Pakistan-India Conflict (2025)

[harris]

我们知道哪种巴基斯坦战机击落了阵风战斗机？F16 Block 52+、J10C、JF-17？

Don't know which fighter, but know it is by pl15e missile
wish it is by jf17

 

[Jackdaws]

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1920165632114307193

Pakistani Def Minister providing the proof as he sees it

 

[harris]

IT proves the so called advanced nato standard first line fighters are just rubbish

Europe is far more behind USA and China in technology

 

[contricusc]

IT proves the so called advanced nato standard first line fighters are just rubbish

Europe is far more behind USA and China in technology

The only thing it proves is that IAF has executed a very ill-prepared attack, with no consideration whatsoever to Pakistani air defences.

When you desconsider your opponent, you risk making a fool of yourself.

Many people think that modern weapons win wars by themselves, but this is not how it works. By looking at the way the IAF conducted this mission, they would have probably lost F35s as well, if they had them.

You need good mission planning, intelligence and a well trained and integrated force to exploit modern weapons to their full potential. If you just want to send a single jet to fly 50 km close to the border and lob some missiles to a predetermined target, without any situatuonal awareness and flexibility, a modern jet will not have many benefits as compared to an old Sukhoi.

The IAF should have used its older Mirages for such a mission, so they at least would have not embarrassed themselves as much as they did. At least the Russians know not to send their Sukhoi Su-57 close to the frontline, so they avoid the humiliation of losing their flagship jet.

 

[Ryder]

Moral of the story.

Stop worshipping weapon systems.

This goes for all of us. We all get caught up in this.

Good thing on this forum most users know every weapon system has its strength and weakenesses. Good thing barely any fanboys.

Fanboys of European, Russian, American and Chinese all go on cope mode when their favourite gets destroyed. Look at the Russian T90 and Leopard 2 fanboys it was hard for them to process their tanks going up in flames.

Nothing wrong in appreciating them but remember they can also be destroyed and beaten.

 

[Ryder]

The only thing it proves is that IAF has executed a very ill-prepared attack, with no consideration whatsoever to Pakistani air defences.

When you desconsider your opponent, you risk making a fool of yourself.

Many people think that modern weapons win wars by themselves, but this is not how it works. By looking at the way the IAF conducted this mission, they would have probably lost F35s as well, if they had them.

You need good mission planning, intelligence and a well trained and integrated force to exploit modern weapons to their full potential. If you just want to send a single jet to fly 50 km close to the border and lob some missiles to a predetermined target, without any situatuonal awareness and flexibility, a modern jet will not have many benefits as compared to an old Sukhoi.

The IAF should have used its older Mirages for such a mission, so they at least would have not embarrassed themselves as much as they did. At least the Russians know not to send their Sukhoi Su-57 close to the frontline, so they avoid the humiliation of losing their flagship jet.

This needs to be pinned.

 

[harris]

这只能证明，印度空军发动的袭击准备非常不足，完全没有考虑巴基斯坦的防空能力。

当你轻视你的对手时，你就有可能让自己出丑。

很多人以为现代武器就能赢得战争，但事实并非如此。看看印度空军执行这次任务的方式，如果他们拥有F35，他们很可能也会损失。

要充分发挥现代武器的潜力，需要良好的任务规划、情报以及训练有素、协调一致的部队。如果只是派一架战机飞到边境附近50公里处，向预定目标发射几枚导弹，而没有任何态势感知和灵活性，那么现代战机与老式苏霍伊战机相比优势不大。

印度空军本应使用老式幻影战机执行这样的任务，这样至少不会让自己丢那么多脸。至少俄罗斯人知道不要派他们的苏霍伊Su-57靠近前线，这样他们就避免了失去旗舰战机的耻辱。

how to prove?
If it's inferior, it's inferior. Why always be stubborn?

 

[Nilgiri]

The only thing it proves is that IAF has executed a very ill-prepared attack, with no consideration whatsoever to Pakistani air defences.

When you desconsider your opponent, you risk making a fool of yourself.

Many people think that modern weapons win wars by themselves, but this is not how it works. By looking at the way the IAF conducted this mission, they would have probably lost F35s as well, if they had them.

You need good mission planning, intelligence and a well trained and integrated force to exploit modern weapons to their full potential. If you just want to send a single jet to fly 50 km close to the border and lob some missiles to a predetermined target, without any situatuonal awareness and flexibility, a modern jet will not have many benefits as compared to an old Sukhoi.

The IAF should have used its older Mirages for such a mission, so they at least would have not embarrassed themselves as much as they did. At least the Russians know not to send their Sukhoi Su-57 close to the frontline, so they avoid the humiliation of losing their flagship jet.

"Ill prepared" is the wrong terminology.

To use SCALP and HAMMER needs the Rafale....i.e a stand off conflict tier was picked. The Mirage 2000 does not come into play as adequate with its munition profile for this.

The point is a higher conflict tier without SEAD/DEAD was not picked (by decision makers) as the conflict tiers are not going to be ramped up that fast compared to last time.

That is a different kind of war ramp signalled to Pakistan if that is done (or the use of heavy CM and BM for that SEAD and/or target destruction too instead of aircraft...especially considering the density of population around some of these targets too)

Within the tiers of 1- 5, the IAF (given the IAD + CAP) is going to have attrition (its why I said its garbage at these tiers...it does not have the requisite apex sharpness at scale like say the IdAF).

Its different picture at 5-10....but these tiers are not picked by IAF but by higher ups....and could only be potentially picked in next cycle Pakistan decides to engage in terror inside India.

(You will remember that there was no response at all from India after 08 Mumbai for example).

India will only move up these escalation ladder tiers cautiously as it has more to lose than Pakistan....but at same time it will ramp them up each time too....depending on the situation and context each time w.r.t civilian deaths taken from Pakistani terror networks.

It is not a Siberia situation where the USSR simply ignored the new (but limited) nuclear deterrence of the PRC in 1969 and proceeded to escalate fast and hard upon Chinese soldiers after the first Chinese ambushes in the ussuri (and then kazakh) areas in question....up to the point of heavy nuclear brinkmanship threat....which made Mao and much of CCP flee away from Beijing for a period of time.

This conflict window is also not completed, we have to wait to see it conclude to give a proper analysis in the end too.

 

[Nilgiri]

(Indian perspective of course):

 

[chibiyabi]

how to prove?
If it's inferior, it's inferior. Why always be stubborn?

if we use how you think, than every single lost, is inferiority. that mean israely lost couple days ago, when houthies ballistic missile or drone penetrate Israeli air defences, mean Israeli air defence inferior to houthis missile/drone system. whitch I and a lot of logic persons in this forum bellieve not.

 

[Nilgiri]

One must also study very closely the level of force level the US (SEAD and DEAD) used against Iraqi IAD network in GW1.

Then what had changed at that point from the strategies used in rolling thunder and linebacker.

These are air campaigns of far higher intensity and scale (and considerable losses when a bad one like rolling thunder opted for, as mighty as the USAF was), but have crucial concepts within them as to conflict tiers picked (and constrained in case of rolling thunder especially).

 

[harris]

if we use how you think, than every single lost, is inferiority. that mean israely lost couple days ago, when houthies ballistic missile or drone penetrate Israeli air defences, mean Israeli air defence inferior to houthis missile/drone system. whitch I and a lot of logic persons in this forum bellieve not.

why houthies can't get some advanced missiles from some powerful country.
compared with Russia or china, Israel is bullshit

 

[Nilgiri]

if we use how you think, than every single lost, is inferiority. that mean israely lost couple days ago, when houthies ballistic missile or drone penetrate Israeli air defences, mean Israeli air defence inferior to houthis missile/drone system. whitch I and a lot of logic persons in this forum bellieve not.

There are gaps in everything to exploit. It depends how long a conflict goes on.

 

[Nilgiri]

Moral of the story.

Stop worshipping weapon systems.

This goes for all of us. We all get caught up in this.

Good thing on this forum most users know every weapon system has its strength and weakenesses. Good thing barely any fanboys.

Fanboys of European, Russian, American and Chinese all go on cope mode when their favourite gets destroyed. Look at the Russian T90 and Leopard 2 fanboys it was hard for them to process their tanks going up in flames.

Nothing wrong in appreciating them but remember they can also be destroyed and beaten.

Yup its all about force level 1 vs force level 2...both size and sharpness of each...and is it something sustained or is it one-off (or start and stops etc)

These influence everything results wise. Each context is different.

 

[contricusc]

The point is a higher conflict tier without SEAD/DEAD was not picked (by decision makers) as the conflict tiers are not going to be ramped up that fast compared to last time.

The decision makers chose a very high risk / low reward strategy, and it backfired. I find it extremely irresponsible to completely ignore the enemy’s air defences and air force when deciding to do a “one time” strike.

If you’re unwilling to do SEAD/DEAD because you want to avoid escalation, then you should not do high risk strikes. This decision making smells like the work of politicians, not generals or military planners. By the looks of it, the mission was meant to simply have some chest-thumping material to show on TV. It looks very similar to what Iran does when they send some missiles towards Israel to earn some bragging rights, not to do actual damage.

And this kind of attitude can backfire badly, as it happened in this case. Pakistan was prepared to ambush the jets, and it seemed that it scored at least three kills in a single day of action. This looks very bad for the IAF. In three years of conflict, I think only once did Russia lose three jets in a single day attacking Ukraine, and everyone though it was a disaster for Russia and it showed how weak its airforce is compared to the expectations. Now India managed to equal Russia‘s worst day (when it comes to aircraft loses) in a single one day mission.

From the outside, it looks like Pakistan scored a big win, and it will now be emboldened to hunt IAF aircraft whenever it will have the chance. They will probably also do a retaliation strike, in order to provoke the IAF into doing more risky missions, as they smelled weakness.

It will be interesting to see how this situation deescalates, but right now it is India who needs to save face as the Pakistanis have scored a big win and are high on morale.

 

[Nilgiri]

The decision makers chose a very high risk / low reward strategy, and it backfired. I find it extremely irresponsible to completely ignore the enemy’s air defences and air force when deciding to do a “one time” strike.

If you’re unwilling to do SEAD/DEAD because you want to avoid escalation, then you should not do high risk strikes. This decision making smells like the work of politicians, not generals or military planners. By the looks of it, the mission was meant to simply have some chest-thumping material to show on TV. It looks very similar to what Iran does when they send some missiles towards Israel to earn some bragging rights, not to do actual damage.

And this kind of attitude can backfire badly, as it happened in this case. Pakistan was prepared to ambush the jets, and it seemed that it scored at least three kills in a single day of action. This looks very bad for the IAF. In three years of conflict, I think only once did Russia lose three jets in a single day attacking Ukraine, and everyone though it was a disaster for Russia and it showed how weak its airforce is compared to the expectations. Now India managed to equal Russia‘s worst day (when it comes to aircraft loses) in a single one day mission.

From the outside, it looks like Pakistan scored a big win, and it will now be emboldened to hunt IAF aircraft whenever it will have the chance. They will probably also do a retaliation strike, in order to provoke the IAF into doing more risky missions, as they smelled weakness.

It will be interesting to see how this situation deescalates, but right now it is India who needs to save face as the Pakistanis have scored a big win and are high on morale.

You are simply focusing on the material losses as be all end all, rather than what happened on the ground and what Pakistan perceives that (and how is it to respond to it)....w.r.t what changed this time and why.

It is why I keep bringing up the larger air campaigns vs one-offs. There have been far more powerful AF's than India's that have taken punishment far greater on their air assets (and with no nuclear risk or very little from ally of opponent etc). The point is what were the tiers and strategies adopted and why....and how they changed from conflict to conflict too.

Go big or go home (vs a dense IAD + CAP alert presence) is lot easier said than done in "I want a conflict tier at 7 instead of 4 from the onset" for the IAF ORBAT at hand... as there are heavy escalation risks at 7...compared to attrition expected at 4....given the last was a tier of 2. (Just rough represntative numbers).

i.e what the whole point is in not going from 2 to 7, but a 4 in between this time round to prove a new level first.....(remember India did total 0 responses in heavy risk mitigation vs pakistan's nuclear saber rattling in mumbai 08 for example....and that was taken to be normalised so all of these conflict tiers between nuclear nations can only be treaded carefully each time now when 0 response normalisation by some nuclear threat relative impunity no longer exists as before).

Another similar example was the very contained to Indian side of the Loc strategy adopted during Kargil war too (given the much higher casualties this meant compared to ingress past the LoC to cut supply lines....that would carry escalation risks and lower international support etc at same time).

Making everything sharper for the lower conflict tiers (given its nowhere near as existential one as a higher tier that is full on war)....requires time and resource and that has been lacking in various prolonged ways for IAF.

How Pakistan does something vs Indian own IAD and CAP at some higher tier than last time, that also remains to be seen. Its why I say give it time.

Its just my thinking and perspective on the issue, TIFWIW.

 

[mTT]

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1920370291198324987

 

[hugh]

这只能证明，印度空军发动的袭击准备非常不足，完全没有考虑巴基斯坦的防空能力。

当你轻视你的对手时，你就有可能让自己出丑。

很多人以为现代武器就能赢得战争，但事实并非如此。看看印度空军执行这次任务的方式，如果他们拥有F35，他们很可能也会损失。

要充分发挥现代武器的潜力，需要良好的任务规划、情报以及训练有素、协调一致的部队。如果只是派一架战机飞到边境附近50公里处，向预定目标发射几枚导弹，而没有任何态势感知和灵活性，那么现代战机与老式苏霍伊战机相比优势不大。

印度空军本应使用老式幻影战机执行这样的任务，这样至少不会让自己丢那么多脸。至少俄罗斯人知道不要派他们的苏霍伊Su-57靠近前线，这样他们就避免了失去旗舰战机的耻辱。

how to prove?
If it's inferior, it's inferior. Why always be stubborn?

why do your flags show different when, in fact, you're a Chinese? Your opinion won't be hailed as more important when you're larping as a Brazilian. It'd be good to have a Chinese person providing their POV. Just don't pretend to be someone you are not.

 

[Jackdaws]

The only thing proven is that Pakistan and its media is clutching at straws with 0 proof. No missile signatures. No remnant of a plane shot down. No pilot who ejected. No footage of any plane going down. Whatever footage they have provided has been either AI generated or unrelated to the incident. There was even an attempt to photoshop 001 on some picture. But I guess the Pak population needs to be sold a narrative that it will lap up. Old habits die hard.

 

[Nilgiri]

why do your flags show different when, in fact, you're a Chinese? Your opinion won't be hailed as more important when you're larping as a Brazilian. It'd be good to have a Chinese person providing their POV. Just don't pretend to be someone you are not.

He is serving a short thread ban till he gets those flags changed....and also for spamming things like "8 fighter planes down" that even Pakistan doesn't claim.

Members are again advised to FOLLOW THE RULES.