Mig 21 downs MIC darling...

[Rusty1961]

https://www.businesstoday.in/current/ec ... 24025.html

Plus, its new of helmet mounted sight and high-off-boresight R-73 air-to-air missiles turned the MiG-21 into a "Great Equaliser" in the WVR (within visual range) combat scenario. (The Vympel's ability to rapidly scan a wider angle of the sky in front of it gave Varthaman a huge advantage against his F-16 rival.)

This has serious implications for modern aircraft armed with powerful long range capabilities and weapons. At some stage these aircraft will have to come within visual range and that's when pocket rockets like the MiG-21 can be deadly. As Benjamin Lambeth of the Rand Corporation so succinctly put its, "In visual combat everybody dies at the same rate."

I'm sure the F35 is up to the job of dogfighting given how good the Falcon did.

[Rusty1961]

Never thought I'd see the term "Huge advantage" with "Mig-21" and "F-16". Gen 2 vs. Gen. 3.

[RangerJoe]

It sounds like the time when the mama cat brought home a baby chipmunk for the kittens to play with. The chipmunk attacked one of the kittens and the mama cat swatted it. Mama did not kill it, it just let it know not to mess with the kittens.

[Jorge_Stanbury]

That article looks like fake news,

it implies Pakistan stroke India, and an F-16 got shot

as far as the world knows, this was an Indian attempt to air strike Kashmir, in retaliation for some terrorist attack that killed 400 soldiers
and the only plane shot down was Wing Commander Varthaman's Mig-21 ... by an F-16



Mig-21s is a good old design, but after so many decades, it is second or third line at most

[Macclan5]

ORIGINAL: Jorge_Stanbury

That article looks like fake news,

<snip>

Mig-21s is a good old design, but after so many decades, it is second or third line at most

Yeah pretty random conclusions. No expert - no qualifications.

Hard to compare or better still "definitively project future outcomes" of next gen fighters and equipment based upon border skirmish in India Pakistan.

Hard to project even the same out of 2nd or 3rd line equipment.

US Command Control ? AWACs? Satellites ? Anti Missile defense systems? Number of hours flying / training differentials ? TRACOM equivalent in modern day ? Computer based tactical training systems ? Russian equivalent of above ?

I think in fairness even the Arab Israeli Wars proved the same in back in the day - don't use such results empirically.

Back then the pilot made much more of the total package than perhaps today's timeframe. Odd nuanced enhancements such as '6 mirrors' came out of the analysis - but in no way could you project similar outcomes in every situation.

[Gregg]

Most of the time, the better pilot wins in a dog fight.
The Mig-21 and the F-16 are not that far apart in performance.

[Anachro]

From several Indian nationals I've talked to, they call their Mig-21's "flying coffins" because they crash so much, killing the pilots.

[Lokasenna]

I'm sure the F35 is up to the job of dogfighting given how good the Falcon did.

Oh look, talking about dogfighting in modern fighter aircraft again. Dogfighting is essentially irrelevant for the US military. It is a thing of the past. There are no modern dogfights. Get over it. Modern weapons and therefore aircraft are designed to win from beyond the horizon, and the technology enables this.

What we have here, in addition to poor reporting, is a failure to understand modern warfare. +1 to all the "this is a special circumstance, you shouldn't extrapolate anything from this" comments so far. Glad to see there are some level heads present.

[Jorge_Stanbury]

ORIGINAL: Gregg

Most of the time, the better pilot wins in a dog fight.
The Mig-21 and the F-16 are not that far apart in performance.

No, a closer equivalent would be F5 to Mig21 or F16 to Mig29

and India is now showing a piece of an AMRAAM missile, which means the fight was likely beyond visual range. If this is not another fake news development, then an AMRAAM capable F16 would be better than most Soviet era planes (that includes Mig29s unless R77 capable)

[rustysi]

retaliation for some terrorist attack that killed 400 soldiers

Not that its much better, but it was 40 not 400.

[US87891]

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna
Oh look, talking about dogfighting in modern fighter aircraft again. Dogfighting is essentially irrelevant for the US military. It is a thing of the past. There are no modern dogfights. Get over it. Modern weapons and therefore aircraft are designed to win from beyond the horizon, and the technology enables this.

What we have here, in addition to poor reporting, is a failure to understand modern warfare. +1 to all the "this is a special circumstance, you shouldn't extrapolate anything from this" comments so far. Glad to see there are some level heads present.

Yes, failure to understand modern warfare is, indeed, a pervasive problem. Much of the problem stems from the perception that since a thing is more modern, it must be more better. Any military professional knows what that perception is worth. As to the relevance of "dogfighting" to modern military aircraft, I would refer you to the multiple Requests for Information, series DARPA-SN-17/18, particularly SN-18-08, 18-26, resulting from the experiences of USAF/IAF joint exercises (Red Flag, Blue Flag, Pitch Black, Cope India), wherein the Israeli IAF and, especially, the Indian IAF showed that judicious tactical innovation made WVR engagement not only possible, but also extremely deadly to high-value, stand-off, air assets, to the great consternation of USAF-ATTO.

The internet amateur war gaming community may not be talking about dogfighting anymore, but DoD, DARPA, USAF, USN, USMC sure as hell are.

[Rusty1961]

ORIGINAL: Gregg

Most of the time, the better pilot wins in a dog fight.
The Mig-21 and the F-16 are not that far apart in performance.

So a Mig 21 driver will ghost a F35 driver, right?

[Rusty1961]

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna

I'm sure the F35 is up to the job of dogfighting given how good the Falcon did.

Oh look, talking about dogfighting in modern fighter aircraft again. Dogfighting is essentially irrelevant for the US military. It is a thing of the past. There are no modern dogfights. Get over it. Modern weapons and therefore aircraft are designed to win from beyond the horizon, and the technology enables this.

What we have here, in addition to poor reporting, is a failure to understand modern warfare. +1 to all the "this is a special circumstance, you shouldn't extrapolate anything from this" comments so far. Glad to see there are some level heads present.

Yeah, they said the same thing in Vietnam that is why they didn't bother putting cannons on the phantoms deployed to VN. Then, ,after getting their asses kicked in A2A they started putting cannon pods on the phantoms.

Bartender whatever Lokasenna is having give me a double.

[PaxMondo]

ORIGINAL: US87891

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna
Oh look, talking about dogfighting in modern fighter aircraft again. Dogfighting is essentially irrelevant for the US military. It is a thing of the past. There are no modern dogfights. Get over it. Modern weapons and therefore aircraft are designed to win from beyond the horizon, and the technology enables this.

What we have here, in addition to poor reporting, is a failure to understand modern warfare. +1 to all the "this is a special circumstance, you shouldn't extrapolate anything from this" comments so far. Glad to see there are some level heads present.

Yes, failure to understand modern warfare is, indeed, a pervasive problem. Much of the problem stems from the perception that since a thing is more modern, it must be more better. Any military professional knows what that perception is worth. As to the relevance of "dogfighting" to modern military aircraft, I would refer you to the multiple Requests for Information, series DARPA-SN-17/18, particularly SN-18-08, 18-26, resulting from the experiences of USAF/IAF joint exercises (Red Flag, Blue Flag, Pitch Black, Cope India), wherein the Israeli IAF and, especially, the Indian IAF showed that judicious tactical innovation made WVR engagement not only possible, but also extremely deadly to high-value, stand-off, air assets, to the great consternation of USAF-ATTO.

The internet amateur war gaming community may not be talking about dogfighting anymore, but DoD, DARPA, USAF, USN, USMC sure as hell are.

I would also bring up that The Elf sure did seem quite "current" with respect dog fighting … and I don't think he got that from a Clancy novel. That would seem to support your assertion that the "pros" study this seriously.

[RangerJoe]

No matter the have fancy the gadgets, it all comes down to the person operating them and their Mark I eyeball. Sometimes we still have to throw stones or their modern equivalent.

[Anachro]

ORIGINAL: US87891

Yes, failure to understand modern warfare is, indeed, a pervasive problem. Much of the problem stems from the perception that since a thing is more modern, it must be more better. Any military professional knows what that perception is worth. As to the relevance of "dogfighting" to modern military aircraft, I would refer you to the multiple Requests for Information, series DARPA-SN-17/18, particularly SN-18-08, 18-26, resulting from the experiences of USAF/IAF joint exercises (Red Flag, Blue Flag, Pitch Black, Cope India), wherein the Israeli IAF and, especially, the Indian IAF showed that judicious tactical innovation made WVR engagement not only possible, but also extremely deadly to high-value, stand-off, air assets, to the great consternation of USAF-ATTO.

The internet amateur war gaming community may not be talking about dogfighting anymore, but DoD, DARPA, USAF, USN, USMC sure as hell are.

I suspected this to be the case, very interesting. I'll look into those documents. I actually have fun going through various RFIs for the military to get an inkling of what they are thinking/planning. Been reading up on the FFG(x) program lately.

[Macclan5]

ORIGINAL: US87891

Yes, failure to understand modern warfare is, indeed, a pervasive problem. Much of the problem stems from the perception that since a thing is more modern, it must be more better. Any military professional knows what that perception is worth. As to the relevance of "dogfighting" to modern military aircraft, I would refer you to the multiple Requests for Information, series DARPA-SN-17/18, particularly SN-18-08, 18-26, resulting from the experiences of USAF/IAF joint exercises (Red Flag, Blue Flag, Pitch Black, Cope India), wherein the Israeli IAF and, especially, the Indian IAF showed that judicious tactical innovation made WVR engagement not only possible, but also extremely deadly to high-value, stand-off, air assets, to the great consternation of USAF-ATTO.

The internet amateur war gaming community may not be talking about dogfighting anymore, but DoD, DARPA, USAF, USN, USMC sure as hell are.

This is very interesting information.

I am certainly no expert - an internet amateur - reading random samples of Jane's / Economist / BBC etc etc. [:D]

So please do not think this is a criticism.

However I would point out that the "entire purpose of these exercises" is to study 'close range combat' verses BVR (beyond visual range) combat and underlying strategic and tactical implications.

Further to test how / when / what Information Superiority is required to project force given jamming, counter jamming, sigint, BVR capability, line of sight helmet technology, etc. I do believe Information Superiority is a modern strategic concern.

My response - i.e.'minor exception to' in the original post is 'projecting concrete facts / scenerio outcome / identifying systemic strength or weakness of all future encounters based on a Pakistani - Indian incident in a minor border skirmish and applying the logic defacto to next generation capability gaps ala F35

[8D]

Simply whether BVR or Close Combat is superior / necessary /inescapable - the results of this skirmish cannot be extrapolated defacto.

We learned this from Vietnam (as noted above), from Arab Israeli combats, from the Gulf War, from Koskova (spelling) etc.

[RangerJoe]

Sometimes it is best to eyeball the target. The Soviet Union did not do that to a Korean Airliner in the early 1980s and that was one of many factors that almost lead to a shooting war in Europe.

[Rusty1961]

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna



Oh look, talking about dogfighting in modern fighter aircraft again.

Yet you felt some insatiable need to comment on this thread. Why is that?

Every thread I start finds you urinating and defecating like your some German shepherd dog waiting for that last trip to the vet for "nighty-night"

Bitch and moan, moan and bitch.

If you really can't restrain yourself go ahead and just don't contribute to the thread, Mr. Complainer, or better yet put me on hide.

You have zero expertise in this area and I know I get very tired of your constant trolling.

[Lokasenna]

ORIGINAL: Rusty1961

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna



Oh look, talking about dogfighting in modern fighter aircraft again.

Yet you felt some insatiable need to comment on this thread. Why is that?

Every thread I start finds you urinating and defecating like your some German shepherd dog waiting for that last trip to the vet for "nighty-night"

Bitch and moan, moan and bitch.

If you really can't restrain yourself go ahead and just don't contribute to the thread, Mr. Complainer, or better yet put me on hide.

You have zero expertise in this area and I know I get very tired of your constant trolling.

Since there are no merits to your two rage-induced follow-up posts, I can't respond to them further.

I'll just say that you calling me a troll is ironic. Have a care and go read your posts (and mine if you like) for actual cases of abuse that has been leveled. Any honest accounting is going to come out awful one-sided.

If you don't want me to respond to your senseless, breathless drivel - then don't post it here.