ptldM3
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Nov 20, 2009
- Messages
- 5,586
- Reaction score
- 19
- Country
- Location
Stop ranting about your opinions. Fact, the US does export downgraded aircraft. Fact, you asked me to prove it. Fact i did. Fact you cant except the reality.
You lose.
Sure it was the argument, you told me to prove it remember? Seems like not only are you an illiterate liar but you cant even remember your own arguments. As for the Mig-29 being a failure, its obvious you are stubborn like a mule and you base your opinion off of heavily unfavorable circumstances which no F-16 or F-15 ect has ever faced, tell me how many F-16s have when into battle with malfunctioning radars?
You are very ignorant if you think that the US exports full US spec F-15s. The Iraqi Air Force also payed billions for their F-16s and it did not prevent the US from equipping them with inferior AIM-7Ps.
Of course i can, from reports we know that the majority of Iraqi aircraft that did fire A2A missiles fired R-60s and R-40s. The real proof is reports of Mig-29s 'buzzing' F-15s or firing short range missiles at the F-15s. If the Mig-29s were equipped with R-27s they would never risk getting within kill range and according to your source the Mig-29s radar was able to detect the F-16 at about the same distance that the F-16 detected the Mig-29, a larger F-15 would be detected much earlier, so clearly, at least some, if not all Mig-29s were not armed with R-27s.
Iraq had a long war with Iran, and if you did some research the Iranians almost depleted their entire inventory of phenix missile, its not hard to image that the R-27s were also depleted, not to leave out the fact that Iraqi weapons depots were destroyed.
So now, either prove that Mig-29s were armed with R-27s at the time they were engaging coalition aircraft or concede the fact that you have no proof. Which you do not.
Wrong, you have no proof of this whatsoever. There are reports of Mig-29 being shot down but the range at which they were shot down is not given nor is their vector known, for all we know they were fired about from the rear, which of course Mig-29s have no rear facing radars, so your assertion would be false.
Stop proclaiming your opinions as facts.
Yes, you are not only dishonest but a plain liar. You accused me of using forums or forum posts as sources which was a complete lie by you. But do you know what is funny? You are the one that has repeatedly used forum posts as sources. How do you like your own spit blowing back in your face
Again how did you prove me wrong? Tell the reader.....I gave a source that the Israelis developed avionics for the dorsal spine compartment. In tern you posted a picture of a Pakistani F-16 and then you posted a YouTube video that had nothing to do with the topic, the video was not about the Dorsal spine, it was not about Israeli F-16s, and it was not even about Pakistani F-16s
So explain again what you proved wrong because last time i checked i gave a source stating the Israelis installed avionics in the dorsal spine of their F-16s. You have not given a single source that disputes my source, so, no, in reality you have not proven me wrong.
The EL/M 2032 radar was offered in the F-16 ACE package but Israel chose to stick with their existing fleet of F-16s. The fact here is about foreign avionics remember? Of course you don't remember, since you have the mental capacity of a brick. In any case you challenged me to prove that the US allows foreign avionics in their aircraft and it did that. I gave proof that the US does allow foreign avionics in their aircraft, in fact export F-15s will have Israeli cockpits.
To further stomp out your none sense.
Defense Update:Elbit Systems Large Area Display Selected for ...
Still want argue?
By "series" do you mean serious? And by "your" do you mean You're? There is a difference between the two. But thank you, yes, i'm a genius, at least compared to you i am, actually my 4 year old nephew is a genius compared to you.
lmao... tell somebody tht F-22 is crap and they will laugh at your butt... you are still developing a 5th gen fighter they did tht decades ago...
Once again you look like a fool when called out. No one is calling the F-22 crap, i mentioned the F-22 to have numerous defects, again i did that prove the point that no weapons system is flawless. So its funny when you target Russian weapons/systems and call them crap when all systems break down or have defects, regardless of national origin, at some point especially if they are not stored or maintained properly.
What other case am i talking about? Read the source i posted; it talked about Indian made ammo that has defects and as a result it exploded, because of that thousands of rounds were recalled. So once again, you go in denial mode when overwhelmed by credible sources.
Ask them what? How every one of your claims have been debunked with sources and how you're still in denial?
Over 20 lost migs... bet ALL OF THEM HAD MALFUNCTIONING SYSTEMS...
That is better then Pakistan losing 11-34% (depending on sources) of it air force to Indian and then getting East Pakistan taken away.
You are literally too dumb..
I can count 8 in just 1 post in tht thread with the names of the shot down pilots.. and countless other migs n SUs...
Shot down by obsolete second hand f-86Es..under sanctions
Indians sure did win all air wars...
Wow just wow....you do know that you have been counting Indian Mig-21 kills against Pakistan right?
Here are your two sources:
Air Aces Homepage (suppose Indian aircraft shot down)
Air Aces Homepage (supposed Pakistani aircraft shot down)
The first link claims 3 Mig-21 shot down by Pakistan, the second link claims india shot down 5 Pakistani aircraft with the Mig-21. Only a brain dead door knob like yourself can be foolish enough to make a monumental blunder of this magnitude.
Tell us more abt Indians defeating PAF in airwars..
Sure:
IAF COMBAT KILLS - 1971 INDO-PAK AIR WAR - Orders of Battle
The final tally of the 14-day 1971 war announced by Indian Defence Minister Jagjivan Ram, in the
Parliament on Dec 18, 1971, puts Pakistani losses at 94 aircraft and Indian losses at 45 (54 [28] ) aircraft. The figure for kills was determined though very strict procedures and does not include damaged aircraft or probable kills. It has not been clear whether these claims refer to PAF losses alone or to all aircraft destroyed in combat or if they include the F-86Es captured at Tejgaon, which would make the numbers much higher. A breakdown of kills was never released officially, although a crude estimate of 75 kills mentioned the Official history of the 1971 war, would include 35 Pakistani aircraft lost to the air action and the rest destroyed on the ground. This document attempts to list to the highest extent possible, all of the claims made by the IAF, in terms of enemy aircraft destroyed during the conflict. Since the IAF itself has not released a single, detailed list of such claims, all the respective tables (especially Table 1.1) are thus incomplete until more information becomes available.
1. In a major PR exercise following the 1971 war, the PAF lined up [11] no more than 22 Mirage-III fighters at on, in order to claim that none had been lost in combat,
2. There have been cases where a number of IAF probable claims or no claims from an encounter where a target was engaged, have actually been shown to be a confirmed kill when some timely and selective admission of losses show up on Pakistani records. SS Malhotra's F-6 kill is one such example [40]
3. Polly Singh, a prominent IAF author, writes [45] that F/O Hamid Khawaja was shot down by KK Bakshi, flying the Marut, on 07 Dec 1971.
4. PC Lal [2] mentions (pg 288) another engagement on the last day of the war (17 Dec) where a second Marut kill of an F-86, near Hyderabad, is attributed to ‘Joe’ (S/L KK Bakshi). There is no mention of any
engagement on 12 Dec.
* Loss also attributed to own AAA [43] or possible fratricide [17] by Leader, during the same encounter. Pakistani sources have not been clear. While Kadam was shot down by W/C Hashmi (PAF) and KIA, it is possible that he shot down AJ Siddiqui before going down. However, the IAF does not claim a kill and the record is mentioned for reference and study only.
** Damaged aircraft were said to have been noted by eyewitnesses but the PAF maintains [41] that all 6 aircraft of the formation which attacked the lone Gnat, returned safely.
The figure of 11 F-86Es and 2 RT-33s disabled, is a purely PAF claim. After the liberation of Bangladesh and the Pakistani surrender, the IAF personnel at Tejgaon were able to recover no more than five F-86Es and no mention is made of other aircraft. Although the RT-33s were confirmed to be in service, there is no specific mention of them being found or recovered at Tejgaon as per IAF records and their air activity is also never mentioned in PAF records. Thus the aircraft destroyed by the Su-7s on 4 Dec 1971, could have included the RT-33s among the targets attacked. PC Lal [2] does mention (p.193) that 11 aircraft were located on the ground at Tejgaon (Dhaka) but some of them had been destroyed by air-strikes and some of them had been disabled by the Pakistanis themselves. The exact figure for the number of F-86Es in East Pakistan does not remain certain - India claims between 19 [1] and 22 units whereas Pakistan claims 16 to 18. But from what can be concluded from the mentioned evidence is that out of the PAF's entire deployment in East Pakistan, only five F-86Es survived intact. 2. Foreign C-130s, notably those from Iran, were known to have operated in West Pakistan, supplying spares and other vital supplies. On 10 Dec 1971, an Iranian C-130 was photographed [2] off-loading supplies at an airstrip near Gwadar, by aircraft from the IAF's No.106 recon squadron. It is unclear whether any foreign C-130s were attacked and destroyed while operating at Pakistani airfields, although suspected supply points such as Nawabshah, were most certainly attacked. Both the IAF and PAF were known to have deployed several decoys in the form of dummy and retired aircraft. While it was highly convenient to claim that destroyed or attacked aircraft on the ground were actually decoys, it must be mentioned that through extremely strict standards of observation and reconnaissance plus pre and post-war intelligence, the IAF never claimed any as actual kills. In some cases they were identifiable before being attacked and in others, they did not display the thick black smoke expected. Here are a few examples where they were encountered.....
For the period of the war, the IAF also logged no less than 7346 combat sorties [2] , not including the 191 sorties [5] flown by aircraft of the INS Vikrant, or the sorties by other segments of Naval aviation and Army aviation. It would appear that combat aircraft (fighters, bombers) alone apparently logged between 6542 (PAF estimate [17] ) and 6758 [28] combat sorties. Transports and Helicopters logged no less than 588 "combat" sorties [28]. In his article "Some Reflections on the IAF" [9], Air Commodore Jasjit Singh AVSM VrC VM (Retd), Director, Center for Air Power Studies, mentions that Transports and Helicopters flew around 7500 sorties in total (p.178) and cross referencing this with his attrition figures [see chart 2] , it would appear that the IAF itself did indeed log something in the area of 15,000 sorties, totally, during the war. The PAF officially [37] logged 3076 sorties in total, with 2914 combat sorties, meaning that they suffered almost twice the amount of losses at less than half the combat sortie rate.
While it is generally said that the actual figure for kills/losses or the truth lies somewhere in between the claims of both sides, one must also note that the 1971 war was an outright decisive victory for India. With objectives and air superiority fully achieved, numbers had very little meaning or immediate worth for the Indian side. Even so, numbers and more importantly, attrition, have always been secondary when compared to actual objectives achieved, that influenced the overall outcome of the war. Very strict procedures and missions [44] for evaluating the validity of a kill claim were followed, using several sources for a single claim, such as gun camera film, wreckage in own territory and from reconnaissance over enemy territory, post war intelligence and survey. For air-to-air and air-to-ground claims, only perfectly clear gun camera footage and/or enemy admissions of losses, were considered. Radio intercepts and intelligence reports alone were not [2] usually considered sufficient evidence to confirm a kill, although plenty of such intercept records existed on tape. The IAF was also considerably more generous in releasing wreckage and gun camera evidence into the public domain. Therefore, the Indian estimate of kills (94) and own losses can be deemed fairly accurate, with little or nothing to gain from additional propaganda from inflating kill figures and hiding own losses, in light of the outcome of the same conflict which has been so decisive. The credibility of a Secular Democracy over a Military Dictatorship known for oppression [42] of its own people, should also come into consideration.
The situation in Pakistan was thus quite the opposite. With not only a decisive defeat at hand but a comparatively low sortie rate (which increases the overall attrition figure even with a small number of losses), numbers meant everything. After suitable fairytales about the 1965 war fed to the public, including but not restricted to the fantasy of a 4:1 kill ratio
Brig General Chuck Yeager's account [29] of the war, from his autobiography, is selectively quoted byPakistanis in support of PAF claims. However, the credibility of the same is also completely destroyed through the inclusion of certain laughable gems in his own assessment, such as the claim that India wanted to keep East Pakistan for itself, that the IAF operated the MiG-21J (not inducted until 1973 as the MiG-21MF) and that F-86 and F-104 Starfighters constituted half the PAF fleet of 500 aircraft! Yeager gives away his agenda by explicitly labeling the conflict as a surrogate war between the Soviet Union (India) and America (Pakistan). Yeager also mentions that the outcome on the ground was the complete opposite of the outcome of the air war, where the PAF "whipped their (Indian) asses in the sky ". Yet, without the IAF's dominance over the battlefield and the consequential ability to provide uninterrupted support to ground forces throughout the conflict, how could that have ever happened? Perhaps this embarrassingly false account simply added to the PAF's lack of credibility, fueled in the past by ridiculous claims. Pakistani sources even needed to fabricate the IAF's strength in order to once again portray a David-vs-Goliath struggle. For example, a prominent PAF author [37], claims that the IAF had no less than 1200 combat aircraft alone, against the IAF's actual strength of 625 combat aircraft. Another author, a retired Pakistani Brigadier, claims [38] that the IAF was in fact, in possession of, MiG-23s and MiG-19s, as early as 1965. Funnily enough, it was the PAF itself and not the IAF, which had a MiG-19 variant, the Shenyang F-6C, during the follow on 1971 conflict. It is thus unsurprising to see so many independent air-power and airwar analysts [30] [33] [35] castigate the PAF for the use of rather bare faced propaganda.
Finally, it is confirmed [17] that the PAF's sortie rate slowly decreased day-by-day, as the conflict proceeded. Both Offensive Counter Air (OCA) and Defensive Counter Air (DCA) sorties showed an extreme fall from 4 Dec to 17 Dec, while Offensive Air Support sorties, showed an increase [17]. Overall, the PAF sortie rate dropped from 240 sorties on 4 Dec 1971, to 150 sorties on 15 Dec and finally 215 sorties per day on 17 Dec. The PAF was nowhere to be seen on 5 Dec at Longewella, where just 4 Hunters wiped out an entire Pakistani armored regiment, despite desperate pleas [19] for air support from the latter. The tank busting over Longewella lasted not a few hrs, but nearly two whole days, and despite this, the PAF never ever showed up. Neither was air support provided at all [31] when Karachi was attacked. On 16 Dec, when Indian tanks broke the protective cordon in the Zafarwal area, no PAF air support was provided [18] despite requests. All of the mentioned, indicate the IAF's local air superiority plus a solid depletion of available numbers in the PAF aircraft fleet, despite reports [7] [8] [35] foreign reinforcement.
The PAF extensively received foreign assistance and aircraft throughout the war, and these not only added to its combat element but more importantly, helped camouflage the extent of its losses. The most famous example would be the transfer of 11 RJAF F-104A Starfighters to Pakistan, on 13 December 1971. This was not initially mentioned in Pakistani accounts, was first noted by IAF pilots when the F-104s they shot down, bore a desert camouflage. Eventually, declassified US documents [7], confirmed the transfer, which, was eventually acknowledged by Pakistan. Also transferred were at least 3 Libyan Northrop F-5Es, but Pakistan maintains that these units arrived only on Dec 27, well after the Pakistani surrender. Besides the mentioned examples, Pakistan does not acknowledge the transfer of any other aircraft although Indian sources [1] as well as independent sources [34] [35] constantly mention the transfer of several additional F-86 Sabres and possibly Mirage-IIIEPs [35] from Middle Eastern sources. Additional US Declassified documents [8] further mention the supply of about another 2 squadrons of aircraft from Turkey and 12 more F-104s after the war had concluded, all of these paid by the Shah of Iran under US orders. Given that foreign aircraft were already photographed supplying equipment to Pakistan during the war and taking into consideration the examples of the F-104A and F-5 transfers, the possibility of additional loaner aircraft during wartime cannot be easily written off despite PAF denials. The PAF has always accused Bengali defectors of giving away deployment details and information to the Indian side but such access to information only makes Indian claims relating to the PAF, more accurate.
The PAF almost exclusively flew defensive [16] [18] sorties with 61.5% [17] of the overall effort and up to 70% [18] excluding bomber, transport and recce sorties, being purely DCA sorties. The IAF in contrast, flew an almost completely offensive air campaign ( 65.5% according to a serving PAF author [17] or up to 80% according to Indian sources ), exposing themselves much more to enemy fire under low fuel states which made engagement of patrolling aircraft very difficult. Whatever the real statistics are, it is quite clear that the IAF won the air war of 1971 and high level Pakistani Army sources [13] [14] [16] are now starting to acknowledge the same at some level or the other, despite what the PAF claims. Pakistan lost the whole of East Pakistan, which became Bangladesh, plus a massive 5,500 sq. miles of territory [15] in the West, with about 93,000 soldiers taken as POW, over 20,000 casualties and 253 tanks lost in combat. The Indian Army acknowledges [2][1] the fact that the IAF played a critical role in achieving the decisive victory within a very short period of 14 days. The IAF couldn't have done so without achieving air superiority. The latter also allowed the IAF to fly more photo-reconnaissance missions for accurate damage assessment. The IAF's performance (in some cases) was so good that some authors [26] began to estimate that the missions were conducted under AWACS control of a 'loaned' Soviet Tu-126 Moss. Both Yeager and Russian personnel [2] began to think that the Su-7s and MiG-21s had been modified with weapons aiming computers and precision guided weaponry.
[snipped do to length]
Wow its getting dumber and dumber by the minute..
You should try to read the posts... and not cherry pic.. like you did even in tht article...
[/quote]
Hold on there chief, you made a very bold statement that the Mig-29s only advantage over the F-16 was HMC. It was proven that the Mig-29 had better missiles, AoA, thrust-to-weight, rate of climb, ect, ect and your best rebuttal is to call me dumb
Your post was clear as day and my rebuttal even more so.....again your claims have been trashed and as a result you cant even counter, you have stooped to the level of petty insults, denial, and change of subject.
Lol.. yeah coz its beneficial for them to sell their avionics not to forget the publicity of their stuff... what abt Russians? "comrade we sold our latest jets... and they replaced the avionics" ..
So then what about Boeing using Eilbit cockpits for their future aircraft as well as export of their aircraft?
Again you are obviously a challenged individual so let me explain this in the easiest and simplest way possible. You mentioned that the Mig-29 is a gas guzzler, i countered by comparing the Mig-29s RD-33 engine with the F-404 engines since both are the same class engines. Then you started calling me stupid, claiming we were comparing the F-16, which is false since i never compared the F-100 engine to the RD-33 because it would be comparing a heavy class of engine to a medium/light class of engine. Get it? RD-33 and F-404 are in the medium/light class and the F-100 is in the heavy class.
Lets compare all 3 engines in specific fuel consumption:
Military Turbojet/Turbofan Specifications - Jet-engine.net
Dry Wet
F-100 0.72 2.500
RD-33 (original Mig-29A) 0.74 2.050
F-404-400 0.85 1.850
Not to forget quoting an engine developed in 2003 for naval use n for mig-35...
No such things as a naval Mig-35
the RD-33 that i quoted was the original model (check the link).Lol.. the tech demonstrator for mig-35..
The Mig-35 was developed from the Mig-29M which is a production aircraft. The Mig-29SMT, Mig-29M, Mig-29K, Mig-35 ect all had been redesign to hold more fuel, so again explain how you "debunked" that fact.
Your repeat avoidance to answer me and shameless attempts to change the topic (see above post) only demonstrates you are full of it, so again what have you "debunked"?
