PAF F-16 vs MiG-21 - New Evidence

Feel free to discuss anything here - as long as it is F-16 related.
  • Author
  • Message
Offline

garrya

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 828
  • Joined: 25 Dec 2015, 12:43

Unread post10 Oct 2019, 03:04

notafanboy wrote:One basic look and rough calculation tells me that in proportional navigation we can assume jet taking periphery of circle while missile takes straight route between fire and explosion points i.e, for missile taking 2r distance, jet flies pi*r (half circumference of circle) distance. That in itself gives 1.5x range (not that its point of argument here)

To start with, proportional navigation doesn't mean the missle will fly a direct path to target,a BVR missile will fly ballistic arcs and still use lead navigation. To elaborate, proportional/lead navigation only means the missile will fly toward the future location of the aircraft instead of its current location.
lead.PNG

Furthermore, the radar will only tell you the direct distance between your aircraft and your enemy rather than the distance the enemy have flown. What I meant is that radar will let you know the current direct distance between the two aircraft, represented by the green line in the photo below, this is also what shown on his HUD, rather than the distance that enemy traveled represented by the red curve.
radar distance.jpg

Moreover, the engagement diagram is not supposed to show the maximum fly distance of R-73, it supposed to represent the maximum distance that the pilot can take a shot and that missile can reach the target. The pilot doesn't have to care what trajectory the missile will take, the manual only need to tell him at what range he can launch his missile and that missile can reach target before it falls down from the sky.
To sum up, the distance that the jets fly in your calculation was never a part of consideration.

notafanboy wrote:Here is Pakistani story broken few days back
https://twitter.com/RT_com/status/1181574970973003776

This is how we feel about the alleged F-16 shootdown
Offline

garrya

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 828
  • Joined: 25 Dec 2015, 12:43

Unread post10 Oct 2019, 03:34

notafanboy wrote:Author hasn't pinpointed loss of F-16 just for the sake of it. What are the chances that RADAR track of F-16 vanishes at two distinct RADAR monitoring systems at same time when Mig 21 fires R73, two jets go down in Pak at distinct places and time, Pak acknowledging arrest of two pilots and then altogether denies using F-16 while India shows wreckage of AIM 120 C-5?


This is the kind of reasoning I am talking about, because the belief is that 1 F-16 was shootdown, hence all evidence are only explained in the way to support that belief. For instance I don't think there was any information regarding what point in time the Mig-21 launch R-73 or what point in time the Phalcon illustrates the F-16 disappeared from his scope. But for the sake of argument, assuming they disappear at the same time, how can we be sure that isn't just the F-16 engage AIDEWS, chaff and flares then dive to low altitude as any pilot would?.The only possible evidence that 2 aircraft were shootdown is the tadpole. The tadpole supposed to implied F-16 were hit and exploded but at the same time, it can be the result of R-73 hitting flares or fuel tanks or even F-16 using afterburner, the possibilities are endless. The eye witness account is even more ambiguous given that they are only civilians, at the start of this shenanigan we have seen Indian claiming Mig-21 pieces belong to F-16 and they even went as far as pointing out some series number allegedly linked to Jordan F-16 transfer. Before that was debunked it spread everywhere on the internet with many supporters. My point is that eye witness are not a reliable source of information. Furthermore, Pakistan denied using F-16 has a lot to do with the restriction that US put on F-16 deal, they are only allowed to use them to attack terrorists.
Offline

jedit

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 27
  • Joined: 05 Apr 2019, 23:43
  • Location: Pakistan

Unread post11 Oct 2019, 08:08

notafanboy wrote:Author hasn't pinpointed loss of F-16 just for the sake of it. What are the chances that RADAR track of F-16 vanishes at two distinct RADAR monitoring systems at same time when Mig 21 fires R73, two jets go down in Pak at distinct places and time, Pak acknowledging arrest of two pilots and then altogether denies using F-16 while India shows wreckage of AIM 120 C-5?


We cannot blindly believe either side in such a skirmish so contradictions in either side's statements don't amount to irrefutable evidence. There are many facts and contradictions Indians are conveniently ignoring.

- IAF Chief in what is pretty much his farewell interview to media as Air Chief said that even though he believes a jet went down, he does not have any 'evidence' (implying irrefutable). His legacy probably hangs on how history books will narrate this story and yet he is not willing to fuel the F16 theory for there is always a risk of something ala 'Wikileaks' or declassifying of documents confirming Pakistani stance. Again, he says he believes plane went down, but he refuses to unequivocally declare it an F16 just to be safe. Smart of him!

https://youtu.be/GAxoAYD-JQs?t=805

If IAF chief (who definitely has more information than the keyboard warriors) won't say it with absolute certainty, would you believe these tadpole theories. If anyone was to perform scientific evidence based research to locate the alleged F16, absolutely nobody had more incentive or resources than IAF.

- IAF in its first and only formal official presser said PAF crossed into Indian air space and I quote:
"On 27th February at around 10:00 hours, IAF radars detected a large package of PAF aircrafts, heading towards the Indian territory, towards general area Jhangar. They breached Indian Air space west of Rajauri in the Sunderbani area."

However Air Chief B S Dhanoa in an interview said "They did not come into our air space.", "none of them (let me tell you) crossed into our territory". Look at the link below.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fEnITYOQ23Y - 0:14 and 0:55

Now that is IAF confirming PAF stance that they didn't cross. PAF also confirmed they did not shoot down the Mi17 helicopter and that it was possible fratricide, something IAF confirmed 7 months later. IAF also said PAF failed because our jets quote 'thwarted the plan' but then PAF showed video link till the bombs hit confirming they were in touch with the PGMs they landed. PAF officially never did a presser, only Pakistan Army (entirely different entity) released this news which explains why there were contradictions and retractions.

- Would you really believe radar traces provided by the AF whose radars couldn't identify their own chopper. IAF shot down their own Mi17 killing 7 on their side and then want their people to believe in victory on the day. Their An-32 transport air craft vanished a few weeks later and it took them a week to trace it. Those are all radar monitored events. You want the world to believe their radars are a 100% to be believed against an enemy known to have deployed jamming and ECW in a highly planned retaliatory strike.

garrya wrote:This is the kind of reasoning I am talking about, because the belief is that 1 F-16 was shootdown, hence all evidence are only explained in the way to support that belief. For instance I don't think there was any information regarding what point in time the Mig-21 launch R-73 or what point in time the Phalcon illustrates the F-16 disappeared from his scope. But for the sake of argument, assuming they disappear at the same time, how can we be sure that isn't just the F-16 engage AIDEWS, chaff and flares then dive to low altitude as any pilot would?.The only possible evidence that 2 aircraft were shootdown is the tadpole. The tadpole supposed to implied F-16 were hit and exploded but at the same time, it can be the result of R-73 hitting flares or fuel tanks or even F-16 using afterburner, the possibilities are endless. The eye witness account is even more ambiguous given that they are only civilians, at the start of this shenanigan we have seen Indian claiming Mig-21 pieces belong to F-16 and they even went as far as pointing out some series number allegedly linked to Jordan F-16 transfer. Before that was debunked it spread everywhere on the internet with many supporters. My point is that eye witness are not a reliable source of information. Furthermore, Pakistan denied using F-16 has a lot to do with the restriction that US put on F-16 deal, they are only allowed to use them to attack terrorists.


You have a point. When they said F16s weren't used, it may not have been clear whether F16 was used or not because that could be propaganda and lies and trying to vaguely abide by the terms of use of F16s, but it was fairly certain that an F16 did not go down. No military wants to be caught in a lie where it cannot back out. Mig21 wreckage leaked on Pakistani side of Kashmir and Mi17 (fratricide) wreckage leaked from Indian side of Kashmir. What stopped a single video of F16 from coming out. Curious only for those who aren't blindly following the Indian line. When the spokesman said F16 wasn't used, he would've been raked if an F16 wreckage came out.

basher54321 wrote:Where did the IAF state the exact composition of the radar track they presented? I have seen that they stated both AWACs and (unknown number of) ground radars involved but not what the track was actually made up of.


They did not. Their radar info isn't the most reliable to say the least. Their radar officer who was awarded for her 'heroics' on the day said "when i lost blip of Wing Commander Abhinandan, whether he could hear my comm, this i cannot surely say he had heard or not, i was continually monitoring air situation" - 13:40 on https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tfM2lmxZ6bE

She of course knows whether Abhinandan heard her or not. She's stuck.

i - If she confirms Mig21 pilot was in touch, then both were complicit in Mig21's crossing of LoC over to the enemy's side and getting shot.

ii - If she confirms he didn't hear her, this would confirm IAF's failure against PAF jamming.

iii - If she confirms he heard her but ignored orders (something PAF and OSINT sources from Pakistani side report), then awarding both is a contradiction in itself and explains IAF only awarded both to save face and not admit failure in chain of command.

These are the only three eventualities so I refuse to believe she didn't know. Pilot has been back for 7 months, she could've found out after he came back whether he heard her or not. Also, comm links have logs, protocols, checksums, its not hard to figure out whether someone was jammed or not.
Offline

basher54321

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1813
  • Joined: 02 Feb 2014, 15:43

Unread post11 Oct 2019, 18:19

jedit wrote:You have a point. When they said F16s weren't used, it may not have been clear whether F16 was used or not because that could be propaganda and lies and trying to vaguely abide by the terms of use of F16s, ........................ When the spokesman said F16 wasn't used, he would've been raked if an F16 wreckage came out.


You could take a guess that it was intentional misinformation in a time of conflict but to me that doesn't totally wash because at some point he was going to be outed anyway, so my guess would be total incompetence because the guy is living in the dark ages if he somehow thought every piece of information could be controlled even at that point.

If you are going up in front of the cameras in front of the world during a major incident you better be good on the camera regardless if you are lying or not - showmanship is what it is about and in particular making yourself and the country look good to the world. When the AMRAAM was found that guy and Pakistan were looking very stupid. Cooler heads stating something along the lines of "We will let you know when we have ascertained facts" would have put both sides in better light.
Offline

jedit

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 27
  • Joined: 05 Apr 2019, 23:43
  • Location: Pakistan

Unread post12 Oct 2019, 00:12

basher54321 wrote:
jedit wrote:You have a point. When they said F16s weren't used, it may not have been clear whether F16 was used or not because that could be propaganda and lies and trying to vaguely abide by the terms of use of F16s, ........................ When the spokesman said F16 wasn't used, he would've been raked if an F16 wreckage came out.


You could take a guess that it was intentional misinformation in a time of conflict but to me that doesn't totally wash because at some point he was going to be outed anyway, so my guess would be total incompetence because the guy is living in the dark ages if he somehow thought every piece of information could be controlled even at that point.

If you are going up in front of the cameras in front of the world during a major incident you better be good on the camera regardless if you are lying or not - showmanship is what it is about and in particular making yourself and the country look good to the world. When the AMRAAM was found that guy and Pakistan were looking very stupid. Cooler heads stating something along the lines of "We will let you know when we have ascertained facts" would have put both sides in better light.


Fair point. Many said a spokesperson from Air Force should have been charged with informing everyone about the details rather than the Army spokesman. Then again, they Air Force does not have such an elaborate and dedicated propaganda wing as the Army does in Pakistan.
Offline

kingtiger88

Newbie

Newbie

  • Posts: 4
  • Joined: 30 Aug 2019, 14:06

Unread post12 Oct 2019, 07:25

Guys, I am amused that none of you are addressing the core issue that the author, though biased towards a F-16 shootdown (which I ain't sure basis the reconstruction theory he gives), outlines - I think what is bought out conclusively is that TWO jets crashed in Kashmir that day.

I am amused by the chute theorists and the vets supporting same, but conveniently not addressing that there are TWO distinct videos in the same and there is no question of a drogue in one of the same.

Please explain the below given image. Are these the SAME plane or are TWO different planes? Referring to same author's tweet - https://twitter.com/joe_sameer/status/1 ... 33216?s=20

Last but not the least, there is some talk also of a PAF Blue on Blue, may not have been a F-16, maybe a JF-17. A frat from a HQ-16/ SPADA or whatever.
Offline

kingtiger88

Newbie

Newbie

  • Posts: 4
  • Joined: 30 Aug 2019, 14:06

Unread post12 Oct 2019, 07:28

Ok. So the video link for the insinuated PAF shootdown at Khuiratta from the piece has been taken down.
Offline

notafanboy

Newbie

Newbie

  • Posts: 8
  • Joined: 04 Oct 2019, 17:12
  • Location: India

Unread post13 Oct 2019, 08:34

garrya wrote:To start with, proportional navigation doesn't mean the missle will fly a direct path to target,a BVR missile will fly ballistic arcs and still use lead navigation. To elaborate, proportional/lead navigation only means the missile will fly toward the future location of the aircraft instead of its current location.
lead.PNG

Furthermore, the radar will only tell you the direct distance between your aircraft and your enemy rather than the distance the enemy have flown. What I meant is that radar will let you know the current direct distance between the two aircraft, represented by the green line in the photo below, this is also what shown on his HUD, rather than the distance that enemy traveled represented by the red curve.
radar distance.jpg


Again this explains my earlier crude assumption that proportional navigation increases effective range of missile by 1.5 by adjusting its trajectory. Taking R-73 numbers, above can be considered as right angled triangle with 4 and 3 kms as other two measurements of triangle with hypotenuse as 5 km. So its 7/5 = 1.4


garrya wrote:Moreover, the engagement diagram is not supposed to show the maximum fly distance of R-73, it supposed to represent the maximum distance that the pilot can take a shot and that missile can reach the target. The pilot doesn't have to care what trajectory the missile will take, the manual only need to tell him at what range he can launch his missile and that missile can reach target before it falls down from the sky.
To sum up, the distance that the jets fly in your calculation was never a part of consideration.


You are right if you think in that perspective but proportional navigation takes a short cut (if you will) towards a target thereby increasing the effective range. Yes, Trajectory does matter because missile is not chasing fighter jet per-se and AFAIK missile parameters are mentioned in tail chase context.
Offline

notafanboy

Newbie

Newbie

  • Posts: 8
  • Joined: 04 Oct 2019, 17:12
  • Location: India

Unread post13 Oct 2019, 08:48

garrya wrote:
This is the kind of reasoning I am talking about, because the belief is that 1 F-16 was shootdown, hence all evidence are only explained in the way to support that belief. For instance I don't think there was any information regarding what point in time the Mig-21 launch R-73 or what point in time the Phalcon illustrates the F-16 disappeared from his scope. But for the sake of argument, assuming they disappear at the same time, how can we be sure that isn't just the F-16 engage AIDEWS, chaff and flares then dive to low altitude as any pilot would?.The only possible evidence that 2 aircraft were shootdown is the tadpole. The tadpole supposed to implied F-16 were hit and exploded but at the same time, it can be the result of R-73 hitting flares or fuel tanks or even F-16 using afterburner, the possibilities are endless. The eye witness account is even more ambiguous given that they are only civilians, at the start of this shenanigan we have seen Indian claiming Mig-21 pieces belong to F-16 and they even went as far as pointing out some series number allegedly linked to Jordan F-16 transfer. Before that was debunked it spread everywhere on the internet with many supporters. My point is that eye witness are not a reliable source of information. Furthermore, Pakistan denied using F-16 has a lot to do with the restriction that US put on F-16 deal, they are only allowed to use them to attack terrorists.


US giving Pakistan F-16 to fight terrorists was always a baloney. Why would Pakistan need 500 AIM120 c-5 AMRAAMs for terrorists ? Yes eyewitness accounts can't be relied upon when it comes to complex details but is it too much complex to distinguish 1 and 2 pilots ?

Fact is Pakistan F-16 never saw R-73 incoming since it wasn't equipped with MAWS. It wasn't even aware that one Mig21 beached BARCAP until an AEWACS told them so. For diving part, other RADAR that observed F16 going down was Thales GS 100 LLTR.

Yes Indian media too created confusion in this whole scenario with half baked theories. My next reply will prove there were 2 pilots.
Offline

notafanboy

Newbie

Newbie

  • Posts: 8
  • Joined: 04 Oct 2019, 17:12
  • Location: India

Unread post13 Oct 2019, 09:01

jedit wrote:...


I didn't even bother to read your post since most of the stuff looks to be repetition of what was discussed earlier.

My only one question

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I2_C9x0VIUc&t=72s

This is video of you Army spokesperson DG ISPR on official ISPR channel.

Timestamp: 1:06

One pilot is dead and one pilot was released who was captured.

Captured pilot = IAF Mig 21 pilot.
Second dead pilot = ?????

This video is uploaded on March 6, full 1 week after 27 Feb.
Offline

garrya

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 828
  • Joined: 25 Dec 2015, 12:43

Unread post13 Oct 2019, 17:56

notafanboy wrote:Again this explains my earlier crude assumption that proportional navigation increases effective range of missile by 1.5 by adjusting its trajectory. Taking R-73 numbers, above can be considered as right angled triangle with 4 and 3 kms as other two measurements of triangle with hypotenuse as 5 km. So its 7/5 = 1.4
You are right if you think in that perspective but proportional navigation takes a short cut (if you will) towards a target thereby increasing the effective range. Yes, Trajectory does matter because missile is not chasing fighter jet per-se and AFAIK missile parameters are mentioned in tail chase context.

You are really míunderstanding the proportional navigation and the purpose of missile envelope diagram.
To begin with, the direct path to target is not always the most efficient path to target. BVR missile for example, they will climb to higher altitude so that they can coast in low density air toward target yet they still use proportional navigation (lead pursuit). In other words, using lead pursuit doesn't necessary mean your missile fly a straight line to target and in many case, a curve part will actually increase lethal range of missile.
496CF587-C95A-4387-9DF2-C82E0551B818.png

What lead pursuit guided does is LEAD your target, in layman term, it basically guide your missile toward the future location of your target base on its current heading and velocity. This has 2 benefits the first one is so that missiles don't have to maneuver significantly matching target maneuver and losing valuable energy, the second is so that missiles don't have to fly the distance as far as the target itself. This part is especially vital in your misunderstanding, because you are thinking that missiles launch envelope diagram in manual supposed to show the missile maximum kinematic range. It isn't. Full stop. Missile launch envelope diagram is not supposed to give pilot a "guess when you can attack" game. A pilot in combat do not have excess time to waste on pointless practice like that. The missile envelope diagram only tell the pilot one thing, very specific thing: at X altitude, with specific heading, with certain missile then what range he can press the launch button and his missile can reach target. That it. He doesn't need to know what trajectory the missile will take or how far can the missile fly before it fall down. If you pay attention, you will notice that the head on aspect range is larger than tail on aspect range, that because when something fly toward you, it is easier to reach it even if your missile was launch from further out. By contrast, if they are flying away, then your missile is useless the moment it decelerate to lower velocity than what it is chasing. What does this all mean?. All the features of a misile that give it more efficient flight path is already considered In the missile launch envelope diagram. Because, that the whole point of the diagram.For the pilot to know if his missile will reach target when launched at a certain range. FYI, Tails chase here only mean launching from tail aspect rather than using pure pursuit navigation.
0B6F0223-43D3-4702-864E-5DFBA42BED3F.jpeg

To elaborate further, let examine your hypothesis of how proportional navigation increasing missile effective range in the photo below. The pure pursuit path is the same one as the flight path of target- the red curve. The short cut with proportional navigation is the green lines. Up to that point it is correct. Your wrong assumption is to assuming that the range shown on missile launch envelope diagram is the red curve. It isn't, because if it is , there would be no way for the pilot to know when he is in range to launch. Because his radar will only give him the value of the green lines.
306C1EF2-2DC7-40CB-B776-81633FDDB66C.png
Offline

garrya

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 828
  • Joined: 25 Dec 2015, 12:43

Unread post13 Oct 2019, 18:38

notafanboy wrote:US giving Pakistan F-16 to fight terrorists was always a baloney. Why would Pakistan need 500 AIM120 c-5 AMRAAMs for terrorists ?

I agree but that is in their agreement, so I guess we can only blame the policy maker
notafanboy wrote:Yes eyewitness accounts can't be relied upon when it comes to complex details but is it too much complex to distinguish 1 and 2 pilots ?

If they think the small chutes/drogue attached to the ejection seat is another pilot then that is very possible mistake to make

notafanboy wrote: Fact is Pakistan F-16 never saw R-73 incoming since it wasn't equipped with MAWS. It wasn't even aware that one Mig21 beached BARCAP until an AEWACS told them so. For diving part, other RADAR that observed F16 going down was Thales GS 100 LLTR.
Yes Indian media too created confusion in this whole scenario with half baked theories. My next reply will prove there were 2 pilots.

IMHO, their F-16 should know if Mig-21 breached BARCAP because there are 3 of them very close together. If Mig-21 can detect and lock one F-16 from tail aspect then others F-16 should be able to detect and lock that Mig-21 from head on aspect. That not only because APG-68v9 is a better radar set than Kopyo but also because a closing target stand out better from side lobes clutter than a retreating target. It is also important to note that while Pakistan F-16 are not equipped with MWS, they are equipped with RWR and Mig-21 doesn't have an IRST. Besides, according to the Indian Mig-21 pilot, he used radar to lock on to the F-16, thus in any case they should got a fair amount of alert.
7E0C10EF-91C8-467F-8D5C-03771306BBF7.jpeg

DC8372C8-9B84-47AD-82FE-CA4D1C21F97B.png

Thales GS100 is a ground radar, so TBH, it is the one most affected by radar horizon problem if the F-16 was diving

kingtiger88 wrote:Guys, I am amused that none of you are addressing the core issue that the author, though biased towards a F-16 shootdown (which I ain't sure basis the reconstruction theory he gives), outlines - I think what is bought out conclusively is that TWO jets crashed in Kashmir that day.
Please explain the below given image. Are these the SAME plane or are TWO different planes? Referring to same author's tweet - https://twitter.com/joe_sameer/status/1 ... 33216?s=20.

TBH, if you look at the whole thing from a neutral perspective, the only thing we can say he did brought out conclusively is that there are 2 smoky object on the sky, but there are too many possible causes for that smoke thingy varied from flares, missiles launch, afterburner use, explode EFTs ...etc. Thus, to conclude that the two smoke things mean two fighters were shot down is such an ambitious assumption that most third party (not related to Indian or Pakistan) would be hesitant to make
Offline

garrya

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 828
  • Joined: 25 Dec 2015, 12:43

Unread post14 Oct 2019, 04:26

Kopyo radar on Mig-21-93 can detect target with RCS of 5m2 from 57 km
The Kopyo radar has a 57km detection range against a 5m² (54ft²) radar cross section, or fighter-sized target. It can track eight targets and shoot at two simultaneously.

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... ile-56106/

Whereas even the first F-16 radar, APG-66v1 can track target such as T-38 from 27 nm - 50 km and it can engage 6 target simultaneously.
APG-66A.gif


The later APG-68v9 set on their Block 50/52 is significantly better than APG-66
apg-68v9.PNG
Offline

weasel1962

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1725
  • Joined: 07 Jun 2012, 02:41
  • Location: Singapore

Unread post15 Oct 2019, 04:59

So is it the R-77 or R-73?

If it was the R-73, what has the radar got to do with things?
Offline

garrya

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 828
  • Joined: 25 Dec 2015, 12:43

Unread post15 Oct 2019, 07:59

weasel1962 wrote:So is it the R-77 or R-73?

If it was the R-73, what has the radar got to do with things?

AFAIK, it the R-73
Radar is used to get distance, closure rate and heading of the target so pilot know where the target is and whether he is in range.
PreviousNext

Return to General F-16 forum

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 10 guests