India Accepts Pakistan Air Force is a Leading Force

[Fieldmarshal]

Because we have an economy to protect..

what economy!! its all a hog wash u have been made a fool by ur govt.
give it another year and ull be all scraping the barrel.

 

[Fieldmarshal]

Again that crap of ruling over India for 1000 years.... And about 2008 case... IAF was on a probing mission... They wanted to check the reaction time of PAF, which they did.. This has been posted even by several senior members from Pakistan side as well... If you feel that IAF retreated due to fear then you are living in fools paradise... Whenever any airforce in the world sends any strike package, they are always aware of enemy response... Do you think that IAF has got so dumb officers who would not expect a response from PAF... It was the matter of response time India was probing for...

I think I gave you a dose for the day...

if such lame and childish answers makes u feel better than knock ur self out.

 

[foxbat]

what economy!! its all a hog wash u have been made a fool by ur govt.
give it another year and ull be all scraping the barrel.

if such lame and childish answers makes u feel better than knock ur self out.

 

[The Deterrent]

if such lame and childish answers makes u feel better than knock ur self out.

That is not a lame answer. Though the strike aircraft were armed with precision guided munitions, their aim was not to attack, but to check the reaction and response time.

 

[rockstarIN]

The question you should ask is, has the Indian MOD, denied the incident, the interception of fully armed MKI near Lahore and Mirage-2000s over Kashmir are well documented facts.

Source: http://www.defence.pk/forums/pakist...air-force-leading-force-36.html#ixzz24R6pZ3Js

If fully armed MKI reached near Lahore, its the fault of PAF, since they did not intercept it before as the duration was in the wake of 26/11 and forces were alert.

Actually No IAF craft crossed the border but went ahead to reach the international border which infact violation of treaty that no military craft will come near the border's 10 km radious. IAF crafts indeed violated this but not entered the PAK air space.

PAF did scrable for intercept but NO IAF jets engaged the interceptor or not even break the formation to engage and just returned back to base before corssing to PAK air space. It is just sortie to know the reaction time, nothing else.

That is not a lame answer. Though the strike aircraft were armed with precision guided munitions, their aim was not to attack, but to check the reaction and response time.

In fact there were no strike aircraft with that formation. Its IAF's (in fact, even common) tactics that to show a formation as a strike craft+A2A guards but in fact the strikers might be M2ks or MKIs armed for A2A engagements only.

 

[The Deterrent]

If fully armed MKI reached near Lahore, its the fault of PAF, since they did not intercept it before as the duration was in the wake of 26/11 and forces were alert.

Actually No IAF craft crossed the border but went ahead to reach the international border which infact violation of treaty that no military craft will come near the border's 10 km radious. IAF crafts indeed violated this but not entered the PAK air space.

PAF did scrable for intercept but NO IAF jets engaged the interceptor or not even break the formation to engage and just returned back to base before corssing to PAK air space. It is just sortie to know the reaction time, nothing else.



In fact there were no strike aircraft with that formation. Its IAF's (in fact, even common) tactics that to show a formation as a strike craft+A2A guards but in fact the strikers might be M2ks or MKIs armed for A2A engagements only.

They did enter Pakistan Airspace, they were locked -on by PAF jets, they were PHOTOGRAPHED. Thats how PAF came to know what armament they were carrying.
The strike package they were carrying was precisely the reason that Pakistan Armed Forces (rather NCA) decided to take things to the next level.

 

[rockstarIN]

They did enter Pakistan Airspace, they were locked -on by PAF jets, they were PHOTOGRAPHED. Thats how PAF came to know what armament they were carrying.
The strike package they were carrying was precisely the reason that Pakistan Armed Forces (rather NCA) decided to take things to the next level.

Locked on with what? F-16s were sent intercept which was A/B block. No BVR and only armed with short range heat seeking missiles. You just need to point your nose and shoot such not necessary a radar lock. Mostly radar lock for radar guided missiles, which was not available with PAF and F-16.

 

[SBD-3]

Locked on with what? F-16s were sent intercept which was A/B block. No BVR and only armed with short range heat seeking missiles. You just need to point your nose and shoot such not necessary a radar lock. Mostly radar lock for radar guided missiles, which was not available with PAF and F-16.

This is a very simplistic claim. First do know what is the radar coverage for MKI, if it is 360 Deg at all possible ranges. Or at what angle of approach the engagement took place (It would certainly not be head on or Frontal one)? Secondly, what makes you so sure that PAF fighters were armed with only a specific set of missiles? There are anti BVR Tactics, and there are ways to negate the BVR detection. You can't just throw a statement without any specific set of assumptions accompanying it.

 

[rockstarIN]

This is a very simplistic claim. First do know what is the radar coverage for MKI, if it is 360 Deg at all possible ranges. Or at what angle of approach the engagement took place (It would certainly not be head on or Frontal one)? Secondly, what makes you so sure that PAF fighters were armed with only a specific set of missiles? There are anti BVR Tactics, and there are ways to negate the BVR detection. You can't just throw a statement without any specific set of assumptions accompany ying it.

In this case, all are assumptions from both sides nothing else. Both side can argue based upon the facts what we both have and what was the situation. Anti BVR tactics, early detection, secret weapons, close proximation of bases....all are assumptions.

 

[The Deterrent]

Locked on with what? F-16s were sent intercept which was A/B block. No BVR and only armed with short range heat seeking missiles. You just need to point your nose and shoot such not necessary a radar lock. Mostly radar lock for radar guided missiles, which was not available with PAF and F-16.

No, not BVRs. The within-visual range AAMs (being photographed means they were close enough).
No, the WVRAAMs you are talking about are newer, fire-and-forget ones. The missile lock-on is necessary for the IR guided AAMs because the pilot has to bring the target within the missile seeker's "viewing range" (perhaps some senior/expert on WVRAAMs can provide more and accurate information).

 

[SBD-3]

In this case, all are assumptions from both sides nothing else. Both side can argue based upon the facts what we both have and what was the situation. Anti BVR tactics, early detection, secret weapons, close proximation of bases....all are assumptions.

Again, as if it never happened.....No plane of IAF violated Pakistani airspace. PAF scramble was for tasty shwarma in food street Lahore and BBC, IAF were all big liers in acknowledging this. I really like Jalandhri logics.

 

[SBD-3]

No, not BVRs. The within-visual range AAMs (being photographed means they were close enough).
No, the WVRAAMs you are talking about are newer, fire-and-forget ones. The missile lock-on is necessary for the IR guided AAMs because the pilot has to bring the target within the missile seeker's "viewing range" (perhaps some senior/expert on WVRAAMs can provide more and accurate information).

For WVR, i dont think there would be any noice in pilot's visor since Both IR and Optical seekers are actually passive seekers. Initial versions of Sidewinders did have active/semi active radar seekers, but newer generations utilitzed IR/EO seekers due to improvements in technology. So unless an sidewinder is not fired and detected by MAWS, i dont think pilot should get a beep in his head. For radar guided threat MAWS/Radar/RWR can be utilized. Radar Warning Reciever continously scans for active radars in the area by receiving and analyzing received signals.It then matches the recieved signals with frequencies in its repository and gives a radar warning to pilot. Since it is a passive sensor, so if LPI technique (sending different wavelenght at every emission) is used or Radar is switched off, it cant do much (or anything). The sudden pick up in beep is actually when MAWS dectects a missile approach, establishing a lock doesn't mean a pick up in tone (Since there isn't a pick up in radar frequency or anything if an aircraft is acquired by fire control radar). So if I approach a plane from an angle where he has no radar coverage, switch my radar off to cut singal supply to enemy RWR and lock the enemy aircraft using a passive seeker (IR/EO) enemy wont even know till the missile launch that there is someone nearby. Thats just a part of story. EW and other techniques also perform the same role by fooling enermy RWR and Radar about existence or location of intercepting aircraft.

 

[rockstarIN]

Again, as if it never happened.....No plane of IAF violated Pakistani airspace. PAF scramble was for tasty shwarma in food street Lahore and BBC, IAF were all big liers in acknowledging this. I really like Jalandhri logics.

The first denial came from Sardari himself I believe. Not from BBC.

later he siad it was an accidental violation which used to happen from both sides.

They again changed mind and lodge an offical protest with India lateron.

IAF & GoI never acknowledged this and official statement rejected this claim.

May be its all Lahori logics.

No, not BVRs. The within-visual range AAMs (being photographed means they were close enough).
No, the WVRAAMs you are talking about are newer, fire-and-forget ones. The missile lock-on is necessary for the IR guided AAMs because the pilot has to bring the target within the missile seeker's "viewing range" (perhaps some senior/expert on WVRAAMs can provide more and accurate information).

WVR means within visual range. You can lock on but not always radar is required there.

 

[SBD-3]

The first denial came from Sardari himself I believe. Not from BBC.

later he siad it was an accidental violation which used to happen from both sides.

They again changed mind and lodge an offical protest with India lateron.

IAF & GoI never acknowledged this and official statement rejected this claim.

May be its all Lahori logics.



WVR means within visual range. You can lock on but not always radar is required there.

Dude, it happens only in India.....

 

[rockstarIN]

For WVR, i dont think there would be any noice in pilot's visor since Both IR and Optical seekers are actually passive seekers. Initial versions of Sidewinders did have active/semi active radar seekers, but newer generations utilitzed IR/EO seekers due to improvements in technology. So unless an sidewinder is not fired and detected by MAWS, i dont think pilot should get a beep in his head. For radar guided threat MAWS/Radar/RWR can be utilized. Radar Warning Reciever continously scans for active radars in the area by receiving and analyzing received signals.It then matches the recieved signals with frequencies in its repository and gives a radar warning to pilot. Since it is a passive sensor, so if LPI technique (sending different wavelenght at every emission) is used or Radar is switched off, it cant do much (or anything). The sudden pick up in beep is actually when MAWS dectects a missile approach, establishing a lock doesn't mean a pick up in tone (Since there isn't a pick up in radar frequency or anything if an aircraft is acquired by fire control radar). So if I approach a plane from an angle where he has no radar coverage, switch my radar off to cut singal supply to enemy RWR and lock the enemy aircraft using a passive seeker (IR/EO) enemy wont even know till the missile launch that there is someone nearby. Thats just a part of story. EW and other techniques also perform the same role by fooling enermy RWR and Radar about existence or location of intercepting aircraft.

You need somebody to guide you to approach a plane from their side angle. Given both were in sky, at different altitude, speed and area..you wont always get the enemy to engage and there is pressure from fuel..you cant search for 1-2 hours. Ground stations will help you but that coverage will be there from both parties.

Dude, it happens only in India.....

Only in pakistan...