The Kashmir conflict 2025.

Gloire_bb

Major
Registered Member
Btw, of note - interesting how large portion of AA missiles used by both sides were ARH.

For example, the only S400 missiles we saw were 40N6 and 9M96, which is very different from Russo-Ukrainian war(where cheap, mass-produced SARH 48n6 is absolutely dominant). Add in Israeli barak-8s and spiders(python/derby), and you see the picture.

Add HQ-9p on top(also ARH), and you see a contradictory result: on the one hand, performance of SAM systems even against "early war scenarios"(heated exchanges with rich peacetime stocks) is massively better than in Ukraine; SAMs can chew through significant saturation attacks (not unlike famous Kiev iskander salvo) with high penetration rates; just throwing stuff at it doesn't produce desired results, only combined attacks produce good leak rates(even brahmos isn't magic). Ultimately, stand off attack isn't meant to be form of economic warfare, it's about destroying targets.

On the other hand - I seriously suspect that both sides are now urgently requesting replacement stocks and scratching their emergency budgets, as just interceptor expenditure alone was in hundreds of millions usd per side.
 
Last edited:

lych470

Junior Member
Registered Member
Well A-100 risk being hit by BM-30 that India has. BM30 can strike 100-200km depending on what rocket India has.

I think it's quite clear now that a single piece of weapon will not change the battlefield; it's all about systems warfare now across multiple domains. If you don't have the intel and the target acquisition in place then your artillery will just be sitting duds.
 

sutton999

Junior Member
Registered Member
Going slightly of topic here but this is why I don't think China has got what it takes to lead the world in a potential post-US era. Can it achieve military and economic superiority? Sure. Can it use them to yield geo-political and cultural power? No.

It can't save its supposedly closest ally from self-destructive behavior while being the largest or 2nd largest economy in the world.
Let's be real. Pakistan still plays both sides, not even allowing a military base for China.

That is why Pakistan still pays for gear on loans, not on military aid.
 

LCR34

Junior Member
Registered Member
I think it's quite clear now that a single piece of weapon will not change the battlefield; it's all about systems warfare now across multiple domains. If you don't have the intel and the target acquisition in place then your artillery will just be sitting duds.
Correct, i said that in J-10 thread too. But why i emphasize range of 400-500km?
1747027184035.png
Disclaimer: I do not advocate war or harm of human lives.
 

neutralobserver

Junior Member
Registered Member
Let's be real. Pakistan still plays both sides, not even allowing a military base for China.

That is why Pakistan still pays for gear on loans, not on military aid.
Pakistan has never gone against Chinese interests. Pakistan still has to play nice with the west because they are our largest trading partner (exports). It will take Pakistan sometime to adjust the exports from US/EU to China but we'll get there.
 

Neurosmith

Junior Member
Registered Member
Btw, of note - interesting how large portion of AA missiles used by both sides were ARH.

For example, the only S400 missiles we saw were 40N6 and 9M96, which is very different from Russo-Ukrainian war(where cheap, mass-produced SARH 48n6 is absolutely dominant). Add in Israeli barak-8s and spiders(python/derby), and you see the picture.

Add HQ-9p on top(also ARH), and you see a contradictory result: on the one hand, performance of SAM systems even against "early war scenarios"(heated exchanges with rich peacetime stocks) is massively better than in Ukraine; SAMs can chew through significant saturation attacks (not unlike famous Kiev iskander salvo) with high penetration rates; just throwing stuff at it doesn't produce desired results, only combined attacks produce good leak rates(even brahmos isn't magic). Ultimately, stand off attack isn't meant to be form of economic warfare, it's about destroying targets.

On the other hand - I seriously suspect that both sides are now urgently requesting replacement stocks and scratching their emergency budgets, as just interceptor expenditure alone was in hundreds of millions usd per side.
Aren't all of the HQ-9 variants SARH instead of ARH?
 

dingyibvs

Senior Member
Pakistan has never gone against Chinese interests. Pakistan still has to play nice with the west because they are our largest trading partner (exports). It will take Pakistan sometime to adjust the exports from US/EU to China but we'll get there.

It's a smart move for Pakistan and it's a positive for China as well. This both prevents the US from fully siding with India in any conflict and makes it infeasible for attacks on Pakistan to be a surrogate to an attack on China. To have a full client state is not all positives, it's a lot of responsibility as well. Look at all the flak the US catches for Israeli actions, and how it complicates American ME diplomacy. Both Pakistan and China would be wise to keep some US connection with Pakistan IMO.
 

Hayek

New Member
Registered Member
It's a smart move for Pakistan and it's a positive for China as well. This both prevents the US from fully siding with India in any conflict and makes it infeasible for attacks on Pakistan to be a surrogate to an attack on China. To have a full client state is not all positives, it's a lot of responsibility as well. Look at all the flak the US catches for Israeli actions, and how it complicates American ME diplomacy. Both Pakistan and China would be wise to keep some US connection with Pakistan IMO.
China does not interfere in Pakistan's internal affairs, so the term "puppet state" is not applicable and lacks validity in this context.
 
Top