Pakistan-India Conflict (2025)

[Zapper]

Modi had S400 system in the background, we have to flex an AD system in the background

 

[Zapper]

Nationality of the writers in those Rafale Musing articles

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1922588725302702145

 

[Nilgiri]

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1922464441876004897

@Afif compare and contrast it (this is ofc Pak presser claims, but lets assume its the real situation).... with my war sim on CBG (which was more detailed, but same kind of staging first to penetrate coastal sam etc later)

This is what I sketched last year @Rajendra Chola et al. for reference with what I mentioned just now.

Basically the staging area (before any serious penetration or provocation etc) is bounded roughly by the C-602 coastal CM range that Pakistan has.

 

[Rajendra Chola]

This is what I sketched last year @Rajendra Chola et al. for reference with what I mentioned just now.

Basically the staging area (before any serious penetration or provocation etc) is bounded roughly by the C-602 coastal CM range that Pakistan has.

View attachment 75122

View attachment 75123

And basically tying up valuable PAF aircraft’s to prevent an attack from the south…Going by the performance of HQ9, I doubt it could have prevented a Karachi Naval base attack….

 

[Nilgiri]

And basically tying up valuable PAF aircraft’s to prevent an attack from the south…Going by the performance of HQ9, I doubt it could have prevented a Karachi Naval base attack….

As I chatted with cpl folks elsewhere, IN is also looking at drone + EW packages for navy too (for opponent SAM depletion/spoof etc to make brahmos and CM's in general more potent in their waves - as is proven this time in the scale done this time).

Indian Naval Collaborative Drone Concept Unveiled

The Indian Navy is actively pursuing the Abhimanyu drone as a potential future companion for its crewed carrier-based aircraft.

www.twz.com

Swarm Intelligence & Collaborative Unmanned Drone Systems For Maritime Surveillance - Indian Aerospace and Defence Bulletin - News for aerospace and defence in India

By Lt Col Narendra Tripathi (r) The advent of swarm intelligence and collaborative unmanned drone systems has revolutionized maritime surveillance, offering unparalleled capabilities in threat detection, operational efficiency, and strategic decision-making. For the Indian Navy, integrating...

www.iadb.in

For Indian naval assets, the architecture from IAD side is of course barak + MFSTAR scaled as it is with time.

 

[Nilgiri]

washpo article:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2025/05/14/india-pakistan-strikes-conflict-damage/

 

[Rajendra Chola]

Another fake propaganda and lies busted by him. This time they used cloud shadow and claimed as damage. Day by day, now joined by the Chinese, the frustration is compelling…

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1922969872645996913

 

[Rajendra Chola]

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1922903212400529412

 

[Zapper]

PAF's retired Air Marshal Masood Akhtar clearly stating a PAF AWACS has been destroyed along with the death of several PAF personnel during the strike on Bholari airbase

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1922993618861609301

 

[Gessler]

Interesting, snippets from the NYT report:

Speaking of the Nur Khan base, it appears that the targets were not random logistics vehicles but rather Mobile Command Centres (with extendable cubicles deployed):

That is extremely precise targeting & destruction. Also, it points to very good real-time (or near real-time) ISR capability over Pakistan, probably space-based.

 

[Gessler]

Another fake propaganda and lies busted by him. This time they used cloud shadow and claimed as damage. Day by day, now joined by the Chinese, the frustration is compelling…

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1922969872645996913

At this point after extensive satellite imagery being made available, it now seems that other than Udhampur AFS in Kashmir, there is no clear evidence of Pakistani munitions causing any damage whatsoever at any Indian air base, period. Even the S400 base seems to be completely untouched contrary to PAF claims.

And even at Udhampur, there seems to be no damage to the runway or any hangars - the only hit is in empty space beside the runway.

This speaks extremely well for Indian AD systems & IADS. A broad range of Pakistani munitions, including drone-based ones as well as Fatah-1/2 & CM-400AKG appear to have been successfully intercepted. In comparison, Pakistan's Chinese-origin AD doesn't seem to have worked very well at all.

====

As an aside, this has major implications to naval warfare as well - as the AAW cover of Chinese DDGs is basically different versions of the HQ-9/LY-80 and the primary ASuW weapon of Indian ships is the BrahMos - which has just demonstrated the ability to penetrate these defences with a high degree of success.

@Nilgiri

 

[Afif]

Interesting, snippets from the NYT report:

View attachment 75160

View attachment 75161

View attachment 75162

NYT isn’t always very bright when it comes to military matters. afaik Pak literally has nuclear bunkers? In event of a full blown war, their strategic command isn’t going to be sitting in ministry of Defense building or at GHQ. I doubt India has anything in its conventional arsenal to destroy those Bunkers.

View attachment 75163

View attachment 75164

View attachment 75165

That is extremely precise targeting & destruction.

Most guided munitions has a CEP of 10m these days.

Also, it points to very good real-time (or near real-time) ISR capability over Pakistan, probably space-based.

It actually doesn’t. Ukraine war demonstrated similar targeting capabilities by leveraging commercially available Sat imagery.

 

[Afif]

This speaks extremely well for Indian AD systems & IADS. A broad range of Pakistani munitions, including drone-based ones as well as Fatah-1/2 & CM-400AKG appear to have been successfully intercepted. In comparison, Pakistan's Chinese-origin AD doesn't seem to have worked very well at all.

There isn't enough evidence available to conclude HQ-16EF/HQ-9BE failed technically. All We can say is, PAF lack adequate numbers of AD compared to IAF. Former only has 1x battery of HQ16EF and 1x battery of HQ9BE. While the later has an order of magnitude more AD systems.

As an aside, this has major implications to naval warfare as well - as the AAW cover of Chinese DDGs is basically different versions of the HQ-9/LY-80 and the primary ASuW weapon of Indian ships is the BrahMos - which has just demonstrated the ability to penetrate these defences with a high degree of success.

@Nilgiri

Indian navy is much more capable than Pak Navy. But the fact is, it still does not match PLAN. Too much focus on a single weapon system (Brahmos) may not serve India well. It should be obvious after Rafale's debacle.

 

[TR_123456]

Interesting, snippets from the NYT report:

View attachment 75160

View attachment 75161

View attachment 75162

Speaking of the Nur Khan base, it appears that the targets were not random logistics vehicles but rather Mobile Command Centres (with extendable cubicles deployed):

View attachment 75163

View attachment 75164

View attachment 75165

That is extremely precise targeting & destruction. Also, it points to very good real-time (or near real-time) ISR capability over Pakistan, probably space-based.

Really,New york Times?

 

[Gessler]

NYT isn’t always very bright when it comes to military matters. afaik Pak literally has nuclear bunkers? In event of a full blown war, their strategic command isn’t going to be sitting in ministry of Defense building or at GHQ. I doubt India has anything in its conventional arsenal to destroy those Bunkers.

Really,New york Times?

That's the thing with relying on unnamed sources. You take the good with the bad.

It actually doesn’t. Ukraine war demonstrated similar targeting capabilities by leveraging commercially available Sat imagery.

Ukraine's actions are/were being supported by an entire gamut of Western ISR capabilities (including Private ones acting on the directions of USG). This is not the case for India's actions...not to mention, I doubt we even have commercial integration cells, yet.

It's likely that commercial imagery was made use of at some level, but given the fact active hostilities were ongoing for several days at that point, sovereign ISR assets would also be brought to bear - due to the mobile nature of these targets.

There isn't enough evidence available to conclude HQ-16EF/HQ-9BE failed technically. All We can say is, PAF lack adequate numbers of AD compared to IAF. Former only has 1x battery of HQ16EF and 1x battery of HQ9BE. While the later has an order of magnitude more AD systems.

Indian navy is much more capable than Pak Navy. But the fact is, it still does not match PLAN. Too much focus on a single weapon system (Brahmos) may not serve India well. It should be obvious after Rafale's debacle.

That's true - Rafale is still not integrated well with IACCS and the price of that was BVR capability being limited to what can be managed by MICA. This put the look-first, shoot-first opportunity firmly in PAF's hands.

 

[TR_123456]

That's the thing with relying on unnamed sources. You take the good with the bad.

There was a German guy on Youtube who explained everything without bias,wanted to post it but cant find it anymore.
When i find again it i'll post.

 

[Zapper]

An almost intact PL-15...seems like PAF was mostly relying on "spray and pray" at DMAX ranges hoping to hit IAF jets

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1920714688842616942

 

[Nilgiri]

All We can say is, PAF lack adequate numbers of AD compared to IAF. Former only has 1x battery of HQ16EF and 1x battery of HQ9BE. While the later has an order of magnitude more AD systems.

This is what then starts to bring the next layer of discussion with economics and geopolitical strategy/interest.

As to the costs of beefing up IAD for Pakistan conventionally (especially more optimal return in policy change to India on Kashmir "non conventionals")....compared to relative costs for IND to do the same w.r.t brahmos and its support (penetration aid) ecosystem and how these advance and their longer term fiscal supports.

As to the costs for China to have same/dispositive IAD intensity on its nodes/basing in Tibetan plateau (given the baked in issue here compared to Eastern China) and also the trade off on that w.r.t its threat analysis from Eastern vector commensurately (Indian interests/threat picture on Tibet are near 0 relatively speaking compared to what US and Japan can muster upon things that matter much more to China in that war whatever the % chances are they each calculate at various tiers).

i.e what may just never come to pass between IND-PRC, but rather what may dictate how/where leveraging and force pinning/deterrence posturing can largely be done anyway given Tibet is simply a very unique thing in end compared to Eastern China. The vastness and context (and massive larger threat profile from another vector on other side) that Pakistan doesn't have in its case....along with not having the same economy/wherewithall as India (much less China) too.

These (how many brahmos et al overwhelm some other amount of HQ-9 et al) basically are the static considerations that fix the relatively more tactical stuff around it. In Pakistan's case it is significant that India has demonstrated it is willing to engage here and illustrate its underneath a nuclear threshold in the context between these two countries.

 

[Nilgiri]

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.

Folks can compare and contrast this with what Binkov put out just now:

 

[Nilgiri]

An almost intact PL-15...seems like PAF was mostly relying on "spray and pray" at DMAX ranges hoping to hit IAF jets

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1920714688842616942

It would be foolish of India to not take the PL-15 and PAF tactics+training+doctrine with utmost seriousness.