Pakistan-India Conflict 2025: News Updates and Discussion

Hello sir,

Problem is we as a Pakistani have problem that when some external source says negative points about Pakistan. We believe them instantly. When Pakistan says something we dont believe it. See how easily a member just mentions we lost radar but what evidence has India gave before being a pakistani we are even mentioning Indian claims ?

Truth is we have their land during may and sh15 pounding was done more than Pakistan should have done as per indian expectations that caught Indians in surprise.

Modi was Bellicose while talking to trump, but instead listened to trump is pure nonsense. Since when trump press talks and claims have been so much true to be trusted at first place. He just didnt want India to feel humiliated so said it. India has always been we dont care when they decide something they do it dont care what USA says. Right now they are after sir creek and Kashmir. So that makes them literal bad guy as its no more about terrorism.

Truth is India lost more than Pakistan did and significantly and its airforce grounded. That caused the war to ceasefire.

I have been member since 2008 at I mostly listen to posts of fellow member. But I have observed that here in forum some highly decorated members always give Masala like "We cant fight long war" which is narrative of like each Pakistani in each street. There is nothing new. What is new is that we gave beating of century as we are weak "beggars" and they were 4th largest. Making Indians stall at all is marvel itself.

I have studied a lot and I have always have had very different opinion. Pakistan will never flourish economically but we will be strong in fighting and always able to defend against other powers. This is huge sacrifice. Tell me can any Arab nation or Malaysia with great economy have same level of defence against any strong military as Pakistan ? I guess not.

We have always fought country larger in military then us and yet we live without losing inch of land. We got AJK in 48. Bangladesh was never ours. Logically and technically it was not feasible. as far as I know later if 71 had not happened, bangladesh would have separated anyway. Now see we know mujeeb u rehman and his daughter ruined the bangladesh. The corruption in defense aquisition has made them so weak. I suspect India might even attack bangladesh.

Dont forget we have downed Israeli planes, soviets and Indians and technically all 3 are world powers and have huge influence in some region.

I am entitled to my opinion if someone disagrees, its ok.

The underlying issue here is the "trust gap" b/w citizens and the government - which usually pushes a Pakistani citizen to rely more on a Western report.

One can make an argument for infantry men being awarded TJs that perhaps they defended gallantly but then the question is why a Jurat Medal if they were only defending against crossfire and artillery shelling (does that even warrant a TJ) when we have SBt and TBt for such scenarios?

The more difficult position to argue against would be the SSG personnel who embraced martyrdom being awarded TJ. Does SSG personnel even man border posts?

If the trust b/w the citizen and government isn't there than an ordinary citizen may argue that the TJs awarded to PA was just to cover up because PAF victories were acknowledged by the West and there has been no mention of PA.

This is where I think PA lost in the May conflict. The events that preceded and followed, opened up space for citizens to doubt the performance of one service branch in comparison to other without realizing that neither could have been successful without the other in May.
 
The current doctrine is not only explicit but is also late-stage war scenario so India can easily exploit that and remain below the threshold hence the losing value of deterrence.
Agree 100% After the May 2025 conflict the nuclear deterrence has already been "lost" ( note the quotes) , India believes it can determine the threshold and control the escalation. In fact that is precisely what their senior armed forces personnel, defense think tanks, senior journalists are now proudly saying.
Essentially the enemy narrative:
" We know how to start a war, keep a war from escalating to beyond the nuclear threshold, and we know how to STOP a war"
The comparison is being made with Israel's Gaza War and Russia's Ukraine war, as "20th century conflicts with massive casualties " which peace loving India doesn't indulge in,
So the delusional Indian narrative is that they will control the escalation each time they launch an attack.
Keeping it ambiguous and under a single authority makes it a "F around and find out" gamble. So if India doesn't know what is the threshold to begin with, firstly they'll have to change all their war plans, and even with the new war plans they don't know what will trigger the threshold
At this time India thinks it knows what the nuclear threshold for Pakistan is. India's war plans and timetable for war hasn't changed. Nations do make horrible mistakes in war plans underestimating its adversaries because of self-delusional rhetoric. Germany did exactly that when it invaded the Soviet Union in June 1941. Japan did exactly that when it attacked the USA in December 1941.
India will make the same mistake but with much more dire consequences.
 
  • Like
Reactions: hnn
At this time India thinks it knows what the nuclear threshold for Pakistan is. India's war plans and timetable for war hasn't changed. Nations do make horrible mistakes in war plans underestimating its adversaries because of self-delusional rhetoric. Germany did exactly that when it invaded the Soviet Union in June 1941. Japan did exactly that when it attacked the USA in December 1941.
India will make the same mistake but with much more dire consequences.

Hence the need to tweak the nuclear doctrine and keep it strategically ambiguous. Let's see what's in store once the new office of CNSC becomes operational.

On a side note, I have been waiting for the part 2 of one of your earlier posts (don't remember if it was made in this thread or the other one) - it is always a pleasure to read your detailed posts.
 
What is the truth? A defeat for Pakistan? What is the current situation?
Is there peace because India has "defeated " Pakistan which has surrendered. or is there currently a state of war with just a brief pause, in hostilities?
There was a somewhat similar situation between Egypt and Israel in between 1967–1970 called the War of Attrition. Air and naval conflicts continued till a ceasefire was agreed upon in 1970., Is there a war of attrition between India and Pakistan?
Chalo iss IA officer ko sun lo...he is reasonably respected ex officer

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.
 
Hence the need to tweak the nuclear doctrine and keep it strategically ambiguous. Let's see what's in store once the new office of CNSC becomes operational.
Agree again. We DO need to tweak the nuclear doctrine and make it more ambiguous. In the short term it won't make India's perception any different, but it will make the international community more concerned about the increased risk of nuclear escalation, and hopefully will pressure India to stop an unprovoked aggression.
On a side note, I have been waiting for the part 2 of one of your earlier posts (don't remember if it was made in this thread or the other one) - it is always a pleasure to read your detailed posts.
I believe you were referring to the post below.
Post in thread 'Pakistan-India Conflict 2025: News Updates and Discussion'
https://defencepk.com/forums/thread...ews-updates-and-discussion.21640/post-1049608

Part 2 of the third scenario:
I am currently researching the 1987 Operation Brasstacks, because a revamped version of that is likely being planned with much more modern equipment and resources.
Operationally India would strike at three major points along the International Border hitting the Multan DIK axis. India would aim to cut off Lahore from Karachi and capturing the highway and rail links effectively splitting Pakistan into two sections . This would also isolate Azad Kashmir. The land invasion would be the second phase of the war.
Of course prior to such action a naval blockade, destruction of the Pakistan Navy, SEAD and destruction of the Pakistan Air Force would have to be achieved.

In the earlier version of Operation Brasstacks the objective was to get Pakistan to vacate Azad Kashmir,sign a humiliating surrender, and a Versailles treaty like Armistice with limitations on its armed forces ( essentially reducing them to a police force). Pakistan would be existing as a protectorate colony of India like Bhutan. Note that Operation Brasstacks was essentially secular and no large scale slaughter of Pakistani civilians was envisaged. The civilian population was expected to remain untouched so that a partisan resistance movement doesn't emerge.
The revamped version of Operation Brasstacks which is currently being planned is operationally similar, but has much deeper ideological religious and vengeance aspects. Essentially after the military victory, a wholesale slaughter and depopulation of Pakistan is planned as well as the assimilation of Pakistani territory and repopulation by Indians from Northern India.
This may sound fantastic but such population replacements have been done elsewhere such as in Western Ukraine which was Polish and in what is known today as Kaliningrad. The territory of Kaliningrad was known as Koenigsberg a German majority city in the region of East Prussia. The population was killed or displaced by the Soviet Union and Poland and today Kaliningrad is a Russian majority region and officially part of Russia. India has a much larger massacre and displacement of population planned for Pakistan in a 5 year project. If it happens this will go down as the largest massacre in human history.
 
Last edited:
The underlying issue here is the "trust gap" b/w citizens and the government - which usually pushes a Pakistani citizen to rely more on a Western report.
A very thoughtful comment! So there IS a trust gap and the citizens of Pakistan do not trust their armed forces in a conflict with Pakistan.
Do you think such a trust gap will be advantageous to the enemy in a situation where a breakthrough happens and either large portions of Pakistani territory come under enemy occupation or entire armed forces establishment collapses Pakistan and comes under enemy occupation?

It has happened to other countries. There was a trust gap between the Iraqi people and the Saddam Husain regime and the Iraqi defense apparatus dissolved very quickly in the face of an external incursion. The partisan resistance was sporadic with the Shia population collaborating with the occupation and the Sunni population opposing it.
Could this happen to Pakistan? Would an invasion and occupation of Pakistan be resisted by a divided population that no longer trusts its own defense establishment?

I am not suggesting such ominous events are inevitable The time to ask such questions is now and we must think the unthinkable.
 
  • Like
Reactions: hnn
Indian defense analysts are shouting at the top of their lungs that an S-400 missile shot down a JF-17 from a distance of at least 200 km, and that the missile used was the 48N6DM.


now to confirm the accuracy of this claim, I asked GPT to confirm this, here is the GPT reply!




What’s typically claimed for S-400 / 48N6-family missiles

Many sources claim that the S-400 can intercept targets travelling at “up to Mach 14 (≈ 4.8 km/s, ~17 000 km/h)”.
UPPCS MAGAZINE
+3
Jagranjosh.com
+3
BYJU'S
+3

Some descriptions extend this “Mach 14” claim to the 48N6 (or its improved variants, e.g. 48N6DM / 48N6E3) missile.
hfunderground.com
+3
airpra.com
+3
thetargetclasses.com
+3

From a high-level system specification viewpoint, the maximum target velocity that S-400 is said to handle is ~4.8 km/s (≈ Mach 14) — i.e. the speed of the target, not necessarily the missile itself.
Global Security
+2
Compass by Rau's IAS
+2

So — some claims attribute Mach 14 performance to S-400 / 48N6-family missiles (or at least to the envelope of what the system can intercept).

⚠️ What is uncertain or contradictory

Alternative sources (incl. defence-industry commentators) give much lower speeds for the 48N6 missile — e.g. a typical speed range of Mach ~2.3 to ~6.2, depending on variant and flight profile.
militaryfactory.com
+2
hfunderground.com
+2

According to German-language technical summary of S-400, 48N6D/DM missiles have a “max. target speed” of 4,800 m/s — but this description is ambiguous: it might refer to the target’s speed (i.e. what the missile can intercept), not necessarily the missile’s own maximum speed.
Wikipedia

Some credible sources for air-defence systems list the 48N6 (or S-400 interceptors) as having maximum speeds far below Mach 14 under realistic engagement scenarios.
militaryfactory.com
+2
Army Technology
+2

There is also a practical distinction: a missile’s interception capability (i.e. the fastest target it can catch) is not the same as the missile’s own cruise speed. Many “Mach 14” claims refer to target interception speed, not necessarily the missile’s sustained km-per-second flight speed.

🎯 My assessment: Mach 14 for 48N6DN — plausible as a claim, but unproven / doubtful

Because:

The “Mach 14” figure appears primarily in marketing / general-interest sources, often without detailed engineering backing.

More technical / defense-analysis sources give lower speed estimates (Mach 2–6 range) for 48N6.

The “target velocity 4.8 km/s” specification for S-400 likely refers to what kinds of threats the system claims it can engage (e.g. fast ballistic-missile warheads), rather than what 48N6 missiles themselves fly at.

In short: the claim that 48N6-family missiles (including 48N6DN) “reach Mach 14” cannot be reliably verified from open, credible technical sources. It remains possible — but not proven, and should be treated with caution.

No — the S-400’s 48N6DM/48N6DN missile does not reach Mach 14.

Publicly available performance data indicates its maximum speed is around Mach 6–7, not Mach 14.

✔️ What is Mach 14 referring to?

The “Mach 14” number that appears on some websites refers to the maximum speed of a target the S-400 system is claimed to be able to intercept — NOT the missile’s flight speed.

This is a common point of confusion in S-400 specifications.

✔️ Actual 48N6DM / 48N6DN missile speed

Different sources consistently list:

48N6DM (48N6E3)
Speed: ~2,100–2,500 m/s
≈ Mach 6–7

48N6DN is not an official export name; often people use “48N6DN” to mean the upgraded 48N6DM — still in the Mach 6–7 range.

These speeds match physics:
A large solid-fuel SAM of this type cannot reach Mach 14 without:

much higher mass flux motors

extreme thermal protection

radically different aerodynamics

and energy comparable to hypersonic glide/boost systems

— none of which the 48N6-family uses.

✔️ Which S-400 missile can reach higher speeds?

The 40N6 long-range missile (400 km class) is often cited around Mach 8–9, but not Mach 14.

Even Russia’s much faster interceptors (S-500, A-135, A-235) use very different booster structures and still typically top out around Mach 10–12.

Bottom line

48N6DM/48N6DN tops out at Mach 6–7.
The Mach 14 figure is NOT the missile’s speed — it is the claimed maximum target speed the S-400 can engage.
 
There has been no doubt about that part. PAF did well on 7th May and I have accepted it many times.

10th May was the Indian day. They salvaged a lot.

The question is what did Munir achieve by not accepting ceasefire offer after 7th May?
The answer is - nothing.

Had Pakistan accepted the ceasefire, imagine where India would have been?
Lost four fighters at the cost of attacking few camps? Didn’t look good at all.

The satellite pictures after 10th retrieved a lot for them.

If your objectives was to destroy a few hangars, runways and radar sites (some debunked), sure you have achieved tactical victory.

But to claim you took back the initiative after the initial failure, is speculative at best. Pakistan's retaliation later on the 10th has actually forced India on the backfoot. It's not just destruction caused, but the capability to match India's escalation with missiles.

Yet again, a lot of Indians seems to casually forget this news that was posted below and prefer to believe that they had the last laugh instead.

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.
 
If your objectives was to destroy a few hangars, runways and radar sites (some debunked), sure you have achieved tactical victory.

But to claim you took back the initiative after the initial failure, is speculative at best. Pakistan's retaliation later on the 10th has actually forced India on the backfoot. It's not just destruction caused, but the capability to match India's escalation with missiles.

Yet again, a lot of Indians seems to casually forget this news that was posted below and prefer to believe that they had the last laugh instead.

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

They were certainly "shocked". CNN didn't lie. Modi himself didn't lie when he expressed his shock.

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.


They had no choice but to seek a ceasefire.
 
But to claim you took back the initiative after the initial failure, is speculative at best. Pakistan's retaliation later on the 10th has actually forced India on the backfoot
At the risk of repetition, we forget that the point of the attack was to assert India's right to attack into Pakistan at a time and place of its own choosing. It was India who declared the right to attack

That was the main theme being recycled


they chose their time and place hoping to blunt pakistans operational sharpness, and the defensive response cost India badly


It should have never gotten to missiles
 
At the risk of repetition, we forget that the point of the attack was to assert India's right to attack into Pakistan at a time and place of its own choosing. It was India who declared the right to attack

That was the main theme being recycled


they chose their time and place hoping to blunt pakistans operational sharpness, and the defensive response cost India badly


It should have never gotten to missiles
It never was supposed to reach that stage. Which is why India are happily harping on the success of Brahmos.

In this case, Pakistan surely was blindsided here because they did not anticipate such a response. Pakistan should have anticipated this and to me, it was a grave error. While India was certainly in their rights to use them, it shows desperation on their end to act on their egos and win the escalation. Brahmos can carry nuclear weapons, and using such a missile runs that risks of igniting a nuclear holocaust in the region.

While we could have done better on that end, I am glad Pakistan learnt it's lessons and established the ARFC. This separates the nuclear tipped missiles from the conventional ones, essentially allowing us to retaliate should India uses Brahmos again.

Hopefully Pakistan is continuously upgrading is doctrine to meet the ever evolving situation. This year may be Brahmos, and for all you know India may start using it's Agni series without the mating of its nuclear systems in the next conflict.
 
credits: IRVES twitter channel (please subscribe to his channel)
his work is not mine

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.
 
To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.


Credits: GDA twitter channel (please subscribe to their channel)
 
Indian defense analysts are shouting at the top of their lungs that an S-400 missile shot down a JF-17 from a distance of at least 200 km, and that the missile used was the 48N6DM.


now to confirm the accuracy of this claim, I asked GPT to confirm this, here is the GPT reply!




What’s typically claimed for S-400 / 48N6-family missiles

Many sources claim that the S-400 can intercept targets travelling at “up to Mach 14 (≈ 4.8 km/s, ~17 000 km/h)”.
UPPCS MAGAZINE
+3
Jagranjosh.com
+3
BYJU'S
+3

Some descriptions extend this “Mach 14” claim to the 48N6 (or its improved variants, e.g. 48N6DM / 48N6E3) missile.
hfunderground.com
+3
airpra.com
+3
thetargetclasses.com
+3

From a high-level system specification viewpoint, the maximum target velocity that S-400 is said to handle is ~4.8 km/s (≈ Mach 14) — i.e. the speed of the target, not necessarily the missile itself.
Global Security
+2
Compass by Rau's IAS
+2

So — some claims attribute Mach 14 performance to S-400 / 48N6-family missiles (or at least to the envelope of what the system can intercept).

⚠️ What is uncertain or contradictory

Alternative sources (incl. defence-industry commentators) give much lower speeds for the 48N6 missile — e.g. a typical speed range of Mach ~2.3 to ~6.2, depending on variant and flight profile.
militaryfactory.com
+2
hfunderground.com
+2

According to German-language technical summary of S-400, 48N6D/DM missiles have a “max. target speed” of 4,800 m/s — but this description is ambiguous: it might refer to the target’s speed (i.e. what the missile can intercept), not necessarily the missile’s own maximum speed.
Wikipedia

Some credible sources for air-defence systems list the 48N6 (or S-400 interceptors) as having maximum speeds far below Mach 14 under realistic engagement scenarios.
militaryfactory.com
+2
Army Technology
+2

There is also a practical distinction: a missile’s interception capability (i.e. the fastest target it can catch) is not the same as the missile’s own cruise speed. Many “Mach 14” claims refer to target interception speed, not necessarily the missile’s sustained km-per-second flight speed.

🎯 My assessment: Mach 14 for 48N6DN — plausible as a claim, but unproven / doubtful

Because:

The “Mach 14” figure appears primarily in marketing / general-interest sources, often without detailed engineering backing.

More technical / defense-analysis sources give lower speed estimates (Mach 2–6 range) for 48N6.

The “target velocity 4.8 km/s” specification for S-400 likely refers to what kinds of threats the system claims it can engage (e.g. fast ballistic-missile warheads), rather than what 48N6 missiles themselves fly at.

In short: the claim that 48N6-family missiles (including 48N6DN) “reach Mach 14” cannot be reliably verified from open, credible technical sources. It remains possible — but not proven, and should be treated with caution.

No — the S-400’s 48N6DM/48N6DN missile does not reach Mach 14.

Publicly available performance data indicates its maximum speed is around Mach 6–7, not Mach 14.

✔️ What is Mach 14 referring to?

The “Mach 14” number that appears on some websites refers to the maximum speed of a target the S-400 system is claimed to be able to intercept — NOT the missile’s flight speed.

This is a common point of confusion in S-400 specifications.

✔️ Actual 48N6DM / 48N6DN missile speed

Different sources consistently list:

48N6DM (48N6E3)
Speed: ~2,100–2,500 m/s
≈ Mach 6–7

48N6DN is not an official export name; often people use “48N6DN” to mean the upgraded 48N6DM — still in the Mach 6–7 range.

These speeds match physics:
A large solid-fuel SAM of this type cannot reach Mach 14 without:

much higher mass flux motors

extreme thermal protection

radically different aerodynamics

and energy comparable to hypersonic glide/boost systems

— none of which the 48N6-family uses.

✔️ Which S-400 missile can reach higher speeds?

The 40N6 long-range missile (400 km class) is often cited around Mach 8–9, but not Mach 14.

Even Russia’s much faster interceptors (S-500, A-135, A-235) use very different booster structures and still typically top out around Mach 10–12.

Bottom line

48N6DM/48N6DN tops out at Mach 6–7.
The Mach 14 figure is NOT the missile’s speed — it is the claimed maximum target speed the S-400 can engage.
Praveen Sawhney confirms what you wrote above:

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.
 
Even in 2019 : Pakistan couldn't prove su30 downing... Neither India couldn't prove F16 downing.


Same story in 2025.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

  • Back
    Top