Pakistan-India Conflict (2025)

[Nilgiri]

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1921058892269695210

 

[Afif]

Again things are static or they are dynamic assets (adding another vector).

99.9% folks have done zero study as to why say USN lost a full third of top of the line skyhawks in rolling thunder to begin with (ignoring USAF thunderchiefs faring even worse)...which had top of the line specs for the time vs Soviet IAD and soviet CAP around Hanoi-Haiphong.....as a lot of other things come into play regd how they were deployed (and those were many sequences of one-offs...i.e sustained sorties requiring timing between USN and USAF along with significant capacities held back due to conflict mitigation LBJ et al imposed).

Without studying the largest most relevant air campaigns of the largest force structures in 20th-21st century first (and the attrition they took on top assets), you dont really get the issue of dynamics (and ROE and constraint + timid tiers picked w.r.t assets at hand) vs just static assets....in more bite sized "tactical one-off" portions compared to sustained + strategic.

Various important variables like little SEAD and DEAD today cascading to compacted maneuvering zones after say holding/timing patterns in staging areas (that tip off the opponent the bigger you arrange them and get higher CAP alert and more scramble availability).... due to dodging both A2A and IAD rather than just one, and what are the timings of face-offs within this to be deduced in more measured fashion over time... given technology intensification from earlier era of it.

The US changed doctrinally just within rolling thunder (early lessons to late).... to linebacker and then decades later to GW1....in response to how IAD impacts compared to original 50s SAC doctrine vs "USSR only" that initially molded the post ww2 USAF....down to the level of pilots training + "bulky aircraft" it was stuck with vis a vis the USN when the 60s came around....and SEAD/DEAD became a big deal in the new context + strategic restraint opted for Vietnam.

All these concepts affect a relative bite sized tactical one-off correlation, back then or now....the tech just scales up and intensifies as it does....i.e North Vietnam would have done "even better" with AWACs...and conceptually its IAD and CAP (and tactics from weaknesses exploited by opponent limitation and constraint no matter their apex assets)... transcends and amplifies to today.

Fewer vectors (w.r.t relatively static assets like the SAMs themselves) is more clear cut to analyse in "proof is in the pudding way" as far less vectors added in deployment operationally.

It either intercepts well or it doesn't w.r.t its more limited "other factors" being things like the rest of IAD + C-UAS tiered around it...and the softening of these done by drones to whichever degrees....and the importance of all of this given the golden egg nest of assets + infra its responsible for protecting.

It's not got stages of strike package selection, flying, timing, delivery, rotation, maneuver space, no SEAD+DEAD, center of mass exposed for opponent BVR in time state 5 compared to time state 3 etc....the SAMs just dont fly to begin with....or have X amount of A2G (hammeer scalp) baked in that limits A2A (i.e rafale choice making in sortie that affects the dynamic factors)....as to say 3/72 attrition result in end for X amount of payload release in the context.

The static stuff being less complicated simply has to be hardened otherwise the opponent just easily and reliably drains and strikes your infra and assets contained within. These are more readily more scaleable to one-offs in higher conflict tiers too, so if its optimal return and low risk gauged of escalation, this is an issue in the end static wise.....just like lack of apex sharpness (for tactical strikes) is its issue for IAF currently in the more dynamic side of things.

This is well put in principle. (Nothing to disagree w.r.t to how you distinguished between dynamic assets and relatively static assets. How they differ in critical ways during combat employment and complicated factors that are usually at play for dynamic assets.) I may quote you somewhere else if allowed to explain this very thing.

Yes. Comparatively it is easier to judge large static assets one-off performance wise. However, it is still complicated enough imo without very specific info. One big reason is that most countries doesn't have enough AD assets to adequately to protect most of their critical infra. Usually not even close. Even though each AFB containing combat squadrons should be defended actively its not that each gets an MRSAM or LRSAM cover.

That's why I added later.

PAF simply has 1x HQ-9BE battery. Instead of deploying it defensively protecting any one of 9 air bases attacked, it could be deployed to offensively (staying hidden and maneuvering on short notices/usual SAM ambush tactics) in attempt to get IAF jets while leaving AFD defense to less capable HQ16 batteries. Or even if it is deployed purely defensively it won’t be protecting more than a single AFB. Unless we get to know a lot more specifics (like how and where it was deployed and then how much of Indian strike package got through there) we couldn't accurately judge HQ9BE's performance.

For comparison India has 6x S400 batteries (3x squadrons) and similar or more MRSAM batteries.

As for the original post, it seems I may have misunderstood your intent. Thanks for clearing it out.

 

[Nilgiri]

This is well put in principle. (Nothing to disagree w.r.t to how you distinguished between dynamic assets and relatively static assets. How they differ in critical ways during combat employment and complicated factors that are usually at play for dynamic assets.) I may quote you somewhere else if allowed to explain this very thing.

Yes. Comparatively it is easier to judge large static assets one-off performance wise. However, it is still complicated enough imo without very specific info. One big reason is that most countries doesn't have enough AD assets to adequately to protect most of their critical infra. Usually not even close. Even though each AFB containing combat squadrons should be defended actively its not that each gets an MRSAM or LRSAM cover.

That's why I added later.



For comparison India has 6x S400 batteries (3x squadrons) and similar or more MRSAM batteries.

As for the original post, it seems I may have misunderstood your intent. Thanks for clearing it out.

Will maybe pick this up later more....regarding the dynamic side of things first so we get an understanding of what I mean by all the X factors (no plan survives first contact with the enemy etc).

A lot has to do with energy and timings in the various "states" of engagement of two large moving bodies with gaps and their crucial support sensoring and weapon apexes.

A bit like judo or wrestling there are optimal times with what you sense and can constrain the opponent in what he's already commited to or is turning away in rotation etc (compared to head on).

He has his mix of A2G and A2A...whereas you are fully A2A. What formations are developed and already sensed + predicted versus what you keep as relatively unformed to take shots optimally and so on. Your EW sensory state and so on.

The IAF lacks the heavy SEAD+DEAD+A2A of say the USAF (or risk it against nuclear escalation potential even if it did have this dispositive pressure like US had against Vietnam but held itself back on) to make up for lost initiative of large strike force gathering (w.r.t whatever real time intel Pakistan has from say China etc). i.e the reason to not do say massive drone and missile strikes on IAD first thing to forcefully put that as out of commision as possible with what India more reliably has. To then better "guarantee" the A2G dominant wave after it etc.

All the %'s add up when every % counts when you are spamming say both SAM and A2A as well. Though the tradeoff to its degree is the opponent does get his A2G off to the degree he has committed too.

Its a tradeoff in the end...the asset quality apexes are not as relevant in say a pure head to head situation as there are dynamic coefficients and sensoring and timing advantages.

Then the issue of this being a one-off, it could lie in various places of the N-distr of say doing this 100+ times over in a campaign....i.e is it average expected result or is it more atypical one etc.

 

[Saithan]

India was content with initial missile strikes on terror compounds and the second night was spent mostly on defending against drones.
The immediate escalation point was the usage of Fateh or similar BM which was intercepted in a trajectory on way to Delhi.
It was after this incident, India decided to escalate and attack major air bases on PAF with token attacks implying, we are violating your air defences and can attack anytime.
As far as fighters are concerned, I believe from OSINTs, India have lost 2 fighters & one large drone. But India will officially update the losses after Operation Sindoor ends.

Listen to yourself mate. You are saying that India was satisfied with a military strike against a sovereign state, as a move for a terrorist attack that was executed in India.

Any nation with pride and dignity would respond in accord.

 

[mTT]

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1921509299680883074

 

[dronie]

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1921506114182545738

Lol

 

[Saithan]

Will maybe pick this up later more....regarding the dynamic side of things first so we get an understanding of what I mean by all the X factors (no plan survives first contact with the enemy etc).

A lot has to do with energy and timings in the various "states" of engagement of two large moving bodies with gaps and their crucial support sensoring and weapon apexes.

A bit like judo or wrestling there are optimal times with what you sense and can constrain the opponent in what he's already commited to or is turning away in rotation etc (compared to head on).

He has his mix of A2G and A2A...whereas you are fully A2A. What formations are developed and already sensed + predicted versus what you keep as relatively unformed to take shots optimally and so on. Your EW sensory state and so on.

The IAF lacks the heavy SEAD+DEAD+A2A of say the USAF (or risk it against nuclear escalation potential even if it did have this dispositive pressure like US had against Vietnam but held itself back on) to make up for lost initiative of large strike force gathering (w.r.t whatever real time intel Pakistan has from say China etc). i.e the reason to not do say massive drone and missile strikes on IAD first thing to forcefully put that as out of commision as possible with what India more reliably has. To then better "guarantee" the A2G dominant wave after it etc.

All the %'s add up when every % counts when you are spamming say both SAM and A2A as well. Though the tradeoff to its degree is the opponent does get his A2G off to the degree he has committed too.

Its a tradeoff in the end...the asset quality apexes are not as relevant in say a pure head to head situation as there are dynamic coefficients and sensoring and timing advantages.

Then the issue of this being a one-off, it could lie in various places of the N-distr of say doing this 100+ times over in a campaign....i.e is it average expected result or is it more atypical one etc.

You are damn good at explaining things, but all those small mini remarks put in between the explanations make it harder to understand

Anyway, in this time and age. With what we've seen from Reapers, drones, ucav. Why would India use jets and such to hit buildings as first respons to get back at the terrorist organization that instigated the attack.

Wouldn't it have been better to use drones. Like what US, Turkey does to hunt down the perpetrators ?

I feel that the response was more like an angry reaction on what they could find immediately and hit.

While Pakistan has been at the receiving end of US Reaper like attacks, I don't remember seeing any such from India.

 

[dronie]

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1921198644843155687

 

[dronie]

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1921140857488494710

 

[dronie]

Wouldn't it have been better to use drones. Like what US, Turkey does to hunt down the perpetrators ?

This ain't syria or Afghanistan that you can just move in and bomb and claim victory.IAF may have suffered a lose in aircraft but showing that you can hit your enemies nuke base and airbases with strike precision makes up for it .

 

[Azeri441]

Although India lost Rafales, they revealed that Pakistani air bases are very vulnerable, Pakistan needs to heavily invest into air defense to protect strategic zones.

 

[Agha Sher]

Although India lost Rafales, they revealed that Pakistani air bases are very vulnerable, Pakistan needs to heavily invest into air defense to protect strategic zones.

An equal number of indian airbases were similarly hit. Pakistan's disadvantage is that it lacks geographical depth.
Both sides failed to defend airbases - however, PAFs dominance in the air is a huge blow to india.

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1921525412678582601

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1921524046824370545

 

[Azeri441]

An equal number of indian airbases were similarly hit. Pakistan's disadvantage is that it lacks geographical depth.
Both sides failed to defend airbases - however, PAFs dominance in the air is a huge blow to india.

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1921525412678582601

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1921524046824370545

resolution is too low to tell, however there is visual evidence on the ground of Pakistani air bases, also the 2nd satellite photo looks edited, the crater quality doesn't match the overall quality of the photo.

But I do agree, PAF can gain edge over Indian Air Force with J-35 purchase, however Pakistan must heavily invest into Air Defense to protect those airfields, India obviously held restrain, but demonstrated real capability of targeting Pakistani air bases, and that was with only a few cruise missiles and drones. Imagine if India launched hundreds of missiles and drones at PAF airfields.

 

[Rajendra Chola]

Listen to yourself mate. You are saying that India was satisfied with a military strike against a sovereign state, as a move for a terrorist attack that was executed in India.

Any nation with pride and dignity would respond in accord.

What do you want me to say mate? That India should take terror attacks & terror attacks and sit idle?

2008 Mumbai attacks with clear links to Pakistan based groups- tell me one terrorists who was hanged in Pakistan?
1999 AI Hijack - India released terrorists are roaming freely in Pakistan.
2016 Pathankot airbase attack - Terrorists from Pakistan attacked. In an unprecedented move, India Pak announced joint investigation and let Pakistani investigators inside our AB. Have you ever heard of this before btw enemy nations? Will you let Greeks inside your airbase for investigation? We did that. With the evidences gathered, Indian intelligence finally reported, Pakistan destroyed all their evidence based in Pakistan.

I think mate, we have been very very patient with Pakistani origin or funded terrorism. We have been taking everything in our stride.

I personally did not want war. But when the elected PM decides to launch attacks at terror factories in Pakistan, as Indians have to support them. Pakistan does not have control over the terrorists it bred & gave birth to. Someone needs to control. Don’t believe me? Go see Pak DM interview to western media on how they created terror compounds

 

[Rajendra Chola]

An equal number of indian airbases were similarly hit. Pakistan's disadvantage is that it lacks geographical depth.
Both sides failed to defend airbases - however, PAFs dominance in the air is a huge blow to india.

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1921525412678582601

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1921524046824370545

Resolutions are too poor to see anything definitive . Should wait for better quality ones

 

[mTT]

बठिंडा के गांव में अज्ञाात फाइटर जेट क्रैश, दादरी के युवक की मौत; 9 घायल - dainiktribuneonline.com

प्रत्यक्षदर्शियों ने कहा-दोनों पायलट पैराशूट से कूद बच निकले

www.dainiktribuneonline.com

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1921545800011669765

 

[Saithan]

What do you want me to say mate? That India should take terror attacks & terror attacks and sit idle?

2008 Mumbai attacks with clear links to Pakistan based groups- tell me one terrorists who was hanged in Pakistan?
1999 AI Hijack - India released terrorists are roaming freely in Pakistan.
2016 Pathankot airbase attack - Terrorists from Pakistan attacked. In an unprecedented move, India Pak announced joint investigation and let Pakistani investigators inside our AB. Have you ever heard of this before btw enemy nations? Will you let Greeks inside your airbase for investigation? We did that. With the evidences gathered, Indian intelligence finally reported, Pakistan destroyed all their evidence based in Pakistan.

I think mate, we have been very very patient with Pakistani origin or funded terrorism. We have been taking everything in our stride.

I personally did not want war. But when the elected PM decides to launch attacks at terror factories in Pakistan, as Indians have to support them. Pakistan does not have control over the terrorists it bred & gave birth to. Someone needs to control. Don’t believe me? Go see Pak DM interview to western media on how they created terror compounds

Of course you should not tolerate it. I was trying to point out that an action will have a reaction, and that's when you have to either accept that and let it go, or take it up a notch.

My point is that only one of the two involved can be the bigger man, and by that I am not talking about being strong, but accepting the reaction and slowing down/ stopping there.

Believe me, I am not in anyway supporter of terrorism, and it's any country's duty to prevent terror attacks.

Hunting terrorists in the mountain takes time, and they hide in cities and such. Not much you can do, if you go about it the right way.

 

[dronie]

An equal number of indian airbases were similarly hit. Pakistan's disadvantage is that it lacks geographical depth.
Both sides failed to defend airbases - however, PAFs dominance in the air is a huge blow to india.

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1921525412678582601

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1921524046824370545

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1920834489606902075

Both have been busted as propaganda.
While india has ground results.

 

[dronie]

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1921483913894969736

 

[mTT]

Is it not a crime for an India-based space company to freely share satellite images of military bases in the country on Twitter?

Would a space company share images that highlight the negative aspects of its own country?