Post Kashmir developments and assessments

Galaxy

Galaxy

ACCESS: Confidential
Joined
14 December 2024
Messages
174
Reaction score
400
The original thread about the India Pakistan skirmish was closed and since then some interesting developments have surfaced on losses and targets from both sides. India of course lost a Rafale and a Mirage and in a press conference basically admitted it without admitting it but since then there is evidence of a Pakistani C-130 being destroyed on the ground as well as Pakistani Sqn Leader Usman Yousaf being killed. Pakistan claims he was killed when India struck an air base and its hanger. This strongly suggests some more Pakistani aircraft were damaged or destroyed as it would be highly unusual for airmen to be in empty hangers especially during hostilities since those are priority targets. Pakistan claims to have destroyed an S-400 launcher however there is no evidence other than a a grainy satellite image that doesn’t show anything. There is also some video from inside India which shows aircraft debris. I tried reverse google search and couldn’t find anything, some claim it was from an old helicopter crash however the engines don’t match any known helicopters (at least what I could find). Pakistanis claim it’s an SU-30 which it obviously is not while Indians claim it a Mirage 3 which it almost certainly looks like. I anyone has more evidence of losses from either side please post it.


Some of the hangers that were hit:

IMG_2322.jpeg IMG_2321.jpeg IMG_2319.jpeg IMG_2316.jpeg


Don’t know how legitimate this is but it’s all over social media. Looks like a Mirage 3 engine, there is a video that shows Indian soldiers at the crash site but this contradicts everything we been told about neither side crossing the border. Anyone have any information on what it could be? I highly doubt a Mirage would cross into India but it does look a lot like engines from a Mirage 3.


IMG_2324.jpeg



From the Pakistani press conference. Said to be an S-400 that was destroyed but i honestly see no evidence. Based off evidence from Ukraine, all large air defenses launchers leave hundreds of yards of scorched earth and the launchers themselves or the carcasses that them generally look white in color after they burn out due to intense fire and chemical reaction of propellants:


IMG_2317.jpeg


A burning C-130:

IMG_2306.jpeg
 
Strong evidence that the engine that many speculated was from a Mirage is actually an RD-93. This could coincide with the picture of the K-36 ejection seat.
 

Attachments

  • IMG_2331.jpeg
    IMG_2331.jpeg
    141.2 KB · Views: 22
  • IMG_2330.jpeg
    IMG_2330.jpeg
    157.4 KB · Views: 21
Indian air to air tactics seemed poor with the results being the loss of poor 3 aircraft however the IAF execution of striking high value ground targets seems exceptionably good. Looks like most of the damage was caused by Rafale and SU-30MKIs with what seems like a combination of Brahomos and KH-31s for the SU-30MKIs and Scalps for the Rafale, perhaps some Hammers to.


IMG_2341.jpeg IMG_2340.jpeg IMG_2339.jpeg IMG_2338.jpeg IMG_2337.jpeg IMG_2336.jpeg IMG_2335.jpeg IMG_2334.jpeg IMG_2333.jpeg IMG_2332.jpeg
 
Scalp cruise missiles wreckage somewhere in Pakistan. Likely shot down or jammed. It’s also possible it just failed as Syria has proven that Scalps don’t have 100% reliability as is with every system.
 

Attachments

  • IMG_2342.jpeg
    IMG_2342.jpeg
    165.1 KB · Views: 34
Being shared online but I don’t know of the authenticity. I tried playing with filters of the original photo but I couldn’t see anything. I am guessing the picture is BS and not authentic but if someone can prove me wrong I am open to it.
 

Attachments

  • IMG_2348.jpeg
    IMG_2348.jpeg
    42.5 KB · Views: 26
Galaxy said:
Being shared online but I don’t know of the authenticity. I tried playing with filters of the original photo but I couldn’t see anything. I am guessing the picture is BS and not authentic but if someone can prove me wrong I am open to it.
Click to expand...
What is it?
 
"... a Saab 2000 AWACS orbiting safely backfield can transmit guidance instructions to PL-15 missiles fired by Pakistan’s J-10 and JF-17 fighters, even if those jets keep their radars off. "

www.19fortyfive.com

The Real Reason India's Dassault Rafale Jets Lost to Pakistan’s Air Force

Despite employing cutting-edge Dassault Rafale fighters and advanced missiles, photographic evidence indicates Pakistan's Air Force downed multiple Indian jets—including at least one Rafale—without confirmed losses.
www.19fortyfive.com www.19fortyfive.com

Was it really the case this time?

Any other credible sources that back up the claim above?
 
SUPER=BUG said:
What is it?
Click to expand...

It shows a destroyed aircraft in the hangar. However, I have my doubts about its authenticity. I took the original and played with filters and brightness and didn’t see anything similar. Maybe someone used something more advanced? Either way until someone can prove it’s real i have doubts.
 
datafuser said:
"... a Saab 2000 AWACS orbiting safely backfield can transmit guidance instructions to PL-15 missiles fired by Pakistan’s J-10 and JF-17 fighters, even if those jets keep their radars off. "

www.19fortyfive.com

The Real Reason India's Dassault Rafale Jets Lost to Pakistan’s Air Force

Despite employing cutting-edge Dassault Rafale fighters and advanced missiles, photographic evidence indicates Pakistan's Air Force downed multiple Indian jets—including at least one Rafale—without confirmed losses.
www.19fortyfive.com www.19fortyfive.com

Was it really the case this time?

Any other credible sources that back up the claim above?
Click to expand...

I'm not a 19fortyfive reader; the site seems to have real people working for it (not a given these days) but its "About Us" section leaves much room for improvement in its vagueness. The people involved seem to push their content on several platforms. The article itself is long and striving for authoritativeness (pun intended) but having followed a conversation here with a real subject matter expert, among other things, I have a strong impression that it's jumping into unwarranted conclusions. One thing especially caught my eye. Here's the full paragraph you quoted from:

19fortyfive said:
Moreover, as China uses the Erieye too, its PL-15 missiles were designed to network with the radar via two-way datalink. That means a Saab 2000 AWACS orbiting safely backfield can transmit guidance instructions to PL-15 missiles fired by Pakistan’s J-10 and JF-17 fighters, even if those jets keep their radars off. This method also can deny targeted aircraft warning of the missile’s approach until the final terminal phase, when the missile’s active seeker turns on to complete the intercept.
Click to expand...

Neither PLAAF nor PLANAF use Erieye. It's a glaring and curious mistake to make in such a detailed and firmly opinionated article and left me wondering how such a thing could even slip through. I even tried to ascertain whether by one or another hook or crook China may have still acquired Erieye technology and thus came by a Wikipedia article about the Chinese AEW&C plane Shaanxi KJ-200, stating the following:

Wikipedia said:
The key component of this aircraft is an AESA radar system, visually similar to the Saab Erieye system, mounted on struts above the rear fuselage, as well as ventral sensor domes. The platform of this aircraft is based on the Shaanxi Y-8F-600 and it has been reported that Pratt & Whitney Canada PW150B turboprops and Honeywell avionics have been incorporated.
Click to expand...

I can't tell for sure what happened but imagine a very sloppy reading of that could lead someone to constate China operating SAAB's Erieye. Another possibility would be that the article is based, at least in part, on AI "cooperation" where an artificial agent's probabilistic algorithm has failed to contextualize the full meaning of that Wikipedia article and the mistake subsequently managed to escape both the writer and the editor as well. Both being a commentator and just a "written content producer" are precarious industries these days and sadly do not usually reward true expertise, exhaustive research or careful deliberation. It's the brave world of billionaire broligarchs where they escape accountability and facts by a thousand hot takes.

I don't even disagree with everything in that article, or at least suspect there might be some truth to some of it but overall am skeptical about the whole for the above reasons and generally lament the state of our "information society" that has us wasting so much thought and energy both producing such things and then fact-checking it all.
 
Here is the most important and costly part of S-400. There are few of these as they can be linked with multiple launchers. They would only need one of these to cover a large area, as these systems, or at least their radars give off radiation when operational. SEADs missiles home in on radiation sources therefore it not likely Pakistan destroyed any components of the S-400. Their satellite “evidence” was very suspicious as well as there was nothing in the after picture.


https://twitter.com/x/status/1922533626471657896
View: https://x.com/haldilal/status/1922533626471657896



And here is the launcher at presumably the same airbase.


IMG_2347.jpeg
 
I heard that,Pakistan get first batch of China J-35 ?.
 
Former French Rafale navy pilot on the air skirmish. I obviously he knows more than anyone else about the Rafale and air combat than anyone on this forum. Anyways by all accounts he thinks the PAF is coherent and professional but he also breaks down some tactics and inconsistencies. Worth the time to watch.

View: https://youtu.be/Y_qY6y-ZT18
 
Last edited:
Galaxy said:
Former French Rafale navy pilot on the air skirmish. I obviously he knows more than anyone else about the Rafale and air combat than anyone on this forum. Anyways by all accounts he thinks the PAF is coherent and professional but he also breaks down some tactics and inconsistencies. Worth the time to watch.
Click to expand...

Got around to watching this. Chuet goes into some detail concerning the briefer's information management skills, or colloquially "hybrid warfare" giving the Pakistani officer high marks. This is slightly at odds with Chuet still pointing out many inconsistencies in the official account but perhaps this is as good at it gets on a briefing level these days. I've certainly seen a lot worse, but arguably also better.

I'm perhaps also not quite as impressed as Chuet by PAF's management of the EM environment which I rather took as a description of a run of the mill (basically for decades already) rather than a cutting edge or gold standard performance. He points to the level and type of Indian losses (of which there's still no clarity) being indicative as to whether there are systemic (technical or other) problems on the Indian side; as much has also been said on this forum. In fairness Chuet's perspective is necessarily not mine and I surmise that his impressions are very much instructed by the change of his professional level of respect for PAF as a potential adversary force and how seriously they are to be taken.

Chuet also points out some intriguing choices by PAF (casting some doubt on the ROE change story, perhaps), especially the fact that given the option of trying to defend from IAF cruise missiles or trying to down IAF fighters they went for the latter. While I'm sure the merits of that decision could be discussed on many levels, it's not inconsistent at all with giving the Chinese a practical test run of their planes and missiles. It's not out of the question that PAF had active Chinese support or even participation on the night itself. Chuet's point about China's quantitative strategy (industrial base, missile stock, tactics) is very astute and also gives context to PAF's preparation for and execution of this engagement.
 
Galaxy said:
Being shared online but I don’t know of the authenticity. I tried playing with filters of the original photo but I couldn’t see anything. I am guessing the picture is BS and not authentic but if someone can prove me wrong I am open to it.
Click to expand...

See this report in the NYT:

Screenshot_20250515_091112.jpg

At Bholari air base, located less than 100 miles from the Pakistani port city of Karachi, India’s defense officials said they had struck an aircraft hangar with a precision attack. The visuals showed clear damage to what looks like a hangar.
Click to expand...

www.nytimes.com

India and Pakistan Talked Big, but Satellite Imagery Shows Limited Damage

While the attacks were widespread, the damage was far more contained than both sides claimed.
www.nytimes.com www.nytimes.com
 
hesham said:
I heard that,Pakistan get first batch of China J-35 ?
Click to expand...
I don't think they can get this so quickly. Especially since the J35 just entered service in the People's Liberation Army last year.
 
TomcatViP said:
See this report in the NYT:

View attachment 770168



www.nytimes.com

India and Pakistan Talked Big, but Satellite Imagery Shows Limited Damage

While the attacks were widespread, the damage was far more contained than both sides claimed.
www.nytimes.com www.nytimes.com
Click to expand...


So then it’s confirmed. Pakistanis lost at least one JF-17 or F-16 in that particular attack on the hanger. Looks like it can hold at least 8 or 9 aircraft, it would be interesting to know how many more aircraft were in the hangers that were hit. I don’t think Pakistan will ever reveal any details due to the sensitive nature of the attacks and surely will not want to give positive publicity to the Indian armed forces but it’s certain that they took losses.
 
View: https://youtu.be/9i8gUtS-Co0?si=nzWcBsLfgB1IDqfb


A former Swedish Gripen C/D pilot (Max Villman) offers his thoughts on the PAF/IAF aerial engagement. Nothing sensational and I was in fact expecting a bit more on the employment of the SAAB 340 AEW&C; he stresses that it is a significant asset (and mentions Ukraine as well, thinking that these planes are at least as important for them as the F-16s). Villman notes that he thinks it indeed better that PAF launched their response mainly from airfields - an advantage as the engagement was drawn out - and is impressed by the speed at which PAF managed to get 42 Gen 4(.5) jets airborne.

The engagement itself, Villman says, was the size of the largest Western exercises in the past few years. He highlights PAFs Elec-ID and sorting claims and targeting Rafales explicitly (again, of special interest to the Chinese, in my opinion). Hoping that the Indian perspective also will become clearer he states that comparisons between Chinese and French technological prowess are baseless. What's (at least as?) determinative is who deploys and how, though the engagement is definitely highly interesting from a Western perspective.

Villman thinks that PAF ad IAF ROE are a thus far underappreciated factor when it comes to the end result, PAF taking the initiative in a way that perhaps caught IAF by surprise (or "pants down" as he puts it). He seems to think or suppose (if I got his idea correctly) that the "change" in PAF ROE was premeditated while IAF was not deterred from entering Pakistani airspace in the first place as they likely weren't intent on an incursion to release their weapons at all.
 
Galaxy said:
Pakistan lost an AWACS, that is the 3rd aircraft confirmed loss for Pakistan.

Click to expand...
I can speak Urdu and he said that the Erieye was damaged and says nothing of a loss. Here is a translated version of the clip where he says this.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1923605507249438841
View: https://x.com/MyLordBebo/status/1923605507249438841


There's a longer version of this clip where he says that by this point it has been repaired and put back into service. I have retweeted this on my X but by now it's buried and I'm trying to come up with it.

And what are the previous two losses that you're talking about?
 
sf7pakistan said:
I can speak Urdu and he said that the Erieye was damaged and says nothing of a loss. Here is a translated version of the clip where he says this.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1923605507249438841
View: https://x.com/MyLordBebo/status/1923605507249438841


There's a longer version of this clip where he says that by this point it has been repaired and put back into service. I have retweeted this on my X but by now it's buried and I'm trying to come up with it.

And what are the previous two losses that you're talking about?
Click to expand...


The burning C-130 and the satellite image of the destroyed hanger with what is almost certainly a fighter. Post #1 and post #10

Im surprised they would get it repaired that fast or that it’s survived at all as there would likely be dozens of pieces of shrapnel including to vital areas like radar and hydraulics, ect which typically would take weeks to months to repair. Well I’ll take is word, he was air marshal.
 
Galaxy said:
The burning C-130 and the satellite image of the destroyed hanger with what is almost certainly a fighter. Post #1 and post #10

Im surprised they would get it repaired that fast or that it’s survived at all as there would likely be dozens of pieces of shrapnel including to vital areas like radar and hydraulics, ect which typically would take weeks to months to repair. Well I’ll take is word, he was air marshal.
Click to expand...
Not sure if the fire is on the C-130 or in front of it but the fighter in the hangar looks more like the structural trussing of the hangar rather than a jet. There's also versions of it on twitter where they've edited an F-16 into the image. Frankly it does not pass the smell test.

Also please be mindful of Indian news sources many of which are running this story as propaganda and not reporting. The MSN article in the Saab-2000 story is quoting TimesNow as a source.

Our Erieyes were damaged quite badly in the 2012 attack on PAF Minhas where one was lost and 2 were repaired after the then ACM Sohail Aman struck a deal with Saab to train Pakistani engineers and technicians in aircraft repair and certification. Not sure if this is true or not but the number I heard I think in the second briefing was 15% damage to one airframe which was being repaired/is repaired. More than likely that if an Erieye was lost an unofficial confirmation would've come through from the Pakistani sources. None of the people I know who are in the know are saying that an Erieye was lost, only that it was damaged.

Edit: mistakenly said PNS Mehran attack in 2011 when it was PAF Minhas attack in 2012.
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom