The Kashmir conflict 2025.

Neurosmith

Neurosmith

Junior Member
Registered Member
People who are hoping that Pakistan continues the tit-for-tat exchange with India need to realize that India is much bigger than Pakistan, not just militarily but also economically. India could sustain a conflict for much longer than Pakistan could and a much broader conflict at that.

Pakistan's strategy, I suspect, is in line with Iran's strategy against with Israel and in general with that of any smaller country facing a larger one: be a porcupine and minimize the chances of a significant Indian victory. The idea is to make the prospects of operational success expensive and damaging enough such that the enemy thinks twice before committing to their plan. That seems to have worked, given the ceasefire that India has pursued.

Also note that Pakistan has actually shown significant restraint throughout the conflict; Pakistan has the capability to inflict considerable damage to strategic Indian targets by way of their missiles (stealthy Ra'ad, terrain-hugging Babur, massed BM attacks) but has not done so.
 
L

lgnxz

Junior Member
Registered Member
neutralobserver said:
it is safe to assume India will go for F35 after fiasco
Click to expand...
India will beg like dog for it, but the asking price, both materially and perhaps geopolitically, will be severe. They'll absolutely be squeezed dry and yet still have to pretend to enjoy/benefit from such a deal, for the sake of posturing to their masses lmao

Just like back in 2019 clash where they lost Mig-21 and bought the most expensive Rafale package out of all Rafale customers to date (totaling to USD 240 million each, with the deal mired in multiple accusations of graft as well), the Rafale downing leaves them with no leverage whatsoever in any negotiation for any 5th gen platforms.
 
Gloire_bb

Gloire_bb

Major
Registered Member
CaribouTruth said:
My guess and the aforementioned large assumption is IAF believed the "AWACS/Tanker killer" propaganda about the PL-15, and thought it wouldn't be effective against maneuverable fighters. They reckoned that if the Rafales, Mirages, Flankers etc were to be engaged PAF J-10s would have to close the distance to use medium range missiles.
Click to expand...
Guys, there is some thinking here treating huge institution as a club from twitter. Individual pilots can be completely unaware buffons - fighter pilot isn't a job which is taken by the smartest and sharpest. But here we're talking about completely different personnel.
This is not how technical evaluation is done. At most, it's PL-15E keeping the controllable membrane of PL-15 without Indian knowledge(which is still a major failure in reconnaissance/risk calculus), leading them to wrong inputs for the whole operation.

Were AWACS involved? Hard to tell, we don't know. Unlikely PL-15 affected it (at most they would've moved orbits further back). If they were not (which is strange for operation at this scale) - the most likely reason is use of some less obvious alternative to keep element of surprise. More likely for me - they were still used, but something affected their performance in northern sector. Maybe EW.

Neurosmith said:
Also note that Pakistan has actually shown significant restraint throughout the conflict; Pakistan has the capability to inflict considerable damage to strategic Indian targets by way of their missiles (stealthy Ra'ad, terrain-hugging Babur, massed BM attacks) but has not done so.
Click to expand...
Both sides do. There is a line after which sides won't be sure of nature of warhead involved. This is not a line anyone wants to touch.
 
Last edited:
N

neutralobserver

Junior Member
Registered Member
CaribouTruth said:
I have a hypothesis, albeit with one large assumption that tries to solve this strangeness around IAF mission planning.

They planned a mission without AWACS coverage. This is partially verified by the lack of situational awareness for the pilots. Yesterday's PAF briefing didn't indicate IAF AWACS operating in the area, while they did indicate their own.

Why would they plan a mission without AWACS coverage? Because an AWACS is a high value target and IAF doesn't have many of them.
AWACS are especially vulnerable to long range potshots.

Now here's an apparent contradiction. Why were they willing to expose their fighters into the PL-15 range but not their AWACS?

My guess and the aforementioned large assumption is IAF believed the "AWACS/Tanker killer" propaganda about the PL-15, and thought it wouldn't be effective against maneuverable fighters. They reckoned that if the Rafales, Mirages, Flankers etc were to be engaged PAF J-10s would have to close the distance to use medium range missiles.

This would also explain why IAF fighters were not equipped with Meteors but were equipped with MICAs. They were expecting a fairly close quarter fight and were loaded out accordingly.

I know this is slightly farfetched, but it does explain a few peculiarities - given the limited amount of information we have.
Click to expand...
That could very well be true as their Air Chief is on record stating that Rafale can handle J20 and China deployed 5x J20 for every Rafale that India deployed, so they may have actually believed their own BS. Also, they would have most likely believed that PL15E is much inferior compared to PL15 and all their analysts were saying that even their indigenous Astra missile is better then PL15.
 
T

totenchan

Junior Member
Registered Member
CaribouTruth said:
I have a hypothesis, albeit with one large assumption that tries to solve this strangeness around IAF mission planning.

They planned a mission without AWACS coverage. This is partially verified by the lack of situational awareness for the pilots. Yesterday's PAF briefing didn't indicate IAF AWACS operating in the area, while they did indicate their own.

Why would they plan a mission without AWACS coverage? Because an AWACS is a high value target and IAF doesn't have many of them.
AWACS are especially vulnerable to long range potshots.

Now here's an apparent contradiction. Why were they willing to expose their fighters into the PL-15 range but not their AWACS?

My guess and the aforementioned large assumption is IAF believed the "AWACS/Tanker killer" propaganda about the PL-15, and thought it wouldn't be effective against maneuverable fighters. They reckoned that if the Rafales, Mirages, Flankers etc were to be engaged PAF J-10s would have to close the distance to use medium range missiles.

This would also explain why IAF fighters were not equipped with Meteors but were equipped with MICAs. They were expecting a fairly close quarter fight and were loaded out accordingly.

I know this is slightly farfetched, but it does explain a few peculiarities - given the limited amount of information we have.
Click to expand...
Frankly something like this is my assumption as well. I'm not particularly knowledgeable about the specifics of what India has but AWACS should have been able to detect the incoming PL-15 and warn the Rafales. From the leaked comms audio though, assuming its genuine, it didn't sound like they knew they had a missile on them.
 
FairAndUnbiased

FairAndUnbiased

Brigadier
Registered Member
sutton999 said:
Su-57 has never been used in Ukrainian-controlled area. Front RCS 0.5, not a stealth fighter.

Russia avionics is outdated.
Click to expand...

Nominal RCS values of every single non-IWB fighter is meaningless because the RCS of externally mounted weapons dominates everything else. Internal weapons bays are that important. Let's say Su-57 has a 0.5 m2 cross section for fun. OK, so what? At least it is always 0.5 m2 no matter how many missiles it has inside. Let's say a clean F-18 has 1 m2 RCS, but are you ever going to send a clean F-18 into battle with just its gun?

RCS is not additive. It isn't like "oh the RCS of the plane is 1 m2, the RCS of the missile is 1m2, total RCS is 2 m2" because the reflections from each surface interact in complex ways to multiply the total effective reflecting surface. The real RCS of any 4th gen with a full loadout is probably something like 15-20 m2 when armed. Doesn't look so great compared to a 0.5 m2 Su-57 (if that is its true RCS) does it?

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

1746898954182.jpeg

Rafale's avionics are clearly not doing anything because they couldn't even see the incoming missile.
 
A

ACuriousPLAFan

Brigadier
Registered Member
Based on observations on the India-Pakistan skirmishes as of present, there are three categories which I believe that the Pakistani military should pile on, improve on, and add on respectively. Could be understated or overstated, of course.

1. Better things that should be piled on to further strengthen the advantages:
- Procure additional medium fighters, i.e. J-10CE in greater numbers to replace the older batches of F-16s;
- Procure additional light fighters, i.e. JF-17 in greater numbers that would entirely replace all the Mirages and F-7s;
- Procure additional AEW&C aircrafts, i.e. Erieye to enable greater degree of continuous radar coverage along the entire frontlines;
- Procure additional dedicated EW (ECM and ESM) aircraft platforms that would enable the soft kill of enemy munitions, as well as disrupting enemy aerial combat operations; and
- Procure additional aerial tankers to extend loiter duration of allied warplanes.

2. Not so good things that should be improved upon to remedy deficiencies and rectify problems:
- Procure more LRSAM batteries, i.e. HQ-9 and/or HQ-22 to intercept enemy missiles at long ranges;
- Procure more MRSAM batteries, i.e. HQ-16 and/or HQ-11 to intercept enemy missiles at medium ranges;
- Procure more SRSAM + CIWS + DEW batteries, i.e. HQ-17 + LD2000 to intercept enemy missiles and drone swarms at short/close-in distances;
- Procure land-based EW platforms to soft-kill enemy missiles and drone swarms; and
- Procure more MALE/HALE U(C)AV platforms to assist in reconnaissance, early-warning and strike missions.

3. Things that should be newly added into the inventory for greater battlefield impact:
- Procure 5th-generation fighters, i.e. J-35s and KAAN (if the latter can enter production in time), which would be useful for establishing technological parity with the enemy at the very least;
- Procure dedicated ELINT/SIGINT aircraft platforms to enable reconnaissance and early-warning in the EM domain; and
- Procure strategic ABM and AHM platforms to defend against potential enemy MRBM, IRBM and hypersonic missile attacks.

Oh, and one more thing - Greater degree of OPSEC enforcement is needed.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top