If accurate these reports are indeed bad news for US/NATO forces, but good news for the peace-loving nations of the world. With China's aircraft and missiles being so lethal it's less likely that NATO will create another war, as it did in Yugoslavia (1999), Afghanistan, (2001-2020), Iraq (2003-2009), Libya (2011) and Syria (2011- ).
It seems likely as well that very effective anti-aircraft missiles along the lines of the Chinese PL-15 will be developed by other nations too. Even the Houthis are building hypersonic missiles. Now they just need active radar homing, which while not a trivial technological hurdle, probably won't be long in coming.
We may be witnessing the demise of the US/NATO war doctrine, which was predicated on complete air superiority and invincible naval power. Both of those pillars are looking very shaky in today's world.
You’re literally commenting this under what’s potentially the beginning of a war going hot between nuclear powers. It takes some massive delusion to think things are definitely going to be more “peaceful” when the indicator you’re using might be the beginning of a war an order of magnitude more deadly than anything you mentioned.
Perhaps you haven't seen as many previous military exchanges between India and Pakistan as I have. Historically-speaking they happen regularly and don't escalate. True that this time could be different and war could break out, but that's also true of most given days around the Kashmir.
Stephen, did that touch a row nerve? In your own description to introduce yourself here on the Substack, you say that you write for many outfits, and then list 5 specifically. Top of your list is the Epoch Times, a Chiense owned outlet that has been full of propaganda serving CCP, 2nd on your list is Asia Times, a Hong Kong based outlet, again serving the Chinese masters. It is a serious question as to how much of your writing here, and elsewhere, is compromised by where your paychecks are coming from?
Epoch Times is not owned by the PRC. It does not serve the CCP. Where did you ever get that idea? Asia Times was once located in Hong Kong, but its main office today is in Canada. It does not serve its alleged Chinese masters, especially as people like me write for it. Maybe you should learn something before you make insupportable statements.
Epoch Times is most certainly not affiliated with Mainland Chine nor the CPC. It is affiliated with the Falun Gong / CIA etc and very anti Mainland China. Similarly, Asia Times is very pro west anti China. To get this so wrong, your credibility on any topic is seriously questioned.
Again, spoken like a Chinese agent. I simply Googled the ownership status for both of those. The bottom line is that Chinese trolls and paid so-called experts have been on attack from day one of this war with their own agenda, just as you exhibit. So I don't think you should be talking about credibility.
That is disturbing. The only NATO vs Eastern match up we have not yet seen in Ukraine was air to air. We lost deterrent credibility with all other platforms. Now we appear to have lost deterrent credibility in air superiority combat.
If by air-to-air you mean all forms of aerial combat and not just dog-fighting, there are reports that the Russians have destroyed Ukrainian aircraft with long-range, air-launched missiles, possibly the R-37M with a range of 400 km.
Yah. The thing that not everyone gets yet, is that it isn't strictly "combat". It's butchery.
I have seen someone write that the Rafale is a world-class fighter except in the weaponry department. That's like saying someone is a world-class sprinter but he can't run. Weapons are the bottom line.
Sorry Stephen, but I think your analysis shows a few weaknesses, for once.
The designation BS-001 would rather point to Rafale B, which is a twin-seater. The single seat is the Rafale C.
I believe India had requested to receive the twin-seaters first, as to accelerate training, in a push to have the full squadron operational quickly after delivery of 18 jets.
.
You are right regarding the performance of the MICA missile, but you missed that Indian Rafale could also be armed with the Meteor, which would be their BVR weapon.
If the IAF only set the Rafale with MICA, it means they did not expect BVR engagement. But you are mistaken to conclude that Rafale isn't a BVR platform. The issue is whether the IAF can cue the Rafale with long range radar dauta from their AWACS as Pakistan did with their Swedish made Erieye.
.
The Rafale could use it's radar to operate the Meteor, but the tail and engine debris come from an area very close to the airbase, about 20 km. I'd say the one Rafale surely shot (full doubt on more at this stage) were going home and turning their backs to the long range threat.
.
The big question then is how air defenses around the airbase failed to go into action to try and intercept incoming missiles...
I got the information from the Aviationist, so go argue with them. I went with it. The actual quote is: "Although it is cut halfway and it’s missing the tip, the markings and the Indian flag identify this part as belonging to the single-seat Rafale EH with serial BS 001 of the Indian Air Force."
I thought I had seen a report which said that all such claims about Indian jets getting shot down were fake news from Pakistan or PRC sources and posted for propaganda bragging rights … with no Indian jets actually damaged, much less shot down? Footage claiming to be wreckages of Indian fighters shot down were recycled old footage from years ago?
So the aforementioned PL-15 missile fragment found on ground could actually be wreckage after it ran out of fuel and crashed … and subsequent Indian revenge attacks against those terrorists being harbored in Pakistan were so successful that Pakistan is now militarily blinded and had to ground all of its military aircraft … meaning none of PRC’s military weapons sold to Pakistan (radars, SAMs, etc) were able to function properly and successfully protect Pakistan’s airspace against India’s attacks?
The French have confirmed the loss of one Rafale and are assessing the others. I think the evidence is 100% clear and that the Indian government is censoring newspapers and social media.
When the French themselves, according to you, have confirmed the loss of only one Rafale, it is disappointing to see you swallowing the whole of the Pakistani claim list, hook, line and sinker.
Even CNN's Becky Anderson was grilling the. Pakistani Defence Minister Khwaja Asif about these Pakistani claims - that five Indian planes had been downed - and asking for the evidence. All he said was that the evidence was in the Indian social media! Said nothing about any independent evidence that Pakistan had..
That is why international reports cite these details as "Pakistan claimed". Yours is the first international report I have seen accepting the Pakistani claims as the gospel truth.
I have always had high regard for you and have appreciated your reports. This time, you have disappointed me.
And no, the government is not censoring the newspapers here. We are a patriotic people,.and we back our country in any conflict, especially with a terror breeding factory like Pakistan.
Reuters reports that two separate American sources say they have high confidence that *at least* two Indian jets were shot down. The French say that at least one Rafale was shot down.
Reuters also says that they have reports from three local officials in India the some Indian air force jets have come down in their region.
Now, are there uniformed officers standing over the keyboards in the newspaper editorial rooms in India? No. Are the newspaper staff insisting, as you do, that possibly erroneous claims and speculation should not be circulated until the Indian government confirms the losses? Yes. Of course.
The French have confirmed nothing. CNN claimed to have talked to an unidentified source from French intelligence, which truly means very little. I'm keen to believe the claim, but we are far from official confirmation. Anyway, France won't say a word before India does.
I believe Simplicius the Thinker also came to the same conclusion regarding the Rafales. In fact he reported that the stock prices of Dassault Aviation dipped on the news while those of the Chengdu Aircraft Industry went up. It seems that even investors deemed the story accurate.
Just checked, the Hindustan Times also reported it:
Good analysis of the altercation. This incident drives home the point that missiles and rockets have significantly changed warfare. Both aircraft and naval surface ships are no longer viable battle platforms.
This was the analysis in the late 1950s, which lead to the development of the F4 Phantom. It turned out to be a mistake replacing dedicated, high-manuverability air superiority fighters with a bulky, missile dependent interceptor. It's like having an infantry composed only of snipers. They may work great in some situations, but horribly in others. Given the number of aircraft and sorties flown by both sides, 2-3 losses is not a high number. Also, if the range between combatants had closed rather than both sides remaining behind their borders, the outcome might have been different.
This is indeed a huge hit for the US and NATO, and another indication of the collapse of the US and NATO empire. Hopefully, it will lead to fewer us European instigated wars.
However, the loss of premiere fighter jets is a blow to India that may lead to escalation, especially if pilots were lost or captured. If Modi cannot manage the news, he may face cries for retaliation that he cannot ignore. So we're still on and escalation track.
"... Rafale jet fighters. These are multimission platforms suitable for all combat aviation missions: air superiority and air defense, close air support, in-depth strikes, reconnaissance, anti-ship strikes and nuclear deterrence."
Remember the old saying -- Jack of All Trades, Master of None? I do wonder about the wisdom of designing these Swiss Army Knife airplanes which have so many compromises to perform different tasks that they are not particularly good in any specific role. This is done presumably to try to hold down costs per plane -- but it would seem to provide an opportunity for technical superiority to an air force which was big enough to field a range of different aircraft types, each optimized for a specific mission.
It will be interesting to see if China adopts the multi-mission paradigm, or choses to build a range of different "horses for courses" aircraft.
Because the West/NATO traditionally waged war against nation to 3rd rate or non existent air forces, the multi role fighter became the standard issue. The last air superiority fighter built in the west was F22. China's current front line fighters are all purposed built air superiority fighters. The J10C is arguably their most multi role fighter plane but still posses the latest AESA gallium nitrite radar, surpassing even radar on F35.
I flew F-16s in the 1980s, so I know the technology has changed a lot. However, since the F-15 had radar missiles and we did not, we developed tactics to get within dogfight range without taking an AIM 7 or AIM 9M in the face. I wonder, with a 100 mile standoff shot whether the inbound missiles can be detected and maneuvered against. I am pretty sure a mach 5 missile can't make a very hard turn at the end game.
I have no hard information on the tactics or if the warning receivers on the Rafale were up to the job. My guess is they were knocked out before they had any inkling they were under attack. Remember the Indian jets were operating over Indian territory and the Pakistani jets were in their own airspace. I don't know how far apart they were.
The PL 15 has 2 rocket motors: one for initial launch and one for terminal kill, making it very hard to maneuver against (this is also probably first use of PL15 in combat).
Based on publicly available info, NATO current don't have anything similar in active service. AIM-260 is supposed to have this but not yet in service.
Even the fact that you flew the F-16 in the 80s already speaks to the high professionalism of pilots trained specifically for aerial combat! In the case of the Pakistani and Indian Air Forces, this is a banal firefight that does not require visual contact.The pilots simply "stretched out their arms" because of the missiles, and their professionalism dropped... It is no longer people who win, but the weapon itself. Following the tanks, it seems that manned fighters are becoming unnecessary.
You have no idea about modern aerial warfare. If only it was as easy to fly up and push a button to launch a missile. All reports were that over 125 planes were involved and in the end IAF lost at least 2 and perhaps up to 5 fighter jets to PAF 0, is testament to no only weapons but skills tactics and high coordination and sophistication of Pakistani Air Force.
Yes, I have "no idea about modern aerial combat." What difference does it make how many planes participated in this theatrical performance: none of them left THEIR airspace!!? It was the stupidest military conflict, with no goals or meaning, between two narcissists who also possess nuclear weapons. "Dogfight" is an exaggeration, my dear friend...
It makes all the difference in the world. Orders of magnitude difference when 125 modern hi tech fighter planes engaged in battle vs 2 or 4. It is pure ignorance to think otherwise. This aerial battle is more significant than can be appreciated by most as it establishes how all modern aerial battles will be fought in the future. The era of close in dogfight is over. All aerial battles will be long range and super long range and all about data fusion, BVR missiles and extreme radar tech and how it all integrates together in the "kill chain". The fact that it was Chinese hardware and systems that achieved this paradigm changing realization is all the more shocking. As usual, the Americans talk about it, the Chinese did it.
By the way, maybe you can boast of any "victories in aerial battles" or at least "were close to it"? Participation in pirate raids on Grenada, Somalia, Iraq, Yugoslavia, Afghanistan, Libya, Yemen is not counted!
The reports are that air combatants on both sides stayed within their own countries. It is necessary to stay in a safe zone because the Indian S 400 and the Pakistani Chinese equivalent made leaving their own air space too dangerous. NATO does not have a comparable layered theater air defense system. Or any layered theater air defense system at all really.
I guess the only consolation here is that this was strike configuration aircraft being taken out by pure BVR combat configuration. India should have had its own pure combat BVR in the package. Although whether that would have made any difference remains to be seen.
Over the very long term (next 50-75 years), will manned aircraft be needed at all? And with advances in HCM and HGV technologies (speed, stealth, range, maneuverability) won't the game become one of "missiles/drones versus missiles/drones"? If that happens, then assuming both sides in a conflict are rough peers (in the specific theater of operations, not in the broader macro/eco/geopolitical sense), then IMO quantity trumps quality - just launch more so as to overwhelm the AD of the other side. Launch dozens/hundreds of missiles (at the same 5-10 coordinates) and even if 90% are intercepted, 10% will make it through. If 50% make it through, sure, it will be overkill (assuming one missile would have been enough), but if you have the funds and want to ensure success, what does it matter?
Then, it becomes a money game - who can afford to buy/develop more. The economically weaker state will have to spend proportionately more to (try to) keep up, but this means it will have less resources for social/economic development - the Reagan-era argument.
Problems with West,your top Universities are filled with Chinese students from China. Learn your knowledge and technology takes it back to China with unlimited funding for government.
Pakistan claim to have shot down at least 2 Rafales and a Mirage 2000. I'm not sure where they get the figure of three Rafales.
This is troubling, but we really don't know what happened. It could be a hardware issue, a tactics issue, a pilot issue, or a rules of engagement issue.
India used at least some of their two-sear Rafales as bombers.
It is entirely possible that Pakistan sent the Rafales only as bombers as these carry the newest smart bombs and missiles, and that they did not have sufficient fighter cover and anti-aircraft missile suppression cover. The Indians may have wanted a small strike group. Just hitting the terrorists and not suppressing Pakistani air defense. This would have left them vulnerable to an attack by 50 or more Pakistani jets. The Pakistani J-10C fired the PL-15 Long range missile. So they may have fired these at a range of 200 km (125 miles) using the Pakistani AWACS aircraft and Chinese copies of the Russian s300 anti-aircraft missile system for targeting data. It would have only been 10 mi out that the new Chinese missiles would have turned on their AESA x-band radars locking onto the fighters. This would have given them 10 to 15 seconds to respond with jamming and maneuvers. Modern anti-aircraft missiles are difficult to jam and this isn't the 1950s and '60s. They can out turn any aircraft pulling 15g. A Rafale with bombs would be lucky to pull 6g.
The Indian Jets may simply have been outnumbered by the Pakistani response and the pakistanis would have been able to fire first. So even if missiles were fired at closer range, the Indians would have been at a disadvantage.
If accurate these reports are indeed bad news for US/NATO forces, but good news for the peace-loving nations of the world. With China's aircraft and missiles being so lethal it's less likely that NATO will create another war, as it did in Yugoslavia (1999), Afghanistan, (2001-2020), Iraq (2003-2009), Libya (2011) and Syria (2011- ).
It seems likely as well that very effective anti-aircraft missiles along the lines of the Chinese PL-15 will be developed by other nations too. Even the Houthis are building hypersonic missiles. Now they just need active radar homing, which while not a trivial technological hurdle, probably won't be long in coming.
We may be witnessing the demise of the US/NATO war doctrine, which was predicated on complete air superiority and invincible naval power. Both of those pillars are looking very shaky in today's world.
You’re literally commenting this under what’s potentially the beginning of a war going hot between nuclear powers. It takes some massive delusion to think things are definitely going to be more “peaceful” when the indicator you’re using might be the beginning of a war an order of magnitude more deadly than anything you mentioned.
Perhaps you haven't seen as many previous military exchanges between India and Pakistan as I have. Historically-speaking they happen regularly and don't escalate. True that this time could be different and war could break out, but that's also true of most given days around the Kashmir.
Which nation do you belong to then Richard?
You like slandering people?
Probably not. He’s simply a fool. The question is: did the Pakistan AF shoot down Indian aircraft? If yes, how?
Stephen, did that touch a row nerve? In your own description to introduce yourself here on the Substack, you say that you write for many outfits, and then list 5 specifically. Top of your list is the Epoch Times, a Chiense owned outlet that has been full of propaganda serving CCP, 2nd on your list is Asia Times, a Hong Kong based outlet, again serving the Chinese masters. It is a serious question as to how much of your writing here, and elsewhere, is compromised by where your paychecks are coming from?
Epoch Times is not owned by the PRC. It does not serve the CCP. Where did you ever get that idea? Asia Times was once located in Hong Kong, but its main office today is in Canada. It does not serve its alleged Chinese masters, especially as people like me write for it. Maybe you should learn something before you make insupportable statements.
Epoch Times is most certainly not affiliated with Mainland Chine nor the CPC. It is affiliated with the Falun Gong / CIA etc and very anti Mainland China. Similarly, Asia Times is very pro west anti China. To get this so wrong, your credibility on any topic is seriously questioned.
Again, spoken like a Chinese agent. I simply Googled the ownership status for both of those. The bottom line is that Chinese trolls and paid so-called experts have been on attack from day one of this war with their own agenda, just as you exhibit. So I don't think you should be talking about credibility.
When you run out of arguments, facts and reason, just call the other side made up names and stay in you limited info bubble.
I googled 'Space Aliens' and found out that they are living amongst us.
The Epoch Times serves the Chinese Communist Party? Good heavens, in what universe? What an outlandish assertion.
I said nothing about AWACS. Where did you come up with that?
I don't think the problem was with the french technology, but the fact it was operated by Indians.
That is disturbing. The only NATO vs Eastern match up we have not yet seen in Ukraine was air to air. We lost deterrent credibility with all other platforms. Now we appear to have lost deterrent credibility in air superiority combat.
If by air-to-air you mean all forms of aerial combat and not just dog-fighting, there are reports that the Russians have destroyed Ukrainian aircraft with long-range, air-launched missiles, possibly the R-37M with a range of 400 km.
Imagine what will happen when NATO planes encounter the R-37M.
Yah. The thing that not everyone gets yet, is that it isn't strictly "combat". It's butchery.
I have seen someone write that the Rafale is a world-class fighter except in the weaponry department. That's like saying someone is a world-class sprinter but he can't run. Weapons are the bottom line.
Does you definition of "combat" "butchery" also apply to F35 bombing tents in Gaza or F18 bombing Yemeni civil infrastructure?
Sorry Stephen, but I think your analysis shows a few weaknesses, for once.
The designation BS-001 would rather point to Rafale B, which is a twin-seater. The single seat is the Rafale C.
I believe India had requested to receive the twin-seaters first, as to accelerate training, in a push to have the full squadron operational quickly after delivery of 18 jets.
.
You are right regarding the performance of the MICA missile, but you missed that Indian Rafale could also be armed with the Meteor, which would be their BVR weapon.
If the IAF only set the Rafale with MICA, it means they did not expect BVR engagement. But you are mistaken to conclude that Rafale isn't a BVR platform. The issue is whether the IAF can cue the Rafale with long range radar dauta from their AWACS as Pakistan did with their Swedish made Erieye.
.
The Rafale could use it's radar to operate the Meteor, but the tail and engine debris come from an area very close to the airbase, about 20 km. I'd say the one Rafale surely shot (full doubt on more at this stage) were going home and turning their backs to the long range threat.
.
The big question then is how air defenses around the airbase failed to go into action to try and intercept incoming missiles...
I got the information from the Aviationist, so go argue with them. I went with it. The actual quote is: "Although it is cut halfway and it’s missing the tip, the markings and the Indian flag identify this part as belonging to the single-seat Rafale EH with serial BS 001 of the Indian Air Force."
I thought I had seen a report which said that all such claims about Indian jets getting shot down were fake news from Pakistan or PRC sources and posted for propaganda bragging rights … with no Indian jets actually damaged, much less shot down? Footage claiming to be wreckages of Indian fighters shot down were recycled old footage from years ago?
So the aforementioned PL-15 missile fragment found on ground could actually be wreckage after it ran out of fuel and crashed … and subsequent Indian revenge attacks against those terrorists being harbored in Pakistan were so successful that Pakistan is now militarily blinded and had to ground all of its military aircraft … meaning none of PRC’s military weapons sold to Pakistan (radars, SAMs, etc) were able to function properly and successfully protect Pakistan’s airspace against India’s attacks?
The French have confirmed the loss of one Rafale and are assessing the others. I think the evidence is 100% clear and that the Indian government is censoring newspapers and social media.
When the French themselves, according to you, have confirmed the loss of only one Rafale, it is disappointing to see you swallowing the whole of the Pakistani claim list, hook, line and sinker.
Even CNN's Becky Anderson was grilling the. Pakistani Defence Minister Khwaja Asif about these Pakistani claims - that five Indian planes had been downed - and asking for the evidence. All he said was that the evidence was in the Indian social media! Said nothing about any independent evidence that Pakistan had..
That is why international reports cite these details as "Pakistan claimed". Yours is the first international report I have seen accepting the Pakistani claims as the gospel truth.
I have always had high regard for you and have appreciated your reports. This time, you have disappointed me.
And no, the government is not censoring the newspapers here. We are a patriotic people,.and we back our country in any conflict, especially with a terror breeding factory like Pakistan.
The first stage of grief is denial, the second is anger. You have bargaining and depression next after which comes the final stage. Acceptance.
Reuters reports that two separate American sources say they have high confidence that *at least* two Indian jets were shot down. The French say that at least one Rafale was shot down.
Reuters also says that they have reports from three local officials in India the some Indian air force jets have come down in their region.
Now, are there uniformed officers standing over the keyboards in the newspaper editorial rooms in India? No. Are the newspaper staff insisting, as you do, that possibly erroneous claims and speculation should not be circulated until the Indian government confirms the losses? Yes. Of course.
The French have confirmed nothing. CNN claimed to have talked to an unidentified source from French intelligence, which truly means very little. I'm keen to believe the claim, but we are far from official confirmation. Anyway, France won't say a word before India does.
Nonsense all around. I think the reports are plenty clear and so is the wreckage.
Have a nice day.
The only source is CNN (seriously?) quoting an anonymous French guy.
I guess you believe whatever NAFO puts out as well. Disappointed.
I believe Simplicius the Thinker also came to the same conclusion regarding the Rafales. In fact he reported that the stock prices of Dassault Aviation dipped on the news while those of the Chengdu Aircraft Industry went up. It seems that even investors deemed the story accurate.
Just checked, the Hindustan Times also reported it:
https://www.hindustantimes.com/business/rafale-maker-dassault-aviation-shares-plummet-amid-india-pakistan-tension-chinas-cac-stock-soars-101747108446631.html
Single toilet seat presumably for when Indian pilots see a PL15 heading their way
Good analysis of the altercation. This incident drives home the point that missiles and rockets have significantly changed warfare. Both aircraft and naval surface ships are no longer viable battle platforms.
This was the analysis in the late 1950s, which lead to the development of the F4 Phantom. It turned out to be a mistake replacing dedicated, high-manuverability air superiority fighters with a bulky, missile dependent interceptor. It's like having an infantry composed only of snipers. They may work great in some situations, but horribly in others. Given the number of aircraft and sorties flown by both sides, 2-3 losses is not a high number. Also, if the range between combatants had closed rather than both sides remaining behind their borders, the outcome might have been different.
This is indeed a huge hit for the US and NATO, and another indication of the collapse of the US and NATO empire. Hopefully, it will lead to fewer us European instigated wars.
However, the loss of premiere fighter jets is a blow to India that may lead to escalation, especially if pilots were lost or captured. If Modi cannot manage the news, he may face cries for retaliation that he cannot ignore. So we're still on and escalation track.
"... Rafale jet fighters. These are multimission platforms suitable for all combat aviation missions: air superiority and air defense, close air support, in-depth strikes, reconnaissance, anti-ship strikes and nuclear deterrence."
Remember the old saying -- Jack of All Trades, Master of None? I do wonder about the wisdom of designing these Swiss Army Knife airplanes which have so many compromises to perform different tasks that they are not particularly good in any specific role. This is done presumably to try to hold down costs per plane -- but it would seem to provide an opportunity for technical superiority to an air force which was big enough to field a range of different aircraft types, each optimized for a specific mission.
It will be interesting to see if China adopts the multi-mission paradigm, or choses to build a range of different "horses for courses" aircraft.
Take it up with the French, it's their bird
Because the West/NATO traditionally waged war against nation to 3rd rate or non existent air forces, the multi role fighter became the standard issue. The last air superiority fighter built in the west was F22. China's current front line fighters are all purposed built air superiority fighters. The J10C is arguably their most multi role fighter plane but still posses the latest AESA gallium nitrite radar, surpassing even radar on F35.
"This is done presumably to try to hold down costs per plane"
Like was done on the F-35? Another jack of all trades plane.
I flew F-16s in the 1980s, so I know the technology has changed a lot. However, since the F-15 had radar missiles and we did not, we developed tactics to get within dogfight range without taking an AIM 7 or AIM 9M in the face. I wonder, with a 100 mile standoff shot whether the inbound missiles can be detected and maneuvered against. I am pretty sure a mach 5 missile can't make a very hard turn at the end game.
I have no hard information on the tactics or if the warning receivers on the Rafale were up to the job. My guess is they were knocked out before they had any inkling they were under attack. Remember the Indian jets were operating over Indian territory and the Pakistani jets were in their own airspace. I don't know how far apart they were.
The PL 15 has 2 rocket motors: one for initial launch and one for terminal kill, making it very hard to maneuver against (this is also probably first use of PL15 in combat).
Based on publicly available info, NATO current don't have anything similar in active service. AIM-260 is supposed to have this but not yet in service.
Even the fact that you flew the F-16 in the 80s already speaks to the high professionalism of pilots trained specifically for aerial combat! In the case of the Pakistani and Indian Air Forces, this is a banal firefight that does not require visual contact.The pilots simply "stretched out their arms" because of the missiles, and their professionalism dropped... It is no longer people who win, but the weapon itself. Following the tanks, it seems that manned fighters are becoming unnecessary.
You have no idea about modern aerial warfare. If only it was as easy to fly up and push a button to launch a missile. All reports were that over 125 planes were involved and in the end IAF lost at least 2 and perhaps up to 5 fighter jets to PAF 0, is testament to no only weapons but skills tactics and high coordination and sophistication of Pakistani Air Force.
Yes, I have "no idea about modern aerial combat." What difference does it make how many planes participated in this theatrical performance: none of them left THEIR airspace!!? It was the stupidest military conflict, with no goals or meaning, between two narcissists who also possess nuclear weapons. "Dogfight" is an exaggeration, my dear friend...
It makes all the difference in the world. Orders of magnitude difference when 125 modern hi tech fighter planes engaged in battle vs 2 or 4. It is pure ignorance to think otherwise. This aerial battle is more significant than can be appreciated by most as it establishes how all modern aerial battles will be fought in the future. The era of close in dogfight is over. All aerial battles will be long range and super long range and all about data fusion, BVR missiles and extreme radar tech and how it all integrates together in the "kill chain". The fact that it was Chinese hardware and systems that achieved this paradigm changing realization is all the more shocking. As usual, the Americans talk about it, the Chinese did it.
By the way, maybe you can boast of any "victories in aerial battles" or at least "were close to it"? Participation in pirate raids on Grenada, Somalia, Iraq, Yugoslavia, Afghanistan, Libya, Yemen is not counted!
I imagine a pair of missiles would be launched against a target in such a situation.
If you have "I wish you were dead" missiles, you only need one.
The reports are that air combatants on both sides stayed within their own countries. It is necessary to stay in a safe zone because the Indian S 400 and the Pakistani Chinese equivalent made leaving their own air space too dangerous. NATO does not have a comparable layered theater air defense system. Or any layered theater air defense system at all really.
I guess the only consolation here is that this was strike configuration aircraft being taken out by pure BVR combat configuration. India should have had its own pure combat BVR in the package. Although whether that would have made any difference remains to be seen.
The official response by Dessault?
Excellent point.
A lot of western gear is looking weak.
Thanks for your great work Stephen! We've shared the link on our daily report.
A Skeptic War Reports
https://askeptic.substack.com/
Over the very long term (next 50-75 years), will manned aircraft be needed at all? And with advances in HCM and HGV technologies (speed, stealth, range, maneuverability) won't the game become one of "missiles/drones versus missiles/drones"? If that happens, then assuming both sides in a conflict are rough peers (in the specific theater of operations, not in the broader macro/eco/geopolitical sense), then IMO quantity trumps quality - just launch more so as to overwhelm the AD of the other side. Launch dozens/hundreds of missiles (at the same 5-10 coordinates) and even if 90% are intercepted, 10% will make it through. If 50% make it through, sure, it will be overkill (assuming one missile would have been enough), but if you have the funds and want to ensure success, what does it matter?
Then, it becomes a money game - who can afford to buy/develop more. The economically weaker state will have to spend proportionately more to (try to) keep up, but this means it will have less resources for social/economic development - the Reagan-era argument.
That's totally untrue. Fake news from ISI
Problems with West,your top Universities are filled with Chinese students from China. Learn your knowledge and technology takes it back to China with unlimited funding for government.
Pakistan claim to have shot down at least 2 Rafales and a Mirage 2000. I'm not sure where they get the figure of three Rafales.
This is troubling, but we really don't know what happened. It could be a hardware issue, a tactics issue, a pilot issue, or a rules of engagement issue.
India used at least some of their two-sear Rafales as bombers.
It is entirely possible that Pakistan sent the Rafales only as bombers as these carry the newest smart bombs and missiles, and that they did not have sufficient fighter cover and anti-aircraft missile suppression cover. The Indians may have wanted a small strike group. Just hitting the terrorists and not suppressing Pakistani air defense. This would have left them vulnerable to an attack by 50 or more Pakistani jets. The Pakistani J-10C fired the PL-15 Long range missile. So they may have fired these at a range of 200 km (125 miles) using the Pakistani AWACS aircraft and Chinese copies of the Russian s300 anti-aircraft missile system for targeting data. It would have only been 10 mi out that the new Chinese missiles would have turned on their AESA x-band radars locking onto the fighters. This would have given them 10 to 15 seconds to respond with jamming and maneuvers. Modern anti-aircraft missiles are difficult to jam and this isn't the 1950s and '60s. They can out turn any aircraft pulling 15g. A Rafale with bombs would be lucky to pull 6g.
The Indian Jets may simply have been outnumbered by the Pakistani response and the pakistanis would have been able to fire first. So even if missiles were fired at closer range, the Indians would have been at a disadvantage.