The Air Combat of 27th
.February 2019,s significance lies in the fact that two of Asia.s most
professional air arms clashed under GCI/AWACS control with clear separation of
the two forces under daylight conditions with both sets of crews thoroughly
well trained in the use of BVRs. i.e. under conditions ideal for the use of
BVRs.
What should have happened
would have been an aerial equivalent of the Battle of Midway. i.e. both sides
should have lost about three or four aircraft each- that has been what the
Brochures were promising. As usually happens the script was not followed. What
did happen was one (josh!) flea bitten pilot in a moth eaten Bison went and
downed a F 16 with a CCM and it appears he in turn was downed by the F 16’s
wing man. Some hold that the F 16 had gone into a “vertical Charlie” and when
the R 73 blew the F 16 airframe apart the MiG 21 ingested the debris. It does
not matter; There is a grim economics at work in warfare. A MiG due for the knackers’ yard in the next
couple of years downed a 4th generation jet. Unconfirmed rumour has it that “BVR
brochureitis” also suffered some combat damage.
The Pakistan Air Force is as
“cagey” as the Isr.A.F about admitting combat losses but the PAF makes it worse
by publishing “proof” which disprove their claims! This is an old habit. One
remembers “pictures” of IAF Hunters going down on flames (taken from a picture
in The Aeroplane magazine of happy memory) etc until Pushpindar Singh Chopra of
Vayu shot all that down. They were at it again. This time they published a
picture of a Hawk that crashed in Kalaikunda about two years ago. If this is the best that the ISI can do, …..!?
Kuch sharam to Karo!
They also published a picture
of some wreckage that they claimed was from a downed MiG 21/Sukhoi 30. This
piece was identified by our correspondents as a part of the F 100 engine of the
F 16. I have a wee doubt. Going only by
what I saw on TV the item is definitely a Western aircraft. Engines generally survive crashes rather better than
airframes. It is definitely a temperature resistant material. I would suggest
thinking along the lines that it is a part of the thermal heat shield they put
in between the airframe ,which can tolerate only about 400degrees K and the jet
pipe which is never below 1000 degrees K. Without the thermal barrier (my generation
would remember the “refrasil “blankets which had a “bubble pack” pattern but
similarly bright- the airframe would soften. The rectangular aperture visible
in the picture was for the stub axle of the Stabilizer and the fuel dump vent
pipe. The finish is far too good to be anything Soviet. They were using end
mills on the engine casing and that left scuff marks which dulled the finish
and later took on a patina of burnt oil! Russian high temperature materials
have a light copper sort of colour. The above is a suggestion. The finish is
far too good to be from a Soviet era aircraft or engine!
The AMRAAM missile displayed
by the Vayu Sena was interesting. It has been carefully flattened so that
journalists could read and photograph the lettering in one go but the question
is- was the BVR missile fired or simply jettisoned? If fired the skin would
have been exposed to 450 degrees centigrade for almost a minute yet the
lettering was pin sharp. Also the casing is pretty intact for something that
impacted at Mach3. So were they simply jettisoned to clean up the aircraft and
get out of trouble?
The above is plausible because at low level –“head on” the
“firing window” is strictly limited with a effective range of perhaps seven or
eight kilometer and a closing rate of 0.5 kilometers per second. The detection
range of the radar is also severely affected and hampered by terrain masking. The
work load for the crew may be just too much.
The success of the Bison was
also due to it being the simpler aircraft , which, like the Gnat,had a smaller
“wind up” time and so was able to launch and be in the right position at the
right time. It was of course very daringly flown by an obviously well trained
pilot. It is reassuring that the AF is, as always before, in great professional
hands.
The questions that arise are
i)
This was an ideal
case for the BVRs. What prevented their effective use?
ii)
The conditions of
the engagement are what we will get for most daylight hours for most of the
year. How often did our crews use their onboard radars during this engagement?
iii)
What were the
performance /positions/likelihoods of the other platforms to have scored and
what were the reasons for their (relative) lack of success?
Could it lead to
are-examination of our day fighter specifications? Any equipment not needed in
the combat is a handicap in winning that combat. The value of the February 27th
engagement is that it is a reasonable sample for analysis by the experts.
Prodyut Das
