PAF J-10CE News, Updates and Discussion

[CSAW]

"Dragon Riders acknowledged
One Hilal-e-Jurat, six Sitara-e-Jurat, one Sitara-e-Basalat, and one Tamgha-e-Basalat — all in a single photograph.”




==============================

 

[HRK]

@Michael @HRK - to put simply the Target and Track data from the F-16s own radar can't be shared via an intermediate AEWAC node onto a J-10 without massively degrading the quality and detail of the data (and vice versa). I hope that's a simplistic enough and accurate summary.

OTOH, Target and Track data from AEWAC's radar can be shared b/w the two platforms without degrading the quality of the data.

No in simple terms F-16 and J-10 could not directly interact with each other they both send their data to Data Fusion engine which combine data from all other nodes as well and create a complete picture and then relay it back at near real time.

This is what we know from different official disclosures by PAF

Michael was NOT completely wrong in his post, but his only wrong assumption was that F-16 works in isolation in PAF.

 

[HRK]

I agree with what you have mentioned, however, I want to play out a hypothetical here i.e. let's suppose the damage was done - would releasing the satellite imagery or any other kind of evidence - lowered (or increased) the appetite for revenge war amongst the Indian population with 100% certainty?

Since, we couldn't be sure of it, isn't it then a strategically risk aversive bet - where the Indian population is settled down (for now) while their leadership is put in a precarious situation (knowing the capability of their adversary) and perhaps forced to re-think their narrative against Pakistan?

Please note that I'm not asserting that damage was done, I'm taking a hypothetical based on the assumption that "if damage was done"

This hesitant behavior is increasing the appetite of India for war as they are considering it as an encouraging sing in their favor.

They are playing war as they think due to our limitations we would not crosse the line and would keep the war limited in intensity and geography.

One we reciprocate their war hysteria with the will to up the ante India will back down.

In words of Asim Munir first throw the fear out you would be succeed.

 

[Starlord]

This hesitant behavior is increasing the appetite of India for war as they are considering it as an encouraging sing in their favor.

They are playing war as they think due to our limitations we would not crosse the line and would keep the war limited in intensity and geography.

One we reciprocate their war hysteria with the will to up the ante India will back down.

In words of Asim Munir first throw the fear out you would be succeed.

unfortunately our border areas and its people are at the mercy of a false flag Terror Attack in India, cause we have seen this from 2016 Uri attack, so called surgical strike, 2019 balakot and 2025 mainland Pakistan's several cities were hit with women and children dead, and I agree with @Ak01 we did not even launch massive salvo's of F1's & F2's...we just used few missiles and SH15 Artillery while IA was launch 10's of Brahmos towards Pakistan's air bases.
We can't just rely on PAF to win every battle for us, what if in next battle they take the hit badly? what will army do? Oh yes we created Rocket force, but it will take few years before they build significant numbers of missiles, I really thought the reason for F1's and F2's were to develop a cheaper but effective strike option within 10-200km from Pakistan border, rather than sending fighter jets in Indian AD range, we will use the F-serious guided Rockets to precisely attack Indian forward bases, but guess what we see? few numbers of Rocket launch, if we don't have numbers than Allah khair kare, but if we have numbers and we hold them for God knows what than its a matter of concern for us.
Indians manage to send a drone to Karachi shah Faisal if I remember correctly, that is our economic lifeline, next time you can bet everything they will hit Karachi, they know our AD is vulnerable, and our leaders including military lacks a Pair to hit hard, har dafa bas yehi sunna restrain kiya bhai, we did so much damage but no evidence so "Trust me bro", even on PDF we get some posters unfortunately title holders came with same Manjan to sell it people of PDF, han je buhat mara India ko bus dekha nai sakte, when you Hit enemy hard, you or your enemy cant hide the destruction and damage, remember the videos first came of Indian Strikes, that explosion was massive it lit up the sky. All we have few IAF fighter jets (Thanks to PAF) and some smoke rising from few air bases, and yet we are suppose to believe we did hit them, initially we stay with govt as that time it was important to be supportive of Pakistani govt and military narrative, now after months all we hear are same repeated talking points and Trust me bro narratives.

 

[HRK]

Before we go again down this road, how do you define deterrence?
These are abstract and subjective concepts and for me, deterrence was established when India wanted cease fire even against wishes of their public. It was simply because the decision makers saw they can't surpass Pakistan's conventional military capabilities.
Those satellite photos are just for consumption of masses. As I said, every intelligence agency and government of world knows the damage dealt by both sides, and Pakistan came out on top Alhamdulilah.

Now, the question about showing evidence to people can't be answered here I guess. A lot of emotions involved in it and we often digress from topic because of personal feelings instead of ground realities.
Personally, I think it is ok to give India an offramp to de-escalate by hitting their targets but not rubbing it in Modi's face. The Induan public may not believe us but the great powers have seen Pakistan is far more responsible and India is quite an irrational nuclear power. Previously, it was the other way around and everyone was buying Jaishankar's propaganda of Pakistan a terrorist state.

Deterrence is not an alien concept in Indian Pakistan relation.

We conducted nuclear test not just to overtly declare Pakistan as nuclear state but the pass the message to Indian General Public about our capabilities.

We know deterrence is simply means installing the fear in your enemy for their actions.

Now please tell me what we have achieved other then ending the active conflict on temporary basis ???

IWT is still in state of abeyance, which means our enemy has no fear of it's actions against us ..... I hope you would agree here.

Secondly if you recall at the morning of 7 May after the Indian attack on civilian of Pakistan India announced unilateral ceasefire.

By this action India tried to achieve the the following objectives

- To show it can initiate the active conflict against Pakistan at will (objectives was the demonstrate the capability to achieve "Deterrence by Punishment" against Pakistan though failed in achieving this)

- To show it has a "will to fight a war" if need arrives (Objectives was successfully achieved)

- To show it can controll the escalation ladder and conflict as per their requirements.

In simple words India tried to show it's "Capability, it's Political and Military Will and Control over the events". These are the basic elements of Deterrence.

Now for Pakistan we must understand that Pakistan only "partially achieved" success in exposing the capability of India to fight a war even if it is limited in nature; but the other two elements "the will to fight and control over the event" remain unanswered from our side as we showed that we are no more willing to fight.

So the questions is how should we respond to these two elements of Indian strategy of establishing it's version of "Deterrence by Punishment" against Pakistan???

Answer is simple we have to adopt the strategy of "Deterrence by Denial" which we partially achieved when we downed the Indian fighter aircrafts and then attacks on Indian targets but by not showing the evidence in Public we could not shatter the Indian WILL to fight, which means we are giving them a window of opportunity for next time.

And for the third element The Control over the events we have to openly show our "will to escalate & terminate" event(s) as per our Terms and time of choice.

I hope I am clear enough when I say "we failed to establish the Deterrence at conventional level even when we had the opportunity and resources in that limited conflict"

As concluding remarks I would say this instability at conventional and sub-conventional level in India-Pakistan scenario have the "potential to disturb the stability at Strategic level as well"

For the MUTUAL SURVIVAL of both countries it is our DUTY to address the instability.

 

[Hussain]

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

Accept third party cookies

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

Accept third party cookies

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

Accept third party cookies

 

[Hakikat ve Hikmet]

Deterrence is not an alien concept in Indian Pakistan relation.

We conducted nuclear test not just to overtly declare Pakistan as nuclear state but the pass the message to Indian General Public about our capabilities.

We know deterrence is simply means installing the fear in your enemy for their actions.

Now please tell me what we have achieved other then ending the active conflict on temporary basis ???

IWT is still in state of abeyance, which means our enemy has no fear of it's actions against us ..... I hope you would agree here.

Secondly if you recall at the morning of 7 May after the Indian attack on civilian of Pakistan India announced unilateral ceasefire.

By this action India tried to achieve the the following objectives

- To show it can initiate the active conflict against Pakistan at will (objectives was the demonstrate the capability to achieve "Deterrence by Punishment" against Pakistan though failed in achieving this)

- To show it has a "will to fight a war" if need arrives (Objectives was successfully achieved)

- To show it can controll the escalation ladder and conflict as per their requirements.

In simple words India tried to show it's "Capability, it's Political and Military Will and Control over the events". These are the basic elements of Deterrence.

Now for Pakistan we must understand that Pakistan only "partially achieved" success in exposing the capability of India to fight a war even if it is limited in nature; but the other two elements "the will to fight and control over the event" remain unanswered from our side as we showed that we are no more willing to fight.

So the questions is how should we respond to these two elements of Indian strategy of establishing it's version of "Deterrence by Punishment" against Pakistan???

Answer is simple we have to adopt the strategy of "Deterrence by Denial" which we partially achieved when we downed the Indian fighter aircrafts and then attacks on Indian targets but by not showing the evidence in Public we could not shatter the Indian WILL to fight, which means we are giving them a window of opportunity for next time.

And for the third element The Control over the events we have to openly show our "will to escalate & terminate" event(s) as per our Terms and time of choice.

I hope I am clear enough when I say "we failed to establish the Deterrence at conventional level even when we had the opportunity and resources in that limited conflict"

As concluding remarks I would say this instability at conventional and sub-conventional level in India-Pakistan scenario have the "potential to disturb the stability at Strategic level as well"

For the MUTUAL SURVIVAL of both countries it is our DUTY to address the instability.

Nice points. As for the Bharati will to fight, however, doesn't last long as shown by history. Pakistan needs to leverage it by widening up the bandwidth with more traction. Pakistan needs to show her ultimate will to fight to absorb whatever the cost might be....

 

[JamD]

Deterrence is not an alien concept in Indian Pakistan relation.

We conducted nuclear test not just to overtly declare Pakistan as nuclear state but the pass the message to Indian General Public about our capabilities.

We know deterrence is simply means installing the fear in your enemy for their actions.

Now please tell me what we have achieved other then ending the active conflict on temporary basis ???

IWT is still in state of abeyance, which means our enemy has no fear of it's actions against us ..... I hope you would agree here.

Secondly if you recall at the morning of 7 May after the Indian attack on civilian of Pakistan India announced unilateral ceasefire.

By this action India tried to achieve the the following objectives

- To show it can initiate the active conflict against Pakistan at will (objectives was the demonstrate the capability to achieve "Deterrence by Punishment" against Pakistan though failed in achieving this)

- To show it has a "will to fight a war" if need arrives (Objectives was successfully achieved)

- To show it can controll the escalation ladder and conflict as per their requirements.

In simple words India tried to show it's "Capability, it's Political and Military Will and Control over the events". These are the basic elements of Deterrence.

Now for Pakistan we must understand that Pakistan only "partially achieved" success in exposing the capability of India to fight a war even if it is limited in nature; but the other two elements "the will to fight and control over the event" remain unanswered from our side as we showed that we are no more willing to fight.

So the questions is how should we respond to these two elements of Indian strategy of establishing it's version of "Deterrence by Punishment" against Pakistan???

Answer is simple we have to adopt the strategy of "Deterrence by Denial" which we partially achieved when we downed the Indian fighter aircrafts and then attacks on Indian targets but by not showing the evidence in Public we could not shatter the Indian WILL to fight, which means we are giving them a window of opportunity for next time.

And for the third element The Control over the events we have to openly show our "will to escalate & terminate" event(s) as per our Terms and time of choice.

I hope I am clear enough when I say "we failed to establish the Deterrence at conventional level even when we had the opportunity and resources in that limited conflict"

As concluding remarks I would say this instability at conventional and sub-conventional level in India-Pakistan scenario have the "potential to disturb the stability at Strategic level as well"

For the MUTUAL SURVIVAL of both countries it is our DUTY to address the instability.

wow couldn't have put it any better!

 

[flyingorca]

"Dragon Riders acknowledged
One Hilal-e-Jurat, six Sitara-e-Jurat, one Sitara-e-Basalat, and one Tamgha-e-Basalat — all in a single photograph.”

View attachment 167138


==============================

View attachment 167153

No wayy n***@ that made my day.

 

[maxpane]

"Dragon Riders acknowledged
One Hilal-e-Jurat, six Sitara-e-Jurat, one Sitara-e-Basalat, and one Tamgha-e-Basalat — all in a single photograph.”

View attachment 167138


==============================

is cobra is the most decorated squadron now in paf ?

 

[AeronautIR]

Deterrence is not an alien concept in Indian Pakistan relation.

We conducted nuclear test not just to overtly declare Pakistan as nuclear state but the pass the message to Indian General Public about our capabilities.

We know deterrence is simply means installing the fear in your enemy for their actions.

Now please tell me what we have achieved other then ending the active conflict on temporary basis ???

IWT is still in state of abeyance, which means our enemy has no fear of it's actions against us ..... I hope you would agree here.

Secondly if you recall at the morning of 7 May after the Indian attack on civilian of Pakistan India announced unilateral ceasefire.

By this action India tried to achieve the the following objectives

- To show it can initiate the active conflict against Pakistan at will (objectives was the demonstrate the capability to achieve "Deterrence by Punishment" against Pakistan though failed in achieving this)

- To show it has a "will to fight a war" if need arrives (Objectives was successfully achieved)

- To show it can controll the escalation ladder and conflict as per their requirements.

In simple words India tried to show it's "Capability, it's Political and Military Will and Control over the events". These are the basic elements of Deterrence.

Now for Pakistan we must understand that Pakistan only "partially achieved" success in exposing the capability of India to fight a war even if it is limited in nature; but the other two elements "the will to fight and control over the event" remain unanswered from our side as we showed that we are no more willing to fight.

So the questions is how should we respond to these two elements of Indian strategy of establishing it's version of "Deterrence by Punishment" against Pakistan???

Answer is simple we have to adopt the strategy of "Deterrence by Denial" which we partially achieved when we downed the Indian fighter aircrafts and then attacks on Indian targets but by not showing the evidence in Public we could not shatter the Indian WILL to fight, which means we are giving them a window of opportunity for next time.

And for the third element The Control over the events we have to openly show our "will to escalate & terminate" event(s) as per our Terms and time of choice.

I hope I am clear enough when I say "we failed to establish the Deterrence at conventional level even when we had the opportunity and resources in that limited conflict"

As concluding remarks I would say this instability at conventional and sub-conventional level in India-Pakistan scenario have the "potential to disturb the stability at Strategic level as well"

For the MUTUAL SURVIVAL of both countries it is our DUTY to address the instability.

Let's keep Nuclear Deterrence and IWT abeyance out of it for now. Otherwise, we will continue to expand the topic without any conclusion.

Pakistan and India are not equal in size. India will continue to attack Pakistan whenever they think they can win. Deterrence simply means that I was on the lower rung of escalation ladder, didn't need to use cruise missiles and still denied India from achieving its goals and brought it to cease fire. Meanwhile, I have shown the whole world that even with my weak economy and issues with internal security, I am still a military peer competetitor to India and a net stabilizer in region. Moreover, it is clear that Pakistan is a more responsible and rational nuclear state than India.

These achievements are clear by Pakistan's recent rise in geopolitical standing. If you think we can completely stop India from attacking us in future, that is not possible unless we match them economically.
So, Deterrence simply means that we thwart their attacks by inflicting more damage and show them that we have the capability to take them on.

This is clear to Indian government and military now, even though not to the people. For now, Indians will not try anything irrespective of public pressure due to fear of losing more jets and equipment.

 

[Ak01]

still denied India from achieving its goals and brought it to cease fire.

you dont really believe this do you...?

on the first night India achieved its goals, the ones they VERY clearly outlined.

Nobody can clearly tell me what Pakistans objective was though can they... nor can they tell me decisively whether we met them...? Though, i can tell you that in my opinion their objective was to give the pop something to eat up, which i guess means it was a success. Militarily though, was a joke...

India literally went and struck every target it wanted to in Pakistan, killing civillians, damaging airbase infra and aircraft, but also killing our SOLDIERS alongside civillians.

We sent over a handful of MLRS and some ineffective drones, none of which hit anything meaningful.

didn't need to use cruise missiles

this is a really creative way to spin our inability to use them. We went from drones and MLRS to straight nuclear sabre rattling, of which, even that didnt manage to stop the Indians, i doubt the one or two cruise missiles we'd have launched would have done much. If anything, theyd probably have been a net negative, exposing tech, flight paths but also the fact that we just dont have many lol.

I am still a military peer competetitor

one, very short engagement is not enough to come to this conclusion lol. If this was the case, many smaller forces can give bloody noses. Heck, is Afghanistan a peer competitor? They're able to launch attacks in Pak with impunity. This is a serious level of cope...

Moreover, it is clear that Pakistan is a more responsible and rational nuclear state than India.

the state that jumps straight to the nuclear threat? really? Heck, its only about to get more dangerous considering nor our conventional, nor nuclear deterrent was effective enough to deter india. Funny deterrence that...

Pakistan's recent rise in geopolitical standing.

lol this 'rise' which brings no real gain, was more linked to the palestinian cause and them wanting our backing.

Indians will not try anything irrespective of public pressure due to fear of losing more jets and equipment.

once again, the Indians made it clear, losses are a part of war... which everyone agrees. Just because Pak has not lost a jet yet, does not mean anything, they only need to get lucky once with a potshot. Losses ARE a part of war, NOBODY in india gives a toss about the loss of jets, because theyre so up their own kool aid they can ignore everything, all they see is the losses inflicted on our side, which were far greater than anything we did to them, and thus, it is a victory. Their objectives were met, i agree, they have risen victorious.

At the end of the day, being able to strike everywhere in Pakistan, every aspect of Pakistani society (kids, civvies, mosques, military, and military personnel) and do it all with relative impunity is a far greater win than shooting down a handful of jets. If that was the deterrent you claim it was, the IAF would not have been active on the remaining days, launching BrahMos' off the SU30s.

This is just delusional

 

[AeronautIR]

you dont really believe this do you...?

on the first night India achieved its goals, the ones they VERY clearly outlined.

Nobody can clearly tell me what Pakistans objective was though can they... nor can they tell me decisively whether we met them...? Though, i can tell you that in my opinion their objective was to give the pop something to eat up, which i guess means it was a success. Militarily though, was a joke...

India literally went and struck every target it wanted to in Pakistan, killing civillians, damaging airbase infra and aircraft, but also killing our SOLDIERS alongside civillians.

We sent over a handful of MLRS and some ineffective drones, none of which hit anything meaningful.

this is a really creative way to spin our inability to use them. We went from drones and MLRS to straight nuclear sabre rattling, of which, even that didnt manage to stop the Indians, i doubt the one or two cruise missiles we'd have launched would have done much. If anything, theyd probably have been a net negative, exposing tech, flight paths but also the fact that we just dont have many lol.


one, very short engagement is not enough to come to this conclusion lol. If this was the case, many smaller forces can give bloody noses. Heck, is Afghanistan a peer competitor? They're able to launch attacks in Pak with impunity. This is a serious level of cope...


the state that jumps straight to the nuclear threat? really? Heck, its only about to get more dangerous considering nor our conventional, nor nuclear deterrent was effective enough to deter india. Funny deterrence that...


lol this 'rise' which brings no real gain, was more linked to the palestinian cause and them wanting our backing.


once again, the Indians made it clear, losses are a part of war... which everyone agrees. Just because Pak has not lost a jet yet, does not mean anything, they only need to get lucky once with a potshot. Losses ARE a part of war, NOBODY in india gives a toss about the loss of jets, because theyre so up their own kool aid they can ignore everything, all they see is the losses inflicted on our side, which were far greater than anything we did to them, and thus, it is a victory. Their objectives were met, i agree, they have risen victorious.

At the end of the day, being able to strike everywhere in Pakistan, every aspect of Pakistani society (kids, civvies, mosques, military, and military personnel) and do it all with relative impunity is a far greater win than shooting down a handful of jets. If that was the deterrent you claim it was, the IAF would not have been active on the remaining days, launching BrahMos' off the SU30s.

This is just delusional

Yes, I do believe that. Indian goals were to enter Pakistani airspace and shoot some PAF jets. Why were they hanging out for an hour if goal was to hit targets to please their population?

I don't know about nuclear saber rattling but what is the evidence that we are unable to use cruise missiles? If we can use CM-400 which is definitely less in numbers than indigenous cruise missiles, I could have easily used them if there was a need.

Afghanistan can't even mount a single conventional attack and it is false equivalence because sub-conventional warfare is a totally different ballgame.

It seems you have some source inside NCA but I am not privy to those meetings and don't know anything about a nuclear threat. Rather, Indian claims show otherwise i.e. Pakistan wasn't ready to use nuclear option.

Here we go again about Indians can hit us but we were unable to hit India. I am the center of universe and it is government's duty to show me proof or otherwise I will not believe that Indians were forced for a cease fire.

Palestinian cause has nothing to do with all this. That conflict has been going on before May and all the state leaders other than USA (like central Asian and Indonesia) don't have a direct role in that conflict.

I am happy with my delusions if that means Indians will stay in their socks. As I said before, if we are underestimating them, it is not you or me who is going to pay the price. The people who face the threat head on do their homework more thoroughly instead of only relying on satellite imagery.

Lastly, the list of funerals in India is far longer than Pakistan. If they are not honoring their dead and lying about cause of death, it doesn't mean I haven't avenged my martyrs. Pakistan is a military peer competitor to India because Indians couldn't prove Pakistan is their Gaza. A limited conflict is only option between two nuclear powers and an all out war to satisfy some people will lead to death of a billion people.

 

[Corax]

you dont really believe this do you...?

on the first night India achieved its goals, the ones they VERY clearly outlined.

Nobody can clearly tell me what Pakistans objective was though can they... nor can they tell me decisively whether we met them...? Though, i can tell you that in my opinion their objective was to give the pop something to eat up, which i guess means it was a success. Militarily though, was a joke...

India literally went and struck every target it wanted to in Pakistan, killing civillians, damaging airbase infra and aircraft, but also killing our SOLDIERS alongside civillians.

We sent over a handful of MLRS and some ineffective drones, none of which hit anything meaningful.

this is a really creative way to spin our inability to use them. We went from drones and MLRS to straight nuclear sabre rattling, of which, even that didnt manage to stop the Indians, i doubt the one or two cruise missiles we'd have launched would have done much. If anything, theyd probably have been a net negative, exposing tech, flight paths but also the fact that we just dont have many lol.


one, very short engagement is not enough to come to this conclusion lol. If this was the case, many smaller forces can give bloody noses. Heck, is Afghanistan a peer competitor? They're able to launch attacks in Pak with impunity. This is a serious level of cope...


the state that jumps straight to the nuclear threat? really? Heck, its only about to get more dangerous considering nor our conventional, nor nuclear deterrent was effective enough to deter india. Funny deterrence that...


lol this 'rise' which brings no real gain, was more linked to the palestinian cause and them wanting our backing.


once again, the Indians made it clear, losses are a part of war... which everyone agrees. Just because Pak has not lost a jet yet, does not mean anything, they only need to get lucky once with a potshot. Losses ARE a part of war, NOBODY in india gives a toss about the loss of jets, because theyre so up their own kool aid they can ignore everything, all they see is the losses inflicted on our side, which were far greater than anything we did to them, and thus, it is a victory. Their objectives were met, i agree, they have risen victorious.

At the end of the day, being able to strike everywhere in Pakistan, every aspect of Pakistani society (kids, civvies, mosques, military, and military personnel) and do it all with relative impunity is a far greater win than shooting down a handful of jets. If that was the deterrent you claim it was, the IAF would not have been active on the remaining days, launching BrahMos' off the SU30s.

This is just delusional

From day 1 all we heard from the mouths of the Pak military was "restraint", and for some bizarre reason "not shaming the Indians" with more losses, while they killed our civilians and military at will. Odd deterrent strategy.

 

[AeronautIR]

Sir, you are confusing Deterrence with Compellence. Pakistan had to compel India to be on the table after deterrence failed. Deterrence means that enemy will not initiate any sort of hostalities at all. We maintained deterrence in 2001 stand-off. In 2008 stand-off. But since 2019, our conventional deterrence has failed twice in last 6 years alone. Now, this argument of compellance is also questionable here as we have no clear answer who and why this offramp took place. Both sides claim that other side asked for offramp.
For a moment if we buy this "not rubbing it in Modi's face" argument, it was ok 7 months ago, what's stopping PAF now? Why no satellite image, weapon feed, or post strike images/video exists? This question is critical because like of Air Crd (R) Khalid Chishti made claims that in 4-5 hours of 10th May PAF threw more ordinance on Indians than it could in 17 days of 1965 war. Now, after such claims, is it illogical to ask for just couple of images to confirm these claims?

I already said these IR concepts are subjective and I can share literature with you that doesn't define deterrence in this way. There was complete mobilization in 2001 and many Indian soldiers died during the movement. India learned from those mistakes and just used air force with stand-off weapons in 2019 and 2025. There is simply no comparison.

If you think deterrence means that India will not lob few bombs to copy Israel Air force, that is not a realistic expectation. They will repeat it in future too by use of airpower.

Deterrence means that you deny them from achieving their goals and then inflict punishment to bring them on table for cease fire. We should be their equal in economy and resources before even thinking about the kind of deterrence you have mentioned.