What is so special about the Murid air base ?
What is so special about the Murid air base ?
What is so special about the Murid air base ?
Are you really admitting that India bombed a Pakistani nuclear facility?Pictures of second strike of Murid Airbase has come in. Likely a Sam Radar unit. And this is one of their premium nuclear site
Are you really admitting that India bombed a Pakistani nuclear facility?
How does this fit with India's official statement that they did not attack Pakistani military facilities, but "9 terrorist facilities"?
Before laughing at Pakistan, it would be great if our Indian forum members answered a few questions.
We remember that immediately after the Indian airstrike, Islamabad claimed that it had shot down Indian fighters. After that, New Delhi announced the crash of 3 Indian fighters. Agree, no one will believe such a coincidence, especially meticulous experts.
The Pakistani Prime Minister is now in Karabakh, which we recently liberated. We are friends with Pakistan. But this does not prevent me from being objective about the Indian air operation and Pakistan's response.
I can agree that the Indian operation to destroy targets in Pakistan was successful. But this does not mean that Pakistan's counterattack was less successful.
Are you really admitting that India bombed a Pakistani nuclear facility?
How does this fit with India's official statement that they did not attack Pakistani military facilities, but "9 terrorist facilities"?
Before laughing at Pakistan, it would be great if our Indian forum members answered a few questions.
We remember that immediately after the Indian airstrike, Islamabad claimed that it had shot down Indian fighters. After that, New Delhi announced the crash of 3 Indian fighters. Agree, no one will believe such a coincidence, especially meticulous experts.
The Pakistani Prime Minister is now in Karabakh, which we recently liberated. We are friends with Pakistan. But this does not prevent me from being objective about the Indian air operation and Pakistan's response.
I can agree that the Indian operation to destroy targets in Pakistan was successful. But this does not mean that Pakistan's counterattack was less successful.
I think IAF chief said that about Nur Khan, not MuridOfficially IAF chief has said they have no knowledge of any nuclear weapons present in Murid Airbase (with a smile). The objective was pretty simple, Call Pakistans nuclear threat as bluff. India has shown the ability to neutralize the PAF AD & penetrated & attacked their airfields. If the conflict had continued for just 2 more days, IAF would be flying over Islamabad.
The immediate escalation came after Pak fired Ballistic missiles towards Delhi or in that direction. It was intercepted. This was considered unacceptable by Indian leadership. And this started the cruise missile attacks on 6-9 Pakistan Air Bases. Some were intercepted, some like Noor Khan, Murid, Bhola etc are for the world to see.
We believe aircraft had been lost, but officially no number has been provided. Eventually they will be shared. IAF also used drones spoofed with fighter radar signature believing Pak to believe they downed 6,7,8,9 etc the number keeps on increasing every day.
![]()
Four Days in May: The India-Pakistan Crisis of 2025 • Stimson Center
An early assessment of available evidence on what transpired in the recent India-Pakistan crisis and its implicationswww.stimson.org
Four Days in May: The India-Pakistan Crisis of 2025
An early assessment of available evidence on what transpired in the recent India-Pakistan crisis and its implications
By Christopher Clary
May 28, 2025
The recent India and Pakistan crisis was the most significant between the two nuclear-armed adversaries in several decades. It saw military action unfold that crossed previous thresholds in geographic reach, systems employed, and impacts produced, and concluded with significant diplomatic engagement, primarily by the United States. It also generated unprecedented levels of mis- and disinformation that continue to cloud understandings of what actually transpired between May 7-10. This working paper reviews and assesses the available evidence in order to distill an initial understanding of the conflict’s trajectory—albeit one that will no-doubt evolve as additional information becomes available. Given the unprecedented nature of the military action and the likelihood that this crisis will not be the last between the two sides, such an effort is vital in seeking to build a shared understanding of the Four-Day Conflict.
Executive Summary
Following a terrorist attack on April 22, India launched punitive strikes on Pakistan on May 7. This began a four-day conflict between India and Pakistan from May 7-10, which became the most serious military crisis in decades between the two rival nuclear states. Both sides have declared victory amid considerable misinformation and disinformation about what occurred. This essay seeks to offer a factually grounded narrative of the evolution of the crisis, while mindful of severe data limitation problems in the public domain that complicate analysis. Even with the limited or contested information currently available, some tentative conclusions are possible.
The conflict represents several military firsts:
Available information also permits several conclusions about the military situation during the crisis:
- This was the first time India used cruise missiles on Pakistan, both the BrahMos cruise missile (co-developed with Russia) as well as the European SCALP-EG.
- This was the first time Pakistan used conventionally armed short-range ballistic missiles on India, in the form of the Fatah-I and Fatah-II missiles and possibly other missile types.
- While drones have been used sporadically along the Line of Control in Kashmir and elsewhere for smuggling, this is the first instance of drone warfare in the India-Pakistan rivalry where both sides employed drones with the intent of causing damage on the other.
Political conclusions are also possible:
- India demonstrated an ability to deliver precise standoff attacks across large swathes of Pakistan on each day of the conflict but especially May 7 and May 10. While Pakistani air defenses likely interfered with or intercepted some attempted strikes, Pakistan has a meaningful and serious vulnerability to Indian air attack.
- There is no evidence of any manned aircraft crossing into the airspace of the other side, which indicates the seriousness with which both sides viewed the air defense threat of the other even on the final day of the conflict.
- On the first day of hostilities, May 7, India likely lost several aircraft to Pakistani counterair operations. While Indian officials neither acknowledged nor denied the losses, they represent perhaps the most meaningful military costs India experienced during the Four-Day Conflict.
- On May 8 through May 10, India’s integrated air and missile defense system appears to have largely defeated several waves of Pakistani drone attacks of ambiguous scope, scale, and intensity. On May 9-10, the Indian air and missile defense system appears to have worked against limited Pakistani short-range ballistic missile attacks as well.
- After its apparent downing of Indian aircraft on May 7, Pakistan inflicted virtually no observable damage on Indian military units or facilities, though Indian officials have said there was some damage at four installations.
- While attention focused primarily on the air and drone campaigns, most of the May 7 strikes occurred in or near Kashmir; subsequent fighting along the Line of Control in Kashmir was deadly and served as a major source of casualties for both sides.
This crisis involved the use of several weapons systems, often in innovative ways, which neither India nor Pakistan possessed at the time of their last crisis in 2019. While this crisis provides a baseline for the next India-Pakistan crisis, the pace of military technological change means that the contours of that next crisis might be meaningfully different. Both sides’ perceived setbacks and failures will serve as a major driver for defense acquisitions and doctrinal innovation.
- The India-Pakistan relationship remains crisis-prone, and those crises are likely to continue to escalate in severity over time.
- While the mutual possession of nuclear weapons heavily conditioned the responses of both sides, overt nuclear signaling was lower than in many prior India-Pakistan crises.
- Both sides worked to calibrate escalation and showed some ability to manage escalation adequately. Both sides were sometimes surprised, however, by choices made by the other and, in some instances, likely viewed an adversary’s response as escalatory rather than proportional.
- The crisis was costly in terms of human lives and expended or destroyed military equipment. Those costs will likely work to induce some caution in the bilateral relationship in the near-term, a probable principal aim of Indian policy.
- The United States played a major role in crisis management, especially in the final hours of the crisis. While it is conceivable another actor could have played this role as crisis communicator of choice for both combatants, and some alternative third parties did play a role in crisis diplomacy, none of those alternative actors appear to have participated with the same efficacy as the United States.
(More at link)
![]()
Four Days in May: The India-Pakistan Crisis of 2025 • Stimson Center
An early assessment of available evidence on what transpired in the recent India-Pakistan crisis and its implicationswww.stimson.org
Four Days in May: The India-Pakistan Crisis of 2025
An early assessment of available evidence on what transpired in the recent India-Pakistan crisis and its implications
By Christopher Clary
May 28, 2025
The recent India and Pakistan crisis was the most significant between the two nuclear-armed adversaries in several decades. It saw military action unfold that crossed previous thresholds in geographic reach, systems employed, and impacts produced, and concluded with significant diplomatic engagement, primarily by the United States. It also generated unprecedented levels of mis- and disinformation that continue to cloud understandings of what actually transpired between May 7-10. This working paper reviews and assesses the available evidence in order to distill an initial understanding of the conflict’s trajectory—albeit one that will no-doubt evolve as additional information becomes available. Given the unprecedented nature of the military action and the likelihood that this crisis will not be the last between the two sides, such an effort is vital in seeking to build a shared understanding of the Four-Day Conflict.
Executive Summary
Following a terrorist attack on April 22, India launched punitive strikes on Pakistan on May 7. This began a four-day conflict between India and Pakistan from May 7-10, which became the most serious military crisis in decades between the two rival nuclear states. Both sides have declared victory amid considerable misinformation and disinformation about what occurred. This essay seeks to offer a factually grounded narrative of the evolution of the crisis, while mindful of severe data limitation problems in the public domain that complicate analysis. Even with the limited or contested information currently available, some tentative conclusions are possible.
The conflict represents several military firsts:
Available information also permits several conclusions about the military situation during the crisis:
- This was the first time India used cruise missiles on Pakistan, both the BrahMos cruise missile (co-developed with Russia) as well as the European SCALP-EG.
- This was the first time Pakistan used conventionally armed short-range ballistic missiles on India, in the form of the Fatah-I and Fatah-II missiles and possibly other missile types.
- While drones have been used sporadically along the Line of Control in Kashmir and elsewhere for smuggling, this is the first instance of drone warfare in the India-Pakistan rivalry where both sides employed drones with the intent of causing damage on the other.
Political conclusions are also possible:
- India demonstrated an ability to deliver precise standoff attacks across large swathes of Pakistan on each day of the conflict but especially May 7 and May 10. While Pakistani air defenses likely interfered with or intercepted some attempted strikes, Pakistan has a meaningful and serious vulnerability to Indian air attack.
- There is no evidence of any manned aircraft crossing into the airspace of the other side, which indicates the seriousness with which both sides viewed the air defense threat of the other even on the final day of the conflict.
- On the first day of hostilities, May 7, India likely lost several aircraft to Pakistani counterair operations. While Indian officials neither acknowledged nor denied the losses, they represent perhaps the most meaningful military costs India experienced during the Four-Day Conflict.
- On May 8 through May 10, India’s integrated air and missile defense system appears to have largely defeated several waves of Pakistani drone attacks of ambiguous scope, scale, and intensity. On May 9-10, the Indian air and missile defense system appears to have worked against limited Pakistani short-range ballistic missile attacks as well.
- After its apparent downing of Indian aircraft on May 7, Pakistan inflicted virtually no observable damage on Indian military units or facilities, though Indian officials have said there was some damage at four installations.
- While attention focused primarily on the air and drone campaigns, most of the May 7 strikes occurred in or near Kashmir; subsequent fighting along the Line of Control in Kashmir was deadly and served as a major source of casualties for both sides.
This crisis involved the use of several weapons systems, often in innovative ways, which neither India nor Pakistan possessed at the time of their last crisis in 2019. While this crisis provides a baseline for the next India-Pakistan crisis, the pace of military technological change means that the contours of that next crisis might be meaningfully different. Both sides’ perceived setbacks and failures will serve as a major driver for defense acquisitions and doctrinal innovation.
- The India-Pakistan relationship remains crisis-prone, and those crises are likely to continue to escalate in severity over time.
- While the mutual possession of nuclear weapons heavily conditioned the responses of both sides, overt nuclear signaling was lower than in many prior India-Pakistan crises.
- Both sides worked to calibrate escalation and showed some ability to manage escalation adequately. Both sides were sometimes surprised, however, by choices made by the other and, in some instances, likely viewed an adversary’s response as escalatory rather than proportional.
- The crisis was costly in terms of human lives and expended or destroyed military equipment. Those costs will likely work to induce some caution in the bilateral relationship in the near-term, a probable principal aim of Indian policy.
- The United States played a major role in crisis management, especially in the final hours of the crisis. While it is conceivable another actor could have played this role as crisis communicator of choice for both combatants, and some alternative third parties did play a role in crisis diplomacy, none of those alternative actors appear to have participated with the same efficacy as the United States.
(More at link)
I have not seen evidence of any side using TBMs. India Used cruise missiles and drones, Pak used drones and Fatah-1 rockets. They were broadcasting Fatah-1 launches but didn’t see any Fatah-2. There was also rumours of shaheen interception but haven’t seen any evidence either.
*I think the biggest takeaway here is that solid IADS is imperative and should be the first thing in order of priorities. If you have good IADS it will work in most circumstance. That includes both the quality and the quantity. Indian armed forces investment in a wide range of AD solutions has paid off.
*Second biggest takeaway is Air Forces CONOPS operation in future battlefield. The fact is that air bases are vulnerable. Specially when you lack strategic depth. Traditional AD is important but you can’t rely on it as your main defence to keep your large static infra (relatively) intact and preserve your combat power. As inevitably AD will loose the war of economics. Yes MRSAM has shot down Fatah-1 but it each interceptor cost around $1 million from what I read. While a Fatah-1 rocket cost around $100k or less.
The AF with the most recourses in the world has realised this and introduced ACE (Agile combat employment) as their new CONOP. Perhaps this is the most reformative CONOP in decades.
View attachment 75413
This is the way. Mobile capabilities coupled with thousands of km of existing road networks. Modifying them in locations temporarily and constantly, to meet the need. Then deploying IADS in innovative ways (as part of broader integrated counter-air ops) to deny adversaries ISR capabilities to get a fix (on those temporarily locations of sortie generations) and complete the kill chain. This way AD can better keep up with the war of economics. Cost effective C-UAS solutions (Jammers+AAA guns) is going to play an important role here as I imagine, Adversary will likely attempt to spam areas of interest with cheap recon drones when more traditional ISR platforms are denied by IADS and friendly counter air. All of these would require extensive complementing CCD (camouflage, concealment and decoy) operations Considering enemy's Space based ISR capabilities will also be at play here.
Of course, I am not advocating for vacating traditional air bases during war. lol. Its given, keeping them operational through quick fixes and rapid repair would also be imperative as significant numbers of sortie generations will naturally occur from there.
The point is, today static air bases and AD systems to defend them alone is not good enough to keep your AF competitive in a fight against peer adversaries.
@Nilgiri it's been some time since the events of 7-10 may. Looking forwards to your takeaways too.
Let's see what excuse our Indian friends will come up with for this. You won't deny your own chief of defense staff, will you?
Who has denied the loss? It was accepted much earlier. The number falsely claimed by Pak has been refuted. Pak should of course should also come clean on all the losses - in air and in hangars that it suffered. Besides all the satellite images showing the damage on Pak airbasesLet's see what excuse our Indian friends will come up with for this. You won't deny your own chief of defense staff, will you?![]()
When did any Indian member here refuse those claims? I stated somewhere earlier in this thread and so did @Gessler in his most recent version of events along with @Nilgiri that we do believe at least 1-2 jets or 1 jet and a UAV likely Heron have been downedLet's see what excuse our Indian friends will come up with for this. You won't deny your own chief of defense staff, will you?![]()
Right now they are convinced they have a female pilot in custody!When did any Indian member here refuse those claims? I stated somewhere earlier in this thread and so did @Gessler in his most recent version of events along with @Nilgiri that we do believe at least 1-2 jets or 1 jet and a UAV likely Heron have been downed
The claim of 6 jets by pakistanis is absolutely ridiculous, let alone the 10-12 which they've been claiming more lately
There are many Indian members here, that's good. But where are our Pakistani forum members? Where did they go? What is the reason for their absence? It would be interesting to know the opinion of Pakistanis too.Let's see what excuse our Indian friends will come up with for this. You won't deny your own chief of defense staff, will you?![]()
Right now they are convinced they have a female pilot in custody!
Malicious pleasure, Is inappropriate, given by the fact, that two nuclear powers want to wage in war.Let's see what excuse our Indian friends will come up with for this. You won't deny your own chief of defense staff, will you?![]()