What's new

What could have PAF done in Kargil war

.
Kargil itself was a limited war however initially Pakistan claimed it was between mujahideens and IA. Hence PAF was kept away.
Otherwise no nation will stop using its Airforce if its Army is pounded by opponent Airforce.

More debate will lead to friction I alsp feel the thread should be closed.

GP,

The problem for the PAF was that the fighting was going on across the LoC on your side. PAF could not have crossed over to support the ground forces in the Kargil region as the ramifications would have been far reaching (all out war). So there were RoE limitations as well.

The efficacy of IAF was questionable (IA questioned their effectiveness). The pounding was because of the Indian Artillery.
 
.
dear jf-17
we used mirage-2k after the initial sorties of migs failed to deliver the desired results. MKI was not available at that time, only some su-30s initialy provided by russia were available. Kargil Intrusion, right from the planning stage, was ment to be a limited area operation. also, Unlike land based fighters, aircrafts can'nt be passed off as those belonging to mujahids, this was one reason why pakistan did'nt use its airforce.
 
.
I even heard in some PAF forum in Orkut that 2 F-16 was locked by IAF MIG 29... Don't know about the truth....

:pop:
 
. .
GP,

The problem for the PAF was that the fighting was going on across the LoC on your side. PAF could not have crossed over to support the ground forces in the Kargil region as the ramifications would have been far reaching (all out war). So there were RoE limitations as well.

The efficacy of IAF was questionable (IA questioned their effectiveness). The pounding was because of the Indian Artillery.


It does not matter if the war was inside Indian territory now that its very clear that PA fought the war and PAF was bound to protect it or act as deterrent.

IAF did use Laser guided bombs and eventually was the difference for PA withdrawal Ofcourse Clinton played part to for political pressure.

Some vidoes of IAF

1) MiG-21 : (279 KB, 6 sec) An armed Indian Air Force MiG 21 takes off for action in Kargil.

2) Mirage 2000 : (158 KB, 6.3 sec) An armed Mirage 2000 fighter of the Indian Air Force takes off with PGMs to be used against Pakistani infiltrators. (See Video 3 below)

3) Laser Guided bomb: (174 KB, 5 sec) A precision guided bomb from an Indian Air Force aircraft (Possibly a Mirage 2000) converts a Pakistani Army camp perched on a mountain into history.

4) MiG 27: (161 KB, 2.8 sec) IAF MiG 27s after action over Kargil.

5) Mi-17 helicopters: (300 KB, 7.7 sec) India Air Force Mi-17 helicopters each armed with 4 rocket pods containing 128 rockets returning after a mission against retreating Pakistani forces in the Himalayas.
 
Last edited:
.
As mentioned by Blain IAF used Mig-21/23/27 and BVR capable Mirage2000H in the Kargil conflict. IAF was having severe maintenace (no spareparts) and engine problems with the Mig-29 at that time and did not risk sending it to Kargil.
 
. .

Indian MiG-29s saw action during the Kargil War in Kashmir in 1999. The IAF used the MiG-29s extensively for providing fighter escort for Mirage 2000s which were used for firing laser-guided bombs on enemy targets. According to Indian sources during the Kargil War, a pair of MiG-29s from IAF's 47 (Black Archers) Squadron successfully locked onto two Pakistani Air Force (PAF)'s F-16s which were close to the Indian airspace. Since India and Pakistan were not officially at war during the time, the MiGs were ordered by the IAF command to give up the chase. After this incident, the PAF ordered its aircraft to stay well within the Pakistani airspace. However, this claim has been refuted by the Pakistan Air Force and there is no evidence to support the IAF claim. Also, during the conflict IAF Fulcrums were armed with RVV-AE missiles with BVR capability allowing them to achieve total air superiority during the conflict.
 
Last edited:
.
Indian MiG-29s saw action during the Kargil War in Kashmir in 1999. The IAF used the MiG-29s extensively for providing fighter escort for Mirage 2000s which were used for firing laser-guided bombs on enemy targets. According to Indian sources during the Kargil War, a pair of MiG-29s from IAF's 47 (Black Archers) Squadron successfully locked onto two Pakistani Air Force (PAF)'s F-16s which were close to the Indian airspace. Since India and Pakistan were not officially at war during the time, the MiGs were ordered by the IAF command to give up the chase. After this incident, the PAF ordered its aircraft to stay well within the Pakistani airspace. However, this claim has been refuted by the Pakistan Air Force and there is no evidence to support the IAF claim. Also, during the conflict IAF Fulcrums were armed with RVV-AE missiles with BVR capability allowing them to achieve total air superiority during the conflict.

This was as unverified a claim as ever filed. To top it off, ACIG included this BS "Lock-on" as something to keep a score of. Locking on does not mean anything as long as aircraft are not in a hot situation. Talking about lock-ons, PAF has had quite a few. in any case, had there been an actual shooting match then we would have something to talk about, otherwise its all "feel-good" chatter.

Also speaking about claims, here is one more:

PAF engages Indian Air Force

9th July, 1999, APP, Dawn/PNS


ISLAMABAD: In what was a classic pre-dawn interception, air defence interceptors of the Pakistan Air Force, comprising of two PAF F-7MP fighter jets, intercepted and engaged intruding Indian Air Force (IAF) fighter jets which crossed the Line of Control in Jammu & Kashmir and violated Pakistan's airspace by several kilometres. The IAF fighters were believed to be two MiG-27ML ground-attack aircraft and two Mirage 2000H fighters providng top cover. The event took place in the early hours of Thursday, 8 July 1999, at approximately 2:30 a.m. (0230 hours) PST.

According to sources, PAF F-7MP fighters were supported by two F-16 Fighting Falcons providing back-up which conducted electronic jamming of the intruder IAF 'bandits'. The F-16s were scrambled whereas the F-7MPs were already on Combat Air Patrol (CAP) duty when the incursion occured.

The PAF F-7MP air defence interceptors were immediately vectored by GCI towards the intruding 'bandits' within seconds of their crossing into Pakistan airspace. The PAF fighters intercepted the Indian fighters and 'locked' on them with their missiles. In fighter terms, this is an invitation for a dogfight. However, the IAF fighters refused to engage in return and instead fled straight back into the airspace of Indian-held Kashmir in what PAF pilots perceived was sheer panic. "It was not a very orderly or dignified exit", remarked a PAF officer.

According to PAF sources, even the Dynamic Launch Zone (DLZ) perimetres had been met for launching of the air-to-air missiles which means that the PAF pilots had gotten the AAM tone indicating the bandits were well within shoot-down range of the PAF fighters. A missile tone is achieved when the missile's infrared heat-seeker or its radar has picked up the hostile aircraft. "It looks as if we gave them a fright", says a PAF officer, "Their RWR signal would have been blasting off in the cockpits as our interceptors tracked them". If the missiles were short-range heat-seeking missiles, then this would imply that the distance between the PAF and the IAF fighters was less than 10 kilometres - "Too close for comfort", as the PAF officer remarked.

PAF fighters did not shoot down the Indian fighters even though they were within range of the air-to-air missiles of the PAF fighters. The Indian fighters were perilously close to the Line of Control and their wreckage may have fallen inside Indian-held Kashmir territory which, going by their track record, would have given the Indian authorities the opportunity to blame the PAF for the intrusion.

According to the PAF Rules of Engagement (ROE), three conditions have to be met in peacetime before an enemy aircraft can be shot down: (i) the enemy aircraft must violate Pakistan's airspace; (ii) it must be a combat aircraft and (iii) its wreckage must fall inside Pakistani territory. 'Peacetime' in the context of India and Pakistan means when no war has been declared.

In this instance, the third criterion may not have been met as the IAF fighters were too close to the LoC and their wreckage may have fallen on either side of the LoC.

"All the intruder Indian fighters fled when our air defence fighters locked on them", said a PAF officer.

A second intrusion occured seven and a half hours later, at approximately 10:00 a.m. (1000 hours) PST, when two IAF fighter jets violated Pakistan's airspace in the Mushkoh-Olding sector in Jammu & Kashmir. Two F-7MPs were immediately scrambled from a

forward PAF air base to intercept the two intruders. However, the IAF jets sensing the PAF
fighters fast approaching them, turned back and fled into Indian-held Kashmir before the PAF interceptors could get a missile lock-on them.

In both cases, the IAF intruders had taken off from Srinagar air base, according to PAF GCI controllers.

It is pertinent to mention here that earlier this year, on 27 May 1999, two intruder Indian Air Force MiGs - a MiG-27ML and a MiG-21bis - were shot down by the Pakistan Army using Anza-II SAMs after the IAF jets had violated Pakistan's airspace in the Jammu & Kashmir region. The wreckage of both the Indian aircraft fell 10-12 kilometres inside Pakistani territory near Hamzi Ghund. One Indian pilot, Flt. Lt. K. Nachiketa, was captured whereas the other pilot, Sqn. Ldr. Ajay Ahuja, was killed. Sqn. Ldr. Ahuja's body was returned to India with full military honours and Flt. Lt. Nachiketa was released shortly afterwards.
 
. .
This was as unverified a claim as ever filed. To top it off, ACIG included this BS "Lock-on" as something to keep a score of. Locking on does not mean anything as long as aircraft are not in a hot situation. Talking about lock-ons, PAF has had quite a few. in any case, had there been an actual shooting match then we would have something to talk about, otherwise its all "feel-good" chatter.

Also speaking about claims, here is one more:

My post did mention that "However, this claim has been refuted by the Pakistan Air Force and there is no evidence to support the IAF claim".

Mig 29 (Fulcrums) were used they were armed with RVV-AE missiles with BVR capability allowing them to achieve total air superiority during the conflict and LGM were decisive.
 
. .

Please avoid posting trash:frown:. The poster (or the troll) who started that thread at WAB got banned for posting astonishingly stupid stuff and comparisons and actually got schooled by quite a few folks. PAF has flown and evaluated the Mig-29 and while the maneuverability is fine, its nothing earth-shattering. F-16, Mirage2000, Fulcrum all have their pros and cons depending on altitude etc. In the end, in between these three platforms and also in general, the better trained pilot would win the day.
 
.
Only one thing is True which needs no verification and cannot be denied by any!

Pakistan Shot Down 2 of your Jets!

Mig-21 - PAFCombat.com, maintained by retired Air Commodore Kaiser Tufail of the PAF admits that Nachiketas MiG crashed due to "gun gas injection resulting in engine flame.

Mig-27 - Was fired at by Stinger missile and was shot down. Pilot ejected but was killed in a gun-fire exchange with Pakistani Ground troops.
 
.
Back
Top Bottom