Air Battle over Kashmir : MiG-21 Bison shoots down F-16

safriz said:
Your awacs was on the ground at the time , by IAF own admission.
Check again before writing lies.
Click to expand...

Not true. If Phalcon was on the ground, then it would never have made it to the area during the attacks. So that kills the "No AWACS in the air" argument.

The most logical area for an AWACS to operate would be the Jammu region, Patni Top in this case. From here, the AWACS can see all of J&K, North Pakistan and all the major air bases right up to the South of Punjab. Also Pakistan doesn't have an air base close enough to the Jammu region which can threaten the AWACS. And there's plenty of depth to retreat in case of an attack on it. It's less of an advantage over Punjab with only 1 or 2 points of retreat. Plus due to the mountain terrain, it makes sense to keep an AWACS there, whereas the ground radars and aerostats can see plenty enough over deserts and plains. This kills the Adampur argument.
 
If Abhinandan's capture (alone) was the reason why India didn't escalate, in case of a war, you think there will be no POWs?
Every time some one gets shot down on the other side of LoC, the leadership will decide to de-escalate?
Another way of dealing with the shoot down incident was, going full on offensive, relentless missile strikes on their military installations.
If this is the mindset that we have, we can never really go in a war with another country.
 
Last edited:
  • Agree
  • Like
Reactions: Yashpatel604, Paro and BlackOpsIndia
Defc0n said:
If Abhinandan's capture (alone) was the reason why India didn't escalate, in case of a war, you think there will be no POWs?
Every time some one gets shot down on the other side of LoC, the leadership will decide to de-escalate?
Another way of dealing with the shoot down incident was, going full on offensive, relentless missile strikes on their military installations.
If this is the mindset that we have, we can never really go in a war with another country.
Click to expand...

Since their airstrikes failed we did not have any reason to escalate

Immediately after they took Abhinandan
In custody the Pakistanis approached US
To stop India from a public escalation

And in the Three party video conferencing
That night , We said that we want our pilot back -- Pakistan agreed immediately

If they had not agreed we would have gone ahead

But we had made full preparation to
escalate
 
STEPHEN COHEN said:
Since their airstrikes failed we did not have any reason to escalate

Immediately after they took Abhinandan
In custody the Pakistanis approached US
To stop India from a public escalation

And in the Three party video conferencing
That night , We said that we want our pilot back -- Pakistan agreed immediately

If they had not agreed we would have gone ahead

But we had made full preparation to
escalate
Click to expand...
I disagree with your first point.
A) We hit a target which was a non-military
B) According to them our strike failed.

Considering A & B, what was their retaliatory strike about?
Officially, they came here avenge their fallen jihadis.
Add to that, they tried to bomb our military installations, so their intent was pretty clear.
If that is not reason to escalate, I don't know what is.

Again, three party video conference - India could have refused to join it.
Pulwama was an internal matter for India, and the decision taken was taken unilaterally.
I don't see why India needs USA's permission before kicking Pak's a**.
 
  • Agree
  • Like
Reactions: R!cK, Yashpatel604, Paro and 1 other person
randomradio said:
Brahmos stikes were lined up after the airstrikes.
Click to expand...

That is why the Next conflict would be absolutely fantastic

Because Neither us Nor they can repeat
The Same tactics and Methodologies
And.expect the same results

NOW It is Not a big deal to send 30 plane
Package anywhere along the border

In the last year we have done exercises
Simulating.even bigger attacks

Let them gloat about Feb 27
They will see the reality when it hits them
 
Defc0n said:
I disagree with your first point.
A) We hit a target which was a non-military
B) According to them our strike failed.

Considering A & B, what was their retaliatory strike about?
Officially, they came here avenge their fallen jihadis.
Add to that, they tried to bomb our military installations, so their intent was pretty clear.
If that is not reason to escalate, I don't know what is.

Again, three party video conference - India could have refused to join it.
Pulwama was an internal matter for India, and the decision taken was taken unilaterally.
I don't see why India needs USA's permission before kicking Pak's a**.
Click to expand...

We declared that 200 Jihadis died in Balakot

Then Chakoti and Muzaffarabad were Pak Army installation

They came to avenge That not Balakot

By the way we can go all out
Only when war is declared

There will be a next time , dont worry
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Abhay rajput
STEPHEN COHEN said:
We declared that 200 Jihadis died in Balakot

Then Chakoti and Muzaffarabad were Pak Army installation

They came to avenge That not Balakot

By the way we can go all out
Only when war is declared

There will be a next time , dont worry
Click to expand...

We didn't hit any army locations, it was all "non-military" targets.
Falcon said:
Sameer Joshi was the 'source' of info on no AWACS in air. And it was 'scrambled'. Another iteration was AWACS was being changed over. Now a new iteratiom of over Adampur moving to Kishtwar.
Click to expand...

Maybe someone got confused somewhere and put in Adampur instead of Udhampur.
 
STEPHEN COHEN said:
We declared that 200 Jihadis died in Balakot

Then Chakoti and Muzaffarabad were Pak Army installation

They came to avenge That not Balakot

By the way we can go all out
Only when war is declared

There will be a next time , dont worry
Click to expand...

The balakot hit was totally on 'non-military' targets.
They came to show off and we let them get away with it.
 
randomradio said:
We didn't hit any army locations, it was all "non-military" targets.
Click to expand...

That is all public statement

When we say that we have hit Terrorist launchpads 30 km inside POK with Artillery , do you really believe it

By the way on Feb 27 Night , I myself saw
Army Southern Command Trucks and equipment moving out from Pune

That means Full scale war had been decided at the TOP level
 
STEPHEN COHEN said:
That is all public statement

When we say that we have hit Terrorist launchpads 30 km inside POK with Artillery , do you really believe it

By the way on Feb 27 Night , I myself saw
Army Southern Command Trucks and equipment moving out from Pune

That means Full scale war had been decided at the TOP level
Click to expand...

We were ready for war at that time. But the attacks themselves were aimed at terrorist groups only.

Only post skirmish strikes were supposed to be on the Pak establishment, and this was in retaliation to Pak aggression. We had no intentions to become the aggressors, that's why the first set of attacks were aimed only at the terrorists.

In the future also, we will follow the same mantra. It is in our interests that Pak military is the aggressor.
 
randomradio said:
We were ready for war at that time. But the attacks themselves were aimed at terrorist groups only.

Only post skirmish strikes were supposed to be on the Pak establishment, and this was in retaliation to Pak aggression. We had no intentions to become the aggressors, that's why the first set of attacks were aimed only at the terrorists.

In the future also, we will follow the same mantra. It is in our interests that Pak military is the aggressor.
Click to expand...

If one fine day we declare that Operation POK has started , sometime in future ,that means we would be the aggressors and declaring war

It is a question of " Perfect Timing "

This earlier template of Terror attack followed by Retaliation is not going to happen , it is outdated

Pakistan will Not give us reason to go to war ,We have to find one -- The answer is POK
 
randomradio said:
Not true. If Phalcon was on the ground, then it would never have made it to the area during the attacks. So that kills the "No AWACS in the air" argument.

The most logical area for an AWACS to operate would be the Jammu region, Patni Top in this case. From here, the AWACS can see all of J&K, North Pakistan and all the major air bases right up to the South of Punjab. Also Pakistan doesn't have an air base close enough to the Jammu region which can threaten the AWACS. And there's plenty of depth to retreat in case of an attack on it. It's less of an advantage over Punjab with only 1 or 2 points of retreat. Plus due to the mountain terrain, it makes sense to keep an AWACS there, whereas the ground radars and aerostats can see plenty enough over deserts and plains. This kills the Adampur argument.
Click to expand...
AWACS were in flight all night , expecting a Pakistani attack , which did not come.
Day time it has to land for refueling and replenishment and that was the timeslot PAF was waiting for.
Later IAF themselves complained to GOI that while Pakistan has the numbers of AWACS enough to keep 24-7 AWACS in the air, Indy's doesn't. Hence the new AWACS buying spree.
It was also in the news. You can Google yourself
 
safriz said:
AWACS were in flight all night , expecting a Pakistani attack , which did not come.
Day time it has to land for refueling and replenishment and that was the timeslot PAF was waiting for.
Later IAF themselves complained to GOI that while Pakistan has the numbers of AWACS enough to keep 24-7 AWACS in the air, Indy's doesn't. Hence the new AWACS buying spree.
It was also in the news. You can Google yourself
Click to expand...


safriz said:
Here read these articles.
One says India cannot keep AWACS watch for more than 12 hours in any 24. Hence IAF requesting for more.

Other clearly mentioned 27th February, and says Pakistani attack came when AWACS were on the ground.

IAF set to get two more warning systems, awaits nod from Cabinet Committee on Security

Opinion | What the IAF-PAF dogfight reveals
Click to expand...
Its good to see when someone takes our media seriously. It makes sense when across the border the standard is so low.

So you see in actual democracies, the military has to justify expensive buys to the political class. Similar drama happens all over. USN once let chinese SSK tail and resurface their CBG and act surprised. So that they can budget more SSNs.

Also, both of the articles do not say what you are claiming. This has been a recurring theme from you. Its true that we are on short of AWACS and airforce is using this as a tool to fast track the procurement. That's all.

Air Marshal (retd) C. Harikumar
Yet, we were certain that Pakistan would retaliate quickly. The next day, February 27, saw action from their side. Our air defence was on full alert; the AWACS was on station northeast of Adampur in the morning and so were the aircraft on combat air patrol. At 9:42am, the Integrated Air Command and Control Station warned of an increase in air activity over Pakistan. Fighters were launched from Kamra, Murid, Chander, Sargodha, Rafiqui and Jacobabad. They were at medium altitude, and some had their friend-or-foe identification on initially. That was a decoy—they were showing themselves on our radar to make it seem like routine activity; some aircraft tried to hide at low altitude. Some of these airfields are close to the border and fighters are routinely airborne for training. Unless hostile intent is seen, taking action would require a lot of effort
Click to expand...

Btw how did the Saab 2000 miss our strike formation? It was on station! :cry: Its less capable product in every sense compared to Phalcon.

Did we encounter the enemy? Yes, we picked up the PAF’s Saab 2000 early warning aircraft holding south of Kamra on a north-south pattern. At 3:05am, we spotted two F-16s getting airborne and flying east–west over Murid. This was a close call. To divert them, we sent two Su-30s and four Jaguars towards Bahawalpur. The decoy pilots were ordered not to cross the border. The ruse worked beautifully. When the first bomb hit the Balakot camp, the closest PAF combat air patrol was 230km away.
Click to expand...

We were inside Pakistan airspace for 12 minutes ! Your strike formation couldn't even cross the LoC. What a shame.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Yashpatel604, rockstarIN, Abhay rajput and 6 others
safriz said:
AWACS were in flight all night , expecting a Pakistani attack , which did not come.
Day time it has to land for refueling and replenishment and that was the timeslot PAF was waiting for.
Later IAF themselves complained to GOI that while Pakistan has the numbers of AWACS enough to keep 24-7 AWACS in the air, Indy's doesn't. Hence the new AWACS buying spree.
It was also in the news. You can Google yourself
Click to expand...

The news is wrong. The radar images released by the IAF came from a Phalcon. It's impossible for a Phalcon to be scrambled and for it to make it to Kashmir in 10 min. So you put 2 and 2 together.

Also, we have 5 operational AWACS with IAF and 1 with DRDO and all are available. So 24/7 AWACS is most definitely available for the Kashmir region. For 24/7 availability, we need 3 available Phalcons per sector. We also have 8 operational P-8I which can perform AWACS function.

There were plenty of AWACS on duty.
 
safriz said:
Here read these articles.
One says India cannot keep AWACS watch for more than 12 hours in any 24. Hence IAF requesting for more.
Click to expand...

IAF is requesting for more because we have a big country to protect.

For Pak alone, IAF needs 5 AWACS and that will cover the entire region from Kashmir to Gujarat. 4 have to be available at anytime with 1 down for maintenance. This will provide 24/7 surveillance.

AWACS.png


For Kashmir/Punjab alone, 2 are more than enough, both can alternate sorties and counts for just 2 sorties a day, not counting mid-air refuelling. And we have an extra on top of that. You can see it for yourself.

So the 2 AWACS that are pending and the 3 that we already have will take care of entire Pakistan. Apart from that the IAF also operates 2 Netras, and even the one with DRDO will be transferred to the IAF. Naturally more are needed to counter China as well. Even today we have the 5 AWACS needed for 24/7 surveillance of Pakistan already.

I have no clue why the media decided we do not have enough AWACS. Just simple logic and common sense could have answered that question.

Other clearly mentioned 27th February, and says Pakistani attack came when AWACS were on the ground.
Click to expand...

As explained, we have more than enough assets for 24/7 AWACS capability.

The Netra has a 5-hour endurance, but can be refuelled by MKIs hence doubled. The IL-76 has 10 hour endurance without refuelling.
 
Defc0n said:
If Abhinandan's capture (alone) was the reason why India didn't escalate, in case of a war, you think there will be no POWs?
Every time some one gets shot down on the other side of LoC, the leadership will decide to de-escalate?
Another way of dealing with the shoot down incident was, going full on offensive, relentless missile strikes on their military installations.
If this is the mindset that we have, we can never really go in a war with another country.
Click to expand...

I guess it was a combination of PAF's failure to inflict damage, Abhinandan's capture and US pressure played their part, with Abhinandan's capture playing the biggest part.

I don't think the de-escalation will have a relevance on future conflicts since our main objectives were achieved during Balakot. Action at the LoC was intensified. Also, we have been hitting the Pakistanis quite a bit across the border, including their terror launchpads.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom