The Kashmir conflict 2025.

Status
Not open for further replies.

Observer1

Junior Member
Registered Member
1. Hypersonic, non ballistic missiles of over 400-500nm capable of evasive maneuvers with high single launch hit probability.

2. Long range high altitude disposable drones with loitering capabilities.

3. Keep building up AD density, keep adding layers across the spectrum.

4. More Hardened PAF bases. Pakistan has narrow geography but is also blessed with mountain ranges across the North and Western Geography. Lets not discount the cards we have.

5. J-35s

6. Stealthy CCAs, capable of independant SEAD.

7. Keep building up the edge PK has like network centrism, EW, AWACS, datalinks etc.

8. Able to react immediately, no need to wait 2 days.

9. PL-16s/17s, no need to announce these publicly. Let their AWACS also eat shit next time.

If economy can be stabilized with 3-5% growth, these can be afforded over a period of 10 years.
For point #1, that would imply hypersonic cruise missiles which only very few countries in the world possess the tech for and would require significant R&D costs for Pakistan to acquire given its weak industrial and STEM base.

China will almost certainly not share PL-16/17 I feel, it's just too advanced.

I think Pakistan definitely needs to invest in more high-speed long-range maneuverable missiles that can reliably hit targets deep in India.

I also think it should build underground or mountainous air & missile bases in Balochistan, which gives it the best depth against India.
 
It’s not meaningless in an air-to-air configuration.

But yes, if carrying fuel tanks and heavy weapons and presenting its side to the enemy radar the RCS will be substantial.

101 found in their simulation that the air-to-air configuration with 4 Meteor missiles had half the RCS of the air-to-ground configuration and was only marginally worse compared to a clean configuration.
At least some Rafales were carrying heavy AGMs, negating most of their RCS reduction features.
 

LCR34

Junior Member
Registered Member
1. Hypersonic, non ballistic missiles of over 400-500nm capable of evasive maneuvers with high single launch hit probability.

2. Long range high altitude disposable drones with loitering capabilities.

3. Keep building up AD density, keep adding layers across the spectrum.

4. More Hardened PAF bases. Pakistan has narrow geography but is also blessed with mountain ranges across the North and Western Geography. Lets not discount the cards we have.

5. J-35s

6. Stealthy CCAs, capable of independant SEAD.

7. Keep building up the edge PK has like network centrism, EW, AWACS, datalinks etc.

8. Able to react immediately, no need to wait 2 days.

9. PL-16s/17s, no need to announce these publicly. Let their AWACS also eat shit next time.

If economy can be stabilized with 3-5% growth, these can be afforded over a period of 10 years.
1. I'd place economy at the first place.
2. Rocket artillery/tactical missile that can hit 300-600km.
3. Drone swarm like shaheed , loitering drones etc.
4. Layered AD as said, cheaper ones compared to HQ9 and HQ16, probably HQ22,HQ11,HQ17AE or even turkish system if they can integrate.

Others i agree on above list.
 
Last edited:

Temstar

Brigadier
Registered Member
Could you possibly provide an English translation?

Only because you asked nicely and I've been setup recently to do a lot of translation work:

Weekly Military Review: If the PLAAF Trains World-Class Air Forces, What Tier Does It Belong To?

After two relatively calm days, Pakistan launched "Operation Bunyan Marsoos" against India on May 10, employing long-range rocket artillery, drones, and other means to strike Indian territory in response to India’s persistent aggression and provocations. The May 7 Indo-Pakistani air battle, which had stunned the world, suddenly seemed like a mere prelude to a "Fourth Indo-Pakistani War." Yet before the world could fully react, the foreign ministers of both nations announced a ceasefire on the afternoon of May 10, temporarily halting this "turn-based conflict."

While commentary struggles to keep pace with the rapidly shifting situation, this military analysis steps back from the fog of war to revisit the undisputed victor of the recent air battle: the Pakistani Air Force (PAF)—a "star student" long trained in joint exercises with China’s People’s Liberation Army Air Force (PLAAF), often mistaken by some as a "junior mentor" due to its boldness and unyielding spirit.

This globally headline-grabbing air battle has propelled the PAF into the ranks of world-class air forces overnight. But what calibre of training produced such a force?

From "Traditional Martial Arts" to "Scientific Doctrine": BVR Weapons ≠ BVR Combat

In the early days of the China-Pakistan "Shaheen" joint exercises, both sides fielded numerous aircraft lacking BVR capabilities (e.g., J-7s, Mirages). Even BVR-capable platforms, such as the JF-17, had limited radar detection ranges, leading most engagements to quickly devolve into within-visual-range (WVR) dogfights. Notably, the PAF developed tactics emphasizing initiative to counter advanced adversaries like the Su-27/30 and J-10A, focusing on "breaking through mid-range to fight at close range." This often drew even the BVR-capable JF-17 into the WVR melee alongside older-generation jets.

Though the PAF operated F-16s, their limited numbers and minimal integration into BVR training with other fleets fostered a perception of BVR combat as flashy but impractical—akin to "traditional martial arts." This changed in April 2016 during the "Falcon-V" exercise at Pakistan’s Rafiqui Air Base, where JF-17s faced an unassuming visitor: the J-8DF.

Though outmatched in dogfights, the J-8DF pilots leveraged their aircraft’s acceleration, climb rate, and radar advantages. By meticulously timing afterburner engagement and radar mode shifts down to the second, they disrupted the PAF’s confidence—honed even against PLAAF third-gen fighters. Even when JF-17s survived to WVR combat, their disadvantaged positioning and pilot psychology hampered performance, resulting in a decisive J-8DF victory.

Five years after the JF-17’s 2011 operational debut, "Shaheen-V" forced PAF pilots to confront that BVR combat wasn’t a simple "point-and-shoot" task but a science requiring mastery of aerodynamics, signal processing, and practical integration. As PLAAF analyses noted: "A few seconds’ delay in afterburner activation or an incorrect radar setting often decides BVR outcomes."

Post-"Shaheen-V," the PLAAF’s new-generation aircraft began limited deployment, coinciding with revised training doctrines that elevated BVR research. Initially aimed at resolving scoring challenges in exercises like "Golden Helmet" and "Red Sword," these studies—bolstered by live-fire data on missile engagement zones, guidance methods, and datalinks—evolved into a standalone scientific discipline, a "doctrine within the doctrine."

In missile optimization alone, BVR research validated optimal strategies for seizing initiative against various threats. It even calculated how to time counter-launches when under attack—forcing adversaries to either break lock, switch to defence, or be struck by later-fired yet better-positioned missiles. Such computations now underpin multiple proven tactics.

Tactics cannot divorce from hardware. With diverse platforms, sensors, and missiles boasting distinct optimal ranges, the PLAAF achieved transformative BVR advancements within years. While the PAF modernized alongside JF-17 inductions—leveraging unique SD-10A (JF-17) and AIM-120C5 (F-16) pairings tested in exercises like "Anatolian Eagle"—limited grasp of underlying principles constrained their progress.

Yet in South Asia, even incremental advancements can prove lethal.

2019: A Pivotal Year—But Not Because of Abhinandan

During the brief February 2019 air skirmish, the Pakistan Air Force (PAF) decisively downed Abhinandan’s MiG-21, armed with Russian R-77 medium-range missiles, in a textbook “overkill” operation. While this victory bolstered PAF confidence in its burgeoning BVR combat system, the battle also highlighted areas for growth. Objectively, the coordination between PAF’s main strike and decoy formations was commendable, but the real learning opportunity came later.

After a three-year hiatus due to Turkey’s political turmoil, the “Anatolian Eagle” exercise resumed in June 2019. The PAF’s 28th Squadron deployed five JF-17s—marking the jet’s debut in the drill. Participation in this NATO-led exercise, involving U.S. forces, deepened the PAF’s understanding of NATO-style “Fighter Area of Responsibility” (FAOR) partitioning.

A standard four-ship FAOR typically covers a 150 km × 75 km airspace, with dimensions adjusted based on radar range, weapon capabilities, defensive depth, and flanking threat mitigation. Post-exercise, the PAF tailored FAOR principles to JF-17 specifications, first implemented by the 14th Squadron during the subsequent “Falcon-VIII” joint exercise with China.

At “Shaheen-VIII,” the PAF’s JF-17s faced a “Red Force” anchored by the PLAAF’s newly operational J-16s and pilots rigorously trained under the latest BVR-focused doctrine. The “Blue Force”—a mixed Sino-Pakistani fleet including J-10Cs and J-11Bs—confronted an unexpected challenge: electronic warfare (EW).

Though “Anatolian Eagle” had advanced PAF BVR tactics, U.S. restrictions on EW equipment use—ostensibly to “prevent pilot overreliance”—left the PAF ill-prepared for the PLAAF’s unrestricted EW environment. Even when PAF planners assumed “Red Force” capabilities matched U.S. F-15Es upgraded with APG-82 AESA radars, their FAOR frameworks crumbled under real-world jamming.

The “Red Force,” operating under a “no-sortie-without-EW” mantra, unleashed intense jamming and PL-15 missile strikes optimized for timing and positioning. Early engagements devastated the “Blue Force,” with JF-17s failing to score a single hit—a “clean sweep” defeat. During debriefs, PAF pilots initially misread PLAAF tactics, insisting “even advanced jets have weaknesses” and FAOR-based defenses should suffice.

Explaining the quantum leap in BVR doctrine over three years proved challenging. Some lessons required relearning in the cockpit.

In later sorties, the “Blue Force” recalibrated: JF-17s avoided charging into jamming zones, while J-10Cs—leveraging superior sensors—baited “Red” missiles, exposing fleeting EW gaps. This sacrificial tactic allowed JF-17s to finally land hits. Though the overall score remained lopsided, the exercise achieved its purpose: BVR combat isn’t about tallying kills but grasping system-level interplay.

For the PAF, the revelation was twofold. Strategically, the PLAAF’s willingness to “sacrifice” advanced J-10Cs to create JF-17 opportunities was eye-opening. Tactically, exploiting adversary weaknesses demanded not just pilot skill or equipment parity but asymmetric advantages—the “longboard” to counter enemy “shortboards.”

“Shaheen-VIII” and its 2020 successor, “Shaheen-IX,” solidified Pakistan’s decision to procure J-10CE fighters and PL-15E missiles. The logic was irrefutable: a force built around this next-gen air combat paradigm had to prevail. Beyond hardware, the exercises distilled a universal truth: the larger and more complex the mission, the simpler and more precise its planning must be.

This “simplification of complexity” demanded flatter command hierarchies via digitalized AWACS (exemplified by the KJ-500) and streamlined mission directives—a leap beyond even the PLAAF’s own “digital AWACS” vision. In the end, 2019’s trials taught that in modern air warfare, victory belongs not to the flashiest jets, but to those who master the invisible calculus of electrons, seconds, and synergy.
 

Temstar

Brigadier
Registered Member
A Taste of Mastery: Rebuilding the Offensive-Defensive Mindset in BVR Combat

Delayed by the pandemic and scheduling conflicts with the China-Thailand "Falcon Strike" exercises, the "Shaheen-X" joint training finally took place in September 2023. This allowed the J-10CE—delivered to Pakistan just a year prior—to return to its “home base” for a round of upgrades under the guidance of its PLAAF mentors.

Over these three years, the PLAAF’s refined advancements in BVR combat research left the Pakistan Air Force (PAF) marvelling at how “mountains are no longer just mountains.” As successive rounds of drills delivered increasingly decisive outcomes, PAF pilots and commanders shed their post-2019 triumphalism—when they danced before cameras after downing Abhinandan’s MiG-21—and matured into a steadier, more analytical mindset.

Thus, when the Indian Air Force’s first-wave assault on May 7, 2025, ended in a crushing defeat, veterans of the “Shaheen” series were unsurprised. Consider the trials endured by PLAAF pilots from units like the 15th Brigade in the northwest deserts: navigating sensor and radio feeds flooded with threats akin to a “celestial net,” maintaining situational awareness to avoid endangering wingmen during evasive manoeuvrers, and confronting the sobering reality that even the J-10CE’s beloved built-in EW suite—once deemed revolutionary—often failed against “Red Force” missiles fielded overnight.

Such gruelling experiences echoed the PLAAF’s journey a decade earlier, when pilots relearned air combat from the ABCs—Basic Fighter Manoeuvres (BFM), Air Combat Manoeuvring (ACM), Ground Control Intercept (GCI), and Air Combat Tactics (ACT). Breaking free from the fatalistic “locked-on equals dead” mindset against Western BVR tactics felt like earning a second degree. Simulators logged countless hours of overtime, twin-seat third-gen fighters became hot commodities for training, and flight recorders burned out as pilots drilled relentlessly—mirroring the Su-27UBK era’s relentless sorties.

Today, reflecting on this recent history through the lens of the “Shaheen” series, veterans still revere the “New Doctrine” that propelled the PLAAF’s meteoric rise. Now, under the afterglow of the May 7 clash, a “New-New Doctrine” is taking shape—one tailored to stealth-era warfare and “hyper-BVR” standards, propelled by upgraded hardware and next-gen systems.

When PLAAF personnel, hardened by internal drills far tougher than the J-10CE’s trials in “Shaheen-X,” casually critique the PAF’s May 7 performance—“Their escort wing pivoted a beat too late,” or “If I’d commanded, I’d have exploited X flaw to throw Pakistan into chaos”—it isn’t disrespect. These remarks stem from a mindset forged at higher altitudes of BVR mastery, where even real-world combat can feel like a round of Digital Combat Simulator (DCS).

Yet behind the banter lies profound respect for their PAF comrades. For those now integrating ever-evolving systems into operational readiness, May 7 was less a historic showdown than a routine checkmark—proof that the “Falcon” series’ true victory lies not in any single battle, but in the relentless pursuit of an edge that renders yesterday’s breakthroughs tomorrow’s baseline.
 

reservior dogs

Junior Member
Registered Member
There's a lot of shit posting on India on this thread.

But if one looks at this objectively from their point of view, wouldn't most posters do exactly what they did?

They can claim "victory" and sell it to their populace. But the key is the next part, which is if they admit their errors internally and start correcting weaknesses.

If I were Indian, I would be happy that they admitted there will always be casualties in war, in hope they will learn about their deficits, and improve.

If one were really trying to hurt them, then it would be to praise their actions, magnify their achievements, stoke their ego, preventing them from improving. Just like all those news articles about Indian manufacturing prowess dating back decades.

I personally feel that the much of the criticisms towards china over the decades, while malicious, acctually made china better, stronger, more independent, and now the results speak for themselves. But the key is to be honest with oneself and then improve. If one is not honest about oneself, why should others help them be honest?

China should not underestimate India at all. But if china really wanted to hurt India, they should be telling everyone that the J10s got "lucky", the PL15E got "lucky". It was the pilots that made the most difference. lol
Look, J.D. Vance went to India, then this incident happened, then the Indian government made the choice to have this war. They could have climbed down at any juncture, but only capitulated after they were soundly defeated. I think these events are related and I think the Indians believed if they win this battle, it would help bring manufacturing to India. This is military adventurism. To prevent any future adventures by the Indians, it is necessary to show them they will face certain defeat if they try again. Besides, the progress of the Chinese military is surpassing even that of the United States. The Indians, without the industrial base, have no way to catch up, so I wouldn't worry too much about that part.
 

ENTED64

Junior Member
Registered Member
It seems like this is over now, it will likely die down over the next few days. Unlike 2019 this seemed like a true skirmish, just short of a full-scale war.

What can Pakistan learn from it?
Pakistan's conventional forces, especially the air force, performed well, about as well as they could have reasonably hoped for. Yet the fact remains India has larger reserves, more aircraft, more munitions, more strategic depth, more everything, and in a prolonged conventional war would almost certainly win even if their training/tactics are subpar. Pakistan needs to have a much larger economy than it currently does if it is to compete with India conventionally on anything larger than a skirmish like this was. Other people in this thread have mentioned specific capabilities/platforms like more drones, missiles, etc. that I agree could be useful on the margin but ultimately I think Pakistan just needs a larger economy to compete.

It's like China trying to amphibiously land troops on Taiwan in the 1990s. The specifics of tactics, what capabilities to invest in, what to prioritize, etc. are mostly irrelevant. It just needs much more/better of everything which can only be done by improving the economy significantly.
 

Temstar

Brigadier
Registered Member
“New-New Doctrine” From Yankee's piece should be understood in the context of 6th gen fighter in particular working with its CCAs and within a greater system. Immediately after the passage he used the pictures:
1747006109947.png
1747006123368.png
with the caption:
"The bold initiative to draft the 'New-New Doctrine' in anticipation of their arrival reflects not only confidence in the progress of next-generation systems development but also conviction in commanding the future trajectory of beyond-visual-range air combat."
 

Randomuser

Captain
Registered Member
There's a lot of shit posting on India on this thread.

But if one looks at this objectively from their point of view, wouldn't most posters do exactly what they did?

They can claim "victory" and sell it to their populace. But the key is the next part, which is if they admit their errors internally and start correcting weaknesses.

If I were Indian, I would be happy that they admitted there will always be casualties in war, in hope they will learn about their deficits, and improve.

If one were really trying to hurt them, then it would be to praise their actions, magnify their achievements, stoke their ego, preventing them from improving. Just like all those news articles about Indian manufacturing prowess dating back decades.

I personally feel that the much of the criticisms towards china over the decades, while malicious, acctually made china better, stronger, more independent, and now the results speak for themselves. But the key is to be honest with oneself and then improve. If one is not honest about oneself, why should others help them be honest?

China should not underestimate India at all. But if china really wanted to hurt India, they should be telling everyone that the J10s got "lucky", the PL15E got "lucky". It was the pilots that made the most difference. lol
I mean in this thread, we admit that PK needs to improve its air defense. Need to spend more time developing missiles, drones and artillery. Even though we are now getting news that stuff like the HQ9 did in fact do its job despite what Indians say.

I believe assuming the ceasefire hold, this outcome favours PK is because it buys it more time to work on its weakness. PK didn't do enough damage that India actually will wake up. India will come up with all excuses and ultimately not learn much. Even if they do recognize weakness, the amount of change and effort needed will be so much that they will eventually find a way to say things are fine.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top