Pakistan-India Conflict 2025: News Updates and Discussion

[Ali_Baba]

"Slight" miscalculation that PL15 would be used by limited number of J10s...
...it's also operational with JF17.

As far as we know so far, it is only operational with the JF17C (Block 3) variant only. The issue of compatability with Block 1/2 is unknown at this point.,

 

[Maarkhoor]

As far as we know so far, it is only operational with the JF17C (Block 3) variant only. The issue of compatability with Block 1/2 is unknown at this point.,

Block 2 I am 100 sure it can fire all the weapons as JF17 B 3.

JF17 B 1 being updated even few updated already to B3 already.

 

[Ali_Baba]

Block 2 I am 100 sure it can fire all the weapons as JF17 B 3.

JF17 B 1 being updated even few updated already to B3 already.

There is no upgrade path from Block I to Block III due to structural design changes to accommodate the needs of Block III.

I would like to see a PL15E hanging off a JF17 Block I/II for sure, but as yet as have only seen dual rack launchers with SD-10s on the early models.

 

[NA71]

before Any Attack on Iran ...we might see a repeat of May 10, 2025 Indo-Pak conflict.

 

[Cookie Monster]

There is no upgrade path from Block I to Block III due to structural design changes to accommodate the needs of Block III.

I would like to see a PL15E hanging off a JF17 Block I/II for sure, but as yet as have only seen dual rack launchers with SD-10s on the early models.

Last I heard(unsure of how credible that is)...all block I JF17s were updated to block II...so there are no more block I JF17s in PAF.

Either way..given the fact that China has already exported the missile to Pakistan...both the missiles and the jets are of Chinese origin and they allowed for its integration with block III.
...it wouldn't require much work to integrate it with block I and II(if it's not already done) just for them to be firing platforms. As in those jets can "receive" targeting data(or way point) from other sensors for the PL15E...feed it to the missile and fire.

 

[Baibers_1260]

While all good points...
...I would disagree slightly bcuz things have changed now. The previous gen aircrafts weren't as capable...and the entire infrastructure and doctrine wasn't as centralized as it is now...
...u could even theoretically miss the enemy approaching right behind u.

The USAF used F-4 Phantoms and F-111 aircraft, which had significant radar detection and targeting capabilities for the era. Phantoms were armed with Sidewinders AAMs and later early versions of the AMRAAMs . The Phantoms carried a weapons officer in the backseat managing the radar including MAWS. All these functions still exist on modern aircraft but are handled by the automated controls and software instead of a human controller.
The Phantom F-4s were fighting cannon armed Mig 17 and Mig 19 fighters with optical sights only. Even the handful of Mig 21s had just two Atoll missiles, easily defeated by flares, The Phantoms wreaked havoc on the Migs when engaging them at long range. It was only when using the weather and cloud cover the Migs closed in for an old style cannon only engagement that the Phantoms lacking cannons were shot down. The VPAF Mig pilots even used their colleagues as sacrificial decoys ( at a horrific cost) to make the Phantoms expend their missiles before closing in for a cannon kill. It was not the aircraft but the way they were used, then called "guerilla war fare in the skies ".

Nowadays with ground radars, AWACS, satellites(military ones), and generally very capable radars of individual fighter jets themselves along with much more capable missiles...
...those days of old like a base and hangers hidden in a thick forest for cover...are gone. So the enemy will for the most part see u(and u will see the enemy)...and that would lead to far greater attrition rate(on both sides).

The USAF had satellite surveillance, including high flying U2 and SR-71 aircraft in that era. VPAF bases were well marked. and repeatedly hit, both by F105 Thunderchiefs , and high flying B-52s. It was difficult to put the bases out of action for long periods as the Mig 17s were configured to take off from short dirt runways. Mud packed runways hit by Paveway bombs ( designed to take out concrete runways) were quickly and easily repaired. Attacking VPAF bases with B-52s required immense courage given the dense SA-2 Guideline SAM defenses . The SAM batteries were manned by Soviet operators .
There were also mini-AWACS in action, mostly naval versions such as E2C Hawkeye. Even for that era SEAD was quite advanced with specially equipped F-4 Wild Weasel aircraft and early variants of EA-18 Growler. electronic warfare aircraft. Despite this the VPAF survived.

For example current Vietnamese air force would find it much harder to replicate such success against current USAF..simply due to the above. Most likely current USAF would decimate current Vietnamese air force relatively quickly and establish air superiority.

It is hard to confirm this one way or another. The Ukrainian air force is still flying, despite four years of war against a vastly superior Russian Air Force, Even the tiny Serbian air force put up a fight against a vastly superior NATO force,

Modern and future wars will have to be fought more strategically...strategic in terms of stealth(of body and electromagnetic spectrum for sources emitting electromagnetic waves)..bcuz that's what will hide u...

The electromagnetic spectrum has been a factor in warfare since 1939, when the first primitive radar chains and C3 networks were set up by the UK. Germany developed advanced radars both ground based and airborne not just for detection of aircraft but also for targeting coupling the systems to high altitude anti-aircraft artillery, A naval variant on heavy battleships caused losses to British warships ( HMS Hood ) . Radio direction beams guided horizontal bombers to deliver massive precise bombing raids in pitch dark and cloudy weather such as the strike on the British armaments production center at Coventry in 1940. Despite early efforts at jamming and spoofing ( chaff etc.) the UK gained the upper hand only through massive attrition sustainability, when the USA and the Soviet Union joined the fight.

...and more importantly being able to take out high value targets relatively quickly like AWACS, ground radars, C2 nodes, etc...whether jamming or hard kills.
...this all means more expensive toys...more money required...and that too favors India rn.

The Russian Air Force using ALCM, glide bombs, and drones, have hit every single C3 center and air base in Ukraine and in the process have also lost quite a few A-50 aircraft themselves. The Ukrainian Air Force is still flying. Like wise Ukraine backed by a $22.5 trillion EU and $30.5 trillion US economy, 30 NATO country alliance and with state of the art NATO standard weaponry has failed to defeat a near bankrupt Russia with a struggling $2,5 trillion economy. Even after 2 million soldiers killed including dozens of generals Russia is still fighting and refusing to let go of 20% of the Ukrainian territory it controls

..it's a very good thing that they continue to drop the ball...otherwise...Pakistan wouldn't have enjoyed the successes it has attained.

Another flashback.. In 1962 a famine stricken China, sanctioned isolated and cut off ( without even a UN membership) armed with primitive weapons, and an air force grounded for lack of Soviet Union sanctioned spares soundly beat India with the then strongest air-force in South Asia. India lost 38,000 sq.km of crucial territory. India's large fleet of Canberra bombers fast and near undetectable by radars of the era and capable of devastating Beijing didn't help. For that matter neither did the baton swinging brillantine-on-the-mustache Sandhurst trained officer corp fare well against the peasant turned soldier staff of the PLA in actual combat.

It's the will to fight that is equally important as the "money". India with its "4 trillion " economy has not even the fraction of the courage near bankrupt Russia has to take out a seven times inferior enemy, Russia and Ukraine do not have Bollywood however

 

[Psyko70]

Guys what is this. Was going from 2 talwar to punjab chowrangi. Direction of this trail was towards boat basin. Plus it was really fast. At 4.55 pm today.

Thick trail is 4.55 and thin one was like 5.05 pm

 

[Maarkhoor]

There is no upgrade path from Block I to Block III due to structural design changes to accommodate the needs of Block III.

I would like to see a PL15E hanging off a JF17 Block I/II for sure, but as yet as have only seen dual rack launchers with SD-10s on the early models.

PL15 E hanging long long time search google on JF 17 B 2.

 

[hasssanali8998]

Squadron Leader Muhammad Osama Ishfaq

is he responsible for the shootdown ??

 

[hasssanali8998]

Guys what is this. Was going from 2 talwar to punjab chowrangi. Direction of this trail was towards boat basin. Plus it was really fast. At 4.55 pm today.

Thick trail is 4.55 and thin one was like 5.05 pm

just contrails man .

 

[Psyko70]

ACE of PAF

PL15 spotted on JF-17 Block 2 under trials in the skies of Pakistan. Earlier PAF has received it's first consignment of 100 PL15 missiles from China for integration on it's existing fleet of Thunders.

www.facebook.com

@Ali_Baba

This sir ?

 

[Ali_Baba]

ACE of PAF

PL15 spotted on JF-17 Block 2 under trials in the skies of Pakistan. Earlier PAF has received it's first consignment of 100 PL15 missiles from China for integration on it's existing fleet of Thunders.

www.facebook.com

@Ali_Baba

This sir ?

Thanks - but that picture was considered to be a fake at the time.

 

[RescueRanger]

Guys what is this. Was going from 2 talwar to punjab chowrangi. Direction of this trail was towards boat basin. Plus it was really fast. At 4.55 pm today.

Thick trail is 4.55 and thin one was like 5.05 pm

Shabaaz 1 test.

 

[TF8]

No, it is not. Even if it is integrated, JF-17 radar isn’t good enough to exploit its full capability. But, I wouldn’t take it lightly and advise caution. Since taking an adversary lightly would be foolish.


2019 and 2025 were both skirmishes. Both sides were restrained more so India, to not go full scale. In a limited theatre one weapon can create an asymmetry which was shown very well by PAF in employing AMRAAM and PL-15. What if the initial strike by India was of the same nature as on 10th but much bigger scale? Critical runways taken down, radars destroyed and C2 nodes made redundant in the very first strike. So a skirmish and a bigger conflict can have different outcomes. 10th May was a very good peek at that.

It is being claimed that IAF was on ground for the entire duration and also that major IAF AD assets were neutralised. If that was so, what did PAF do to exploit that situation?

Nothing. Nothing verifiable except tall claims and fanboy brigade using Google earth images and claiming moon.

So the success on 7th didn’t translate into anything great after that day. This shows that PAF has it’s own limitations which were exposed even more on the 10th by Indian commanders.


Landing at motorways as a last measure is not like operating from a base. Motorways can’t give same level of support to carry out full blown operations as an airbase.

Damage to runways aren’t for permanency but to create a window of opportunity. It was displayed by Indian commanders by striking Sargodha runway. 2-3 more craters at Sargodha would have made it non operational for atleast 8-10 hours. Any aircraft at the base would have remained stuck. So it is not as simple as being made by you. It wasn’t done since it wasn’t intended. It was to show how far, how deep and how accurately Indian forces can strike.

Now, I am not claiming that a bigger conflict would have only positives for India. A bigger conflict can be messy and unpredictable for everyone.

Thats why no one wanted it. Thats why both sides decided to back down and agree to a ceasefire.

Now say all of this without crying

 

[Cipher212]

No, it is not. Even if it is integrated, JF-17 radar isn’t good enough to exploit its full capability. But, I wouldn’t take it lightly and advise caution. Since taking an adversary lightly would be foolish.
.

Why would we go through the trouble of getting both single and dual racks for PL-15s just to display them? Also, who said PL-15 has to be guided by JF radar alone