India vs. Pakistan "Hot War" over Kashmir

Sorry. It is a common mistake I make.

It's possible that they've had their electronics upgraded by the US so that they're not quite the dinosaurs they would appear to be.

No doubt, but it's still a 70 year old airframe. We could have upgraded the electronics on the F-4 Phantom forever if we'd wanted (and I wish we had!!!), but it still would have had a 1950's airframe.

How much does that matter? I am not sure. What I do know is that the amount it matters is non-zero.

What type of aircraft did Pakistan lose? I'm aware they have F-16s.

So's the B-52. And how much longer are those expected to fly?

FWIW:

https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&sou...aw2HYCJW9QrDn-WyI_JC-Opm&ust=1551714288405187

Better link to the piece.

Back when I was in high school (mumbly-mumbly 80s-era) I can remember reading about how a wing of one of the Dakota's in the Air National Guard (AKA Weekend Warriors) beat every US air wing in simulated combat. The ANG guys were using F-4s and managed to take out guys flying F-16s and F-15s in simulated combat. So, just because you're flying the old stuff, doesn't mean you can't take down the latest and greatest.

Exactly. We probably read the same material.

There are a number of situations where F-4 Phantoms are superior to F-16s and F-15s such as IIRC high angle of attack, high altitude climbs. Its all a matter of getting the more modern fighters into your kind of fight.

Or so I've read.

Apparently they didn't lose one after all.


U.S. count shows no Pakistan F-16s shot down in Indian battle: report

Ah. Over-claiming by fighter pilots is nothing new.

Maybe the word "indicates" is key here in relation to the electronic identification? The report was specifically on F16s, maybe it was in fact another model of plane misidentified as one?

How reliable are these identifiers?

I wonder how using warplanes for war would violate the end-user agreement.
There's a great example of, if you can't fight 'em, sue 'em.

Presumably there are disclaimers on how they can be used and against whom. After all supplying a nation with weapons they will use against your allies or to start WW3 is never really going to be a sensible decision no matter the profit margin.

Violating those might have consequences for maintenance agreements or future deals possibly? I know when we supplied Typhoons to the Saudis there were very strict guidelines on their usage and violation would result in termination of vital technical support. (My friend was one of the engineers providing said support)

Wasn't (beyond the usual financial reasons) one of the main reasons the U.S. sold F-16s to Pakistan was that India had been sold high end MIGs by the Soviet Union?

Note, in USAF belief and practice the F-16s were the "low" part of the "high/low" mix with the F-15. For a long time, the F-15 was only sold to U.S. allies with extremely deep pocketbooks like Japan and Saudi Arabia. And to Israel because the Israelis needed something capable of intercepting the Soviet built MIG-25s that had been sold to Egypt and Syria.

More of the "benefits" the Cold War brought to the world then?

I'm going to go out on a limb and say that this is bad news for the people of Kashmir.