Very little. PAF expended 24 AIM-9 sidewinders and achieved a success rate of 9%...go figure! Most of the kills were with the guns. Also not all of the F-86s were capable of firing the AIM-9.
How did the PAF looked like in 1965?
- Thread starter EagleEyes
- Start date
Very little. PAF expended 24 AIM-9 sidewinders and achieved a success rate of 9%...go figure! Most of the kills were with the guns. Also not all of the F-86s were capable of firing the AIM-9.
There is nothing incorrect about that statement. B-57 was not an aircraft in a different league than Canberra. The Canberra and B-57 had similar mission profiles in both of the air forces. Avionics on the B-57 helped reduce the workload of the PAF aircrews and that is pretty much it. Given the overall sortie rates of the 1965 war, B-57s were a small part of it.
IAF did lose at least 30-40% of its Fishbeds in 1965. These were lost on the ground and I do not think there is any disagreement about it.
Blain,
What is inaccurate about the MiG-21 statement?
1. They were not destroyed during take off. all were destroyed were parked on the ground stationary.
2. 30-40% does not mean "Most of ".. it would mean "Some".
There is also no need to get ambigous with numbers. 30-40% sounds like a big number - why is it difficult to take the actual figure and say "three of the MiG-21s were destroyed"
What is inaccurate about the MiG-21 statement?
1. They were not destroyed during take off. all were destroyed were parked on the ground stationary.
2. 30-40% does not mean "Most of ".. it would mean "Some".
There is also no need to get ambigous with numbers. 30-40% sounds like a big number - why is it difficult to take the actual figure and say "three of the MiG-21s were destroyed"
The impact of the Sidewinder is more than just the kill ratio. Look at the psychological impact. For the Indian pilots, they had to get into the fight assuming all the Sabres had some sidewinder loaded and unless they can get a close up glimpse, they cannot confirm that the sabres are not carrying AAMs. so everytime they get chased , or encounter sabres at a distance, they have to assume the worst .. i.e the sabres will carry AAMs.
The second aspect is that in a turning fight, the Sabre pilot will have to get a good aim to shoot down with guns, but he need not have to do that with an AAM. He just needs to point in the general direction and if he gets a lock on and then fire.
I am not sure if you have read properly. I did not say anything about any inaccuracy. I was just commenting on the fact that the Mig-21s destroyed were on the ground and not in air combat. Secondly, 30% of the total of 10 inducted Mig-21s is 3...I put the number at 30-40% or you can look at it as 3-4 (depending on the source you look at it, some say IAF lost 4 and some say 3 on the ground).
Take your pick.
We were not discussing any psychological issues...we were talking about the facts and the figures. Psychological issues were on both ends...try going up against an airforce with 500 combat aircraft with less than half that number and then we can talk about psychological impact
In the close in combat, the PAF relied more on guns than AAMs. The ability to fire AAMs on the sabre was limited to a small batch of F-86s and was not present on all. Secondly, the guidance on the sabre to lock-on the AIM-9 was so limited that you might as well be in gun range to take on the enemy aircraft. You had to get on the exhaust stream (essentially on the tail of the Indian aircraft) to shoot. There was no off-boresight capability.
Similar threads
