Pakistan-India Conflict 2025: News Updates and Discussion

[Oscar]

Theoretically, with 400 km range, S-400 coverage was in all bases. @side-winder am I right?

As I pointed out to the typical nationalist subjects from the Indian side - the 400km range is limited to the 40N6 missile.
But the missile isnt the problem either:
At low/medium altitudes, engagement is usually sensor/line-of-sight limited, not missile-range limited. Radar horizon is commonly modeled with the 4/3 Earth radius assumption (standard refraction), giving the well-known radar horizon relationship.

If the S-400 battery radar is near ground level (say 10 m antenna height as an order-of-magnitude):A 10,000 ft target is only line-of-sight visible at roughly ~230–250 km for a ground-based radar at typical antenna heights.
To have pure geometric line-of-sight to a 10,000 ft target at 375 km, the radar would need to be about ~1.3 km (~4,200 ft) above the surrounding terrain (e.g., a high mountain site), or you’d need an elevated sensor (airborne/balloon/etc.) providing track/quality cueing.

@side-winder could confirm.
The 400 km figure commonly quoted for the S-400 (with long-range interceptors) assumes:

• High-altitude targets (tens of thousands of feet)
• Clear line-of-sight for most of the flight
• Ideal detection, tracking, and cueing conditions

Those assumptions do not hold for low-altitude aircraft or cruise-missile-like profiles.

Next:

Low altitude = late detection + compressed timeline​

• Detection happens much later
• Engagement window shrinks dramatically
• Missile flies a shorter, steeper, more energy-wasting profile

This further reduces practical engagement distance beyond the pure geometry limit.

Now interestingly - because of this pure physics limitation the HQ-9B which advertises 260-300km has a practical range against a 10kft target of 180-230km.. and the S-400 which advertises 400km has a practical range of 200-250km. So they actually become "equivalent" of sorts.

More interesting is that HQ-9B(by nature of later development and PLA Philosophy vs Russian) has greater emphasis on networked ground radars and overlapping sensors can feed into it better instead of relying on just it's own sensors which India has been trying to(but no news of success) in overcoming.

Then there are the missiles:
The S-400's theoretical missile range with thumping types bring (because they like copy pasting fast) is the 40N6 - but that system is focused more on high altitude targets like AEW systems and in turn needs cueing by a higher sensor(which even the Russians have struggled with getting the A-50 to work properly).
The missile itself is extremely sophisticated(with ML elements) and high ECCM and an active seeker. But is also expensive AF.

The primary weapon is the 48N6DM which is a Semi-Active seeker and good ECCM but is reliant on the Illumination radar from the S-400 complex.

The HQ-9B on the other hand has one "jack of all trades" missile with an AESA seeker and generally good ECCM due to that seeker but missile motor and kinematics arent as good as S-400. But in all respects a "jack of all trades is a master of none but is better than a master of one".

So when it comes to actual performance against the most common of targets - the performance of HQ-9B and S-400 start narrowing down to a similar class.

So while I don't really want to get into a comparison, the point I make here is the S-400 is a great system but it was designed for a very particular mix of threat scenarios including ABM which Hq-9B isn't the best for - but then the brochure talks to the ABM use case as baseline when it is INFACT a NICHE use case.

So in realitiy, while the S-400 provides "coverage" out to 400km across India - it actually is not effective nor "covering" most of India when it comes to both typical fighter profiles, cruise missiles and in certain cases even hypersonic.

Which is why India now wants the S-500 for Hypersonics because that is what that system is optimized for - it is NOT a better system against the other majority of air threats versus the S-400 but a ABM component because surprise surprise - AAD and PAAD arent "perfect".

 

[Oscar]

Since I am on this theme - the actual primary threats to PAF aircraft, weapons(incl cruise and other standoff systems) is from MRSAM(on land) and LRSAM(on Ships).
Unlike these longer ranged missiles these systems do not use lofting profiles to achieve range and instead rely on full burn and extreme agility along with AESA seekers to ensure a high pk.
If anything, any PAF aircraft that is engaged by them is likely 95% dead unless they turn full tail , jettison everything and expend all their countermeasures and hope their ECM works.

 

[Oscar]

From that perspective - if PN can score the CAMM-ER it will have a potentially better system for taking out the Brahmos threat than the LRSAM because CAMM-ER is even more optimized for that last few second endgame.


On that subject -
The LY-80 is also fairly agile and based on the positioning of the TEL has perhaps milliseconds or microseconds faster reaction than MRSAM but less maneuverability.
The concept for PLA with HQ-16 was fire more - whereas for Barak-8 was ensure hit more.

Unfortunately for Pakistan, India has more of the hit more while it has less of the fire more.

 

[Oscar]

Now if there was another system being bought for Pakistan and money was no object - the SAMP is simply gold. Not only can it engage the Brahmos well out there, it can hit Scalp and also take out KH-31 systems.
moi moi expensive - but to assuage @Ak01 's and @JamD 's valid concerns it is the gold standard. But then would the French ok it? after what they have endured? I certainly doubt it.

Tier down could be CAMM-ER and having it common with the PN would be a cherry on top.

Lastly, you have HQ-22 or HQ-17 - I dont know which of them is actually cleared for export(@Michael ).

 

[airhead]

Indians obsession with shooting down Fatah rockets . Here are some example of them referring to their own wreckage of S-125 missile as Fatah rockets.

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

View attachment 167596
View attachment 167597

Sorry but fateh was useless in sindoor…didn’t see any air field or infrastructure damage as was shown by Indians with brahmos. I think they are much slower than brahmos so easier to spoof so looks like we could not get through Indian air defense. We need to up our game on the missile front ..my recommendation is to give this to PAF

 

[flyingorca]

Sorry but fateh was useless in sindoor…didn’t see any air field or infrastructure damage as was shown by Indians with brahmos. I think they are much slower than brahmos so easier to spoof so looks like we could not get through Indian air defense. We need to up our game on the missile front ..my recommendation is to give this to PAF

They served very well. Had Pakistan hit Indian bases with same proportion then Pakistan would have an upper hand i.e 6-0 and equal amount of damage on surface. Do you think India would have stayed quite? This would have definitely escalated the conflict into something much bigger. So what Pakistan did was mainly targeted vicinity of the actual target example Bahramos storage facility however some targets were direct hit.

IMO there is also some propaganda from our sides but not same level as Indian. Pakistan is also including strikes thay were warning shots where rockets were intentionally made to land in vicinity of the target. Alot of them were made to fall in wooded area to avoid casualties and to de-escalate. If Pakistani rockets fell inside india without being intercepted then that means their AD failed to achive 100% success as claimed by majority of Indians.
Had Pakistan not struck S400 radar then India won air to surface surface to Surface warfare by a HUGE margin. But of course yet again PAF dominated the sky with 6-0 record.

 

[airhead]

They served very well. Had Pakistan hit Indian bases with same proportion then Pakistan would have an upper hand i.e 6-0 and equal amount of damage on surface. Do you think India would have stayed quite? This would have definitely escalated the conflict into something much bigger. So what Pakistan did was mainly targeted vicinity of the actual target example Bahramos storage facility however some targets were direct hit.

You serious? Dude we needed to show Indians who the boss Simao that they never try this again but you gave them a chance to hit out bases without demonstrating that we can do the same …I think they are what you are saying is bullshit …we launched a bunch of fateh but sadly they were intercepted except for the one that hit udhampur with superficial damage

 

[Oscar]

You serious? Dude we needed to show Indians who the boss Simao that they never try this again but you gave them a chance to hit out bases without demonstrating that we can do the same …I think they are what you are saying is bullshit …we launched a bunch of fateh but sadly they were intercepted except for the one that hit udhampur with superficial damage

THERE IS NO WAY - NO WAY you can prevent damage to PAF bases at 100% guarantee.
You think Indians are a joke? The best AD in the world isnt a 100%.

Yes, your long range vectors didn't do much damage to them because their AD simply is too heavily saturated. A few successes were seen on closer fronts namely because just like your systems aren't everywhere theirs arent. But the damage reports are mostly HUMINT or electronic claims.

Your success was being able to somewhat pierce this so called "iron wall" the typical emoji commentary types on this forum claimed - but then you had no good weapon to exploit it because you faced their very deadly Base/area defense systems in Barak and other systems.

In my view the claims made by Pakistan are half baked at best and more a case of confirmation bias unless they can provide images of the strikes as was in the Swift retort documentary.

More likely weapons were launched and they landed or were taken out but since BDA had no imagery attached to it it has been assumed that hits happened.

This isnt even a case of who do you believe as in 65 Pathankot strike where Indians claimed Mystère were hit instead of PAF claim of Mig-21 where strike folks said it was Mig-21 because they identified delta planforms from their low altitude(but high speed) cannon passes.

Right now you have no imagery regardless of the Ives or Jives on Twitter or otherwise nor even cohesive HUMINT from India(because they were VERY coordinated in taking videos down or out on YT, FB and Insta) talking to damage at bases.

Meanwhile, even though the C-130 is fine and the C2 was a husk with not much material loss - there is a long video by every mai ka laal for Nur Khan.

There is pretty undisputed evidence of Major PAF base even if no aircraft other than Erieye was damaged.

What you have is verified wreckage of a Rafale, Su-30, Mirage 2000 and Mig-29 along with various scattered Harop series all over civilian areas in Pakistan barring that single hit of ancillary equipment in Lahore.

The result is simple, India did damage in different ways compared to you.
They had their success and you had yours.
Now debate endlessly which was more "impactful".

So with all due respect and consideration to the "restraint" narrative - I think whoever made the claim on "We had lock on A-50 but kept restraint" is being a chad trying to cover up that they nearly had a total loss of their HVAA.

 

[Michael]

Lastly, you have HQ-22 or HQ-17 - I dont know which of them is actually cleared for export(@Michael ).

Both the HQ-22 and HQ-17 can be exported, and they have already been exported to other countries.

The HQ-22 (export code FK-3) is a medium-range, medium-to-high altitude, regional and point defense air defense system. It is a cost-effective air defense system and is compatible with the earlier HQ-2/HQ-12 air defense systems.


The HQ-17 (export code HQ-17AE) is an all-weather, medium-to-low altitude, short-range, mobile air defense system. It is responsible for providing air defense support to field units, protecting moving armored units, command posts, etc. It is specifically designed to intercept low-altitude and ultra-low-altitude penetrating helicopters, drones, and cruise missiles.


The two systems are completely different in nature.

It's important to note that:
A complete HQ-22 air defense system consists of numerous units, including multiple launch vehicles, guidance radar vehicles, command vehicles, reloading vehicles, power supply vehicles, and other components. In the military system, a complete system constitutes a battalion-level unit. It requires a complete system to function properly and cannot be broken down into individual components.
The HQ-17 is completely different. A single HQ-17 air defense vehicle is a self-contained unit, containing all the necessary elements. It can be used independently, or multiple HQ-17 launch vehicles can be linked together to form a larger system, or it can be integrated with other air defense systems into a larger, comprehensive air defense system.

 

[Watandar]

And the very next day after those strikes India told pakistan that we are good and will not strike or any more targets on cameras on 8th May morning but Pakistan wanted to continue despite claims of dropping down half a squadron or so of IAF

That was the delusion and stupidity of India to attack a country, kill its people and then tell them "we are good". India got a severe dose of reality not only that day but several days afterwards and left the battlefield in a hurry.

 

[falcon34]

They served very well. Had Pakistan hit Indian bases with same proportion then Pakistan would have an upper hand i.e 6-0 and equal amount of damage on surface. Do you think India would have stayed quite? This would have definitely escalated the conflict into something much bigger. So what Pakistan did was mainly targeted vicinity of the actual target example Bahramos storage facility however some targets were direct hit.

Exactly for example the the recruitment office in amritsar.
Second thing is they were not volume launches, we fired less number of F1 rockets than the indians fired SCMs.
Majority of the targets were C2 or control centers like udhampur, more imager will surface with time, Second thing pak mauled the cantts really, jhalandhar, amritsar, hisar and mamun cantt all were hit quite well

 

[Oscar]

Exactly for example the the recruitment office in amritsar.
Second thing is they were not volume launches, we fired less number of F1 rockets than the indians fired SCMs.
Majority of the targets were C2 or control centers like udhampur, more imager will surface with time, Second thing pak mauled the cantts really, jhalandhar, amritsar, hisar and mamun cantt all were hit quite well

Yes, and Ive heard that narrative as well.
Cantts had a lot of arty and the Indians were shell shocked(to use the pun) from the shoot and scoot tactics by PA with reportedly their TPQ-37 and Swathi deployments(by the time they finally got them up) completely useless in terms of timely data on Pak arty.

However, recruitment office or otherwise even if was intended is a rather "dhobi ka gadha" target.

Even if we accept the C2 claims - unless you have BDA from that instant - positioning satellites months after the hit for any imagery is pretty pointless considering a lot can be done in that timeframe.

I have heard from direct sources as well - including those on the ground "live".
But unlike the Indians with their timed Maxar orders - you have nothing to show for it as of now and the Indians have provided their own flood of pictures (some from image sat updates) that seem to belie your claims.

I'll go back to the same view I narrated after SR - I have the highest trust in the people who told me regarding MKI kill including their relevance to actual operation in terms of being in the air at the time. However, since they have not shown me evidence they claim they have first hand, and I cannot share it first hand here either. Even my "Trust me bro" isnt worth too much.

 

[Oscar]

Just like he made a claim of 5 pak aircraft being shot down.
Never believing this clown, truth just slipped out

At the end, everyone who was part of ops that day - including people who I inferred earlier on SR say the same thing - "What utter Bakwas".
Pakistanis were recording every AAA shell up and down with actual "roof parties" on at night other than certain very scared aunties in Lahore... and this man is claiming PAF aircraft falling in generally heavy population concentrated areas of Pakistan was missed by all and no videos of pilots or wreckage appeared where in their case there are videos and images in even remote areas where there is little population.

 

[rafale]

They have 3 operational batteries:
Adampur, Bhuj and one to the north west of Dehli.
Adampur and Bhuj were priority one. After the SEAD effort against them the Dehli battery was withdrawn as well - remember these arent exactly cheap systems regardless of how big India's coffers are and if you have ever seen the smart Indian folks they throw a hissy fit if their cheap model Y gets a scratch so imagine their concern with the S-400.

Barak 8's arent at every base yet regardless of Bharat Rikshaw claims - they have yet to fully get their networking properly operational in every one of their bases although have made great strides. Their primary fallback was still what works which is the Pechora.

You can imagine how poor their networking use and implementation actually is regardless of the hulabullo they made around IACCS that they completely grounded every friendly(but not civillian interestingly) flight in particular areas during the nights for BuM. Which tells you that they have all the academic books and systems but cannot trust any of their controllers to coordinate even piecemeal AD against drones.

SAM systems form part of a layer, they cannot be the only layer.

If they are still using or trying to use S125 Pechora then i think there are bigger systemic problems underlying with their mentality and readiness....doesn't matter how many missiles or launchers you still have....it is just an antiquated system today.

 

[rafale]

Interesting...I always thought the inter-communication between the different components would be hard wired. Learn something new everyday!

The way HQ-9 and S400 are designed to be spread out it is not possible to have hard wiring. maybe there is an option to lay shorter Fiber optic links, but a single radar and fire control radar is supposed to provide inputs to multiple TELs which may be spread few KM apart.

So laying and packing up that much communication cable would be time consuming.