Pakistan-India Conflict 2025: News Updates and Discussion

Corax said:
The downside is that we revealed too much of our capability. The test now comes when the IAF adopts a similar approach.

What's also interesting is that there was no mention of the use of AWACs by the IAF?
Click to expand...
Apparently they are fine tuning their kill zones for the next round 🙄
 
Maarkhoor said:
:unsure:

.. ..... ......
Click to expand...
The Chinese HQ‑19 is an advanced anti-ballistic missile (ABM) system with impressive capabilities:
• Interceptor range: Approximately 3,000 km, allowing engagement of medium-range ballistic missiles well beyond national borders .
• Engagement altitude: Up to around 200 km, enabling exo-atmospheric intercepts .
• Detection radar: Paired with a Type 610A AESA radar that claims detection ranges up to 4,000 km .

In short, the HQ‑19 system covers extremely long distances (≈1,800 miles) and operates at very high altitudes, filling a strategic interception layer comparable to Western systems like THAAD or SM‑3.

Are important HQ‑9, HQ‑16, HQ‑22
 
Cash gk said:
My understanding , as you know, the PAF played this one very smart. Our fighters deliberately kept their radars cold — no emissions, no radar lock — which meant Indian RWRs weren’t picking up any spikes. That kept their situational picture degraded from the start.

They had about 70 aircraft up — a lot of noise, a big formation, but also a lot of clutter and risk of fratricide on their side. We leveraged that chaos.

The key move was this: we fired PL-15s without active radar guidance — essentially using an off-board firing doctrine. The AirEye (AEW&C) platforms were providing the track data, and the mid-course updates were controlled through datalink. The missiles only went active on terminal phase — around 50 km out — which gave the Indians very little reaction time.

On top of that, SIGINT teams were monitoring Indian comms — we had a pretty good read on what their pilots were seeing and feeling. Once we heard the panic and the loss of SA (situational awareness) on their side, we adjusted the engagement picture accordingly.

Now here’s where it got interesting — when they couldn’t get a bead on either our fighters or the PL-15 tracks, and couldn’t build a coherent air picture, they resorted to launching S-400s in a reactionary way. They mistakenly thought some of our platforms had already penetrated their airspace — which was not the case. It was a textbook example of forcing the enemy into a degraded cognitive state and provoking premature defensive fires.

Bottom line this engagement validated the combined use of passive fighter tactics, off-board missile guidance, and real-time SIGINT exploitation. They were simply outplayed at every level.
Click to expand...
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.



They are trying to deter Pakistan and we are trying to deter india lol
 
Corax said:
The downside is that we revealed too much of our capability. The test now comes when the IAF adopts a similar approach.

What's also interesting is that there was no mention of the use of AWACs by the IAF?
Click to expand...

I agree in that the "soft kill capability" that affected their CM and drones should not have been revealed, there was no value in doing that, and it was best to leave the Indians guessing on what happened. Now, they know.

I don't think PAF cracked their comms. I think the EW was so dense that the bandwidth was not there, or secure comms frequencies were targeted/saturated such that they were forced to use open-comms only, which meant PAF listened in. i.e. PAF took out their secure comms frequencies, not cracked them.

The ABC kill model is well known by many air arms so i don't think that was that much of a secret, and the IAF would have worked that out by the way their fighters were shot down.

The range of the PL15E was exposed for sure, but that was going to happen regardless and that setup a new deterrence that will take India some time to overcome anyway(along with trying to adopt the ABC kill chain model).

The IAF AEW&C was aways are pretty poor, it is a by product of their Russian style training and thinking that favours ground based radars. The Phalcon's are old and have had very questionable capability anyway. They don't have enough of their home grown solution to provide coverage(capability aside of course). I do wonder what their next AEW&C move will be? Will they double down on homegrown or go for the Wedgetail which has maintenance commonality with their P8s.
 
Ali_Baba said:
I agree in that the "soft kill capability" that affected their CM and drones should not have been revealed, there was no value in doing that, and it was best to leave the Indians guessing on what happened. Now, they know.

I don't think PAF cracked their comms. I think the EW was so dense that the bandwidth was not there, or secure comms frequencies were targeted/saturated such that they were forced to use open-comms only, which meant PAF listened in. i.e. PAF took out their secure comms frequencies, not cracked them.

The ABC kill model is well known by many air arms so i don't think that was that much of a secret, and the IAF would have worked that out by the way their fighters were shot down.

The range of the PL15E was exposed for sure, but that was going to happen regardless and that setup a new deterrence that will take India some time to overcome anyway(along with trying to adopt the ABC kill chain model).

The IAF AEW&C was aways are pretty poor, it is a by product of their Russian style training and thinking that favours ground based radars. The Phalcon's are old and have had very questionable capability anyway. They don't have enough of their home grown solution to provide coverage(capability aside of course). I do wonder what their next AEW&C move will be? Will they double down on homegrown or go for the Wedgetail which has maintenance commonality with their P8s.
Click to expand...

This is the dilemma, US will not allow E-7 to be linked to non US/NATO assets. Will make the SU-30s, Tejas, MIG-29s exposed.

Looks like Neta played no role in 7th May either
 
Ali_Baba said:
I agree in that the "soft kill capability" that affected their CM and drones should not have been revealed, there was no value in doing that, and it was best to leave the Indians guessing on what happened. Now, they know.

I don't think PAF cracked their comms. I think the EW was so dense that the bandwidth was not there, or secure comms frequencies were targeted/saturated such that they were forced to use open-comms only, which meant PAF listened in. i.e. PAF took out their secure comms frequencies, not cracked them.

The ABC kill model is well known by many air arms so i don't think that was that much of a secret, and the IAF would have worked that out by the way their fighters were shot down.

The range of the PL15E was exposed for sure, but that was going to happen regardless and that setup a new deterrence that will take India some time to overcome anyway(along with trying to adopt the ABC kill chain model).

The IAF AEW&C was aways are pretty poor, it is a by product of their Russian style training and thinking that favours ground based radars. The Phalcon's are old and have had very questionable capability anyway. They don't have enough of their home grown solution to provide coverage(capability aside of course). I do wonder what their next AEW&C move will be? Will they double down on homegrown or go for the Wedgetail which has maintenance commonality with their P8s.
Click to expand...
It also raises an important question, if the 'kill web' is so effective, why do we need complex, expensive manned fighters with sophisticated AESA radars and other equipment? Why not just use networked UCAVs that effectively act like missiles trucks, positioning themselves for favourable firing solutions based on updates from AEWAC and other sensors? Developing relatively cheap, stealth, small UCAVS that carry multiple long range A2A missiles, all networked, would be extremely difficult to counter and very effective in terms of cost and efficacy. I guess this is where things are going with 'loyal wingmen' types, and gaining a stake in something like the Turkish Kizelma is the right first move.
 
To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 78 (members: 1, guests: 77)

Pakistan Defence Latest

Country Watch Latest

Latest Posts

Share this page

Back
Top