tactics which were a massive improvement to the "flying club" that PAF could not decimate in 65 due to improper execution of war plans.
These accounts are not those of PAF sources but rather by IAF sources where it is detailed in almost comic relief how the IAF was trying to "wing it" against the PAF across all airbases.

Fast forward 6 years and the IAF turned its training and fortunes around and ended up outsmarting PAF interceptors and AAA to provide excellent attacks on targets.

So the idea is not of boasting as you seem to be inclined to counter.. rather give credit where it is due.

Those who do not wish to discuss the incident by staying within the boundaries of the incident SHOULD NOT POST..
otherwise they will be infracted for off-topic posts.
The outcome of 71 is very well known, here an incident of single air combat is being discussed.
STICK to it.

 

[SQ8]

Those who cannot discuss the incident within the boundaries of the incident as a single air combat encounter are encouraged not to post. We all know the outcome of the 71 war and any attempt to push the thread towards that will lead to a pink tutu.