I hope the U.S. armed forces will draw the appropriate lessons from this latest kerfuffle, particularly with respect to the quality and capabilities of China's development of advanced attack/interceptor fighters and long range air-to-air weaponry (e.g., PL-15). I am not well versed in modern air warfare, but I have read that the U.S. finally has two longer-ranged, air-to-air missile systems developed: AIM-260 & AIM-174B. How do you assess U.S. capabilities compared with China's air force regarding tactical, long-range, air-to-air engagements using these modern air-to-air missile systems and advanced tactical fighters?
Siempre me llamó la atención de la idea de armar F-15EX con hasta 20 misiles AMRAAM para enfrentar a la aviación china, pero la USAF no poseía ningún misil de muy largo alcance operativo.
Un solo PL-15 y destruye un caza pesado de 100M más otros 30M en misiles sin disparar en un combate BVR hipotético.
I find it interesting that the PL-15 + Saab AWACS combo struck a Rafale, which I believe is low radar observable (semi-stealth, or at least, very small RCS.) There are some pro-Chinese OSINT accounts on Twitter claiming that the PL-15 has a qualitative edge over modern Western tech against stealth - something to do with more sophisticated fabrication of IC elements on its ASEA radar.
I assume this is propaganda, but on the other hand, who knows how an F-35 (which India is supposedly getting, probably thanks to the good relations of Modi and Vance) would have fared in the same place.
Just as a side not to the mentioned 'Atlantic Charter of 1941'.
IMHO this was just a PR piece of paper, which was very clearly shown just 3 days after it's publication during the invasion of neutral Iran by UK and the USSR without any declaration of war.
When the Shah asked Roosevelt for help citing that Atlantik charter he just got a cynical answer.
Back to the main topic, I am eager to read the second part.
And 'yesno'. The Atlantic Charter was still the fundament of the Rooseverltarian idea for the UN: I think one shouldn't underestimate how seriously was it taken by members of the last Roosevelt administration - even by a few that continued serving under Trumman (see the book Lords of the Desert, by James Barr) - even if (not just once) violated by Roosevelt himself.
first, thank you for an effort. enjoyed the article.
a general question, if i'm permitted - i have very scanty knowledge of ind-pak conflicts but from i know - india has always won general and land battles but PAF has generally outperformed IAF - why is that so - western/chinese training/machines of PAF ?
I do not really find the PAF ever 'clearly outperformed the IAF'. Sure, it run a few daring operations and shot down - or destroyed on the ground - more of IAF aircraft. But, and essentially, it was never 'clearly superior'. It had a few excellent local commanders (Rafiqui for example), but otherwise was suffering from being hampered by the same style of incompetence at the top like the IAF.
Where the PAF always excelled was 'PR'. After the 1965 War, it began inviting British aviation journalists to widely publish about it, and thus 'spread its fame of invincibility'. That 'tradition' is continued into our days, when the editor of one of 'top' British (and world-wide) aviation magazines is also serving as something like 'PAF PR-man', and regularly publishing articles about how great is the PAF.
Yup, and Americans were crediting PAF F-16-pilots with 'Soviet MiG-23-kills' - without a reason, and although these were either shooting down each other, or unable to operate radars of their jets.
All I can say with that regard is to repeat Tom's advise to read the "The Bear's trap" written by the Pakistani intel officer. While many things described in the book should be taken with a grain of salt still it contains many particular stories and fact. One of my favourite is that Israel was selling Afgani rebels Soviet weapons captured from Arabs under finance of...Saudi Arabia.)))))
One question comes to mind - IF the Brahmos was jetissoned, why only the protective cap? What happened to the missile body and the warhead? What you see here is the cap and booster. If the warhead went off on impact (unlikely) then the cap too should have been blown away, like the body.. I think the caps were not found close to the booster, but some distance away. Probably the photos are taken at different places.
Further, the IAF has reported that all its pilots are safe and accounted for. One may say it is an implicit acceptance of hardware losses. But some losses are to be expected when striking an enemy who is expecting an attack and is well-equipped, too. To add some spice, the IAF presser has also indicated some losses on PAF side, which they will follow up with proofs.. Let's see what the next few days bring.
At the launch of the Brahmos, the missile comes down from the aircraft 'fully intact': including the cap and the booster. As next, it is jettisoning the cap and then the booster is ignited and propelling the missile to whatever speed and altitude were pre-selected (before the launch).
With other words: when the missile is launched, the cap comes off and that's it. The booster then burns for its time. The booster is jettisoned at some entirely different place than the cap.
Therefore, if there is missile wreckage where one can find both caps and boosters in the same place, the missile was not 'launched' but 'jettisoned'. The cap didn't separate independently from the booster.
Sorry don't mean to be a bother, but could you answer my doubt about why the missile body is missing in the photos? Did the warhead go off? The boosters surely seem charred..
Gauging by available photos and videos, on 7 May, at least two boosters were found uncharred, and right next to them were caps. That's the missiles I consider for 'jettisoned, not released'.
What happened with the rest of missile: I do not know. There are no photos or videos showing them.
Do we think the possible interception of the SU-30MKIs prior to launch resulted in the discrepancy between ‘9 targets hit’ from India and ‘6 sites hit’ from Pakistan! Excellent analysis by the way.
Excellent work. India really needs to up it's game about how to handle war briefings and report news. Their briefings are terrible. The accented English sounds like gibberish. The content appears to be made on the hoof. It would have been OK if the accompanying media reporting wasn't so self important and steeped in parochialism and Bollywood references. It's been like this for 50 years.
Here are few of the many corrections this "analysis" needs:
1. Most madrassas gives housing to families of teachers. Students can evacuate when madrassas are ordered closed for a duration but those families still stay. So despite your snark, children/women logically have higher causalities.
2. I don't know what Pakistani media you watch, but almost all of it gave credit of kills to J-10C except some pseudo youtubers maybe. That JF-17 pilot interview is old.
3. Pakistan used reduced range PL-15E as evident by those photographed in India, at least two of them are clearly marked PL-15E.
Still laughing at, "If you hit our terrorists, we are going to hit back at you, your armed forces, civilians..." 🤣🤣 Never was there a description of Pakistan more aptly written.
My wife is Indian and has family that are former military officials. One rumor that is circulating was that by the time India was ready to strike, the terrorists had cleared out all their camps and HQ. Rather than attack empty buildings, India gave the impression that they would cut off the water and nothing else. India waited until the terrorist thought the coast was clear and went back to business as usual.
RUMINT, but makes more sense than India taking a full 2 weeks to prepare a retaliation.
Hi Tom, thanks for the report.
I hope the U.S. armed forces will draw the appropriate lessons from this latest kerfuffle, particularly with respect to the quality and capabilities of China's development of advanced attack/interceptor fighters and long range air-to-air weaponry (e.g., PL-15). I am not well versed in modern air warfare, but I have read that the U.S. finally has two longer-ranged, air-to-air missile systems developed: AIM-260 & AIM-174B. How do you assess U.S. capabilities compared with China's air force regarding tactical, long-range, air-to-air engagements using these modern air-to-air missile systems and advanced tactical fighters?
Siempre me llamó la atención de la idea de armar F-15EX con hasta 20 misiles AMRAAM para enfrentar a la aviación china, pero la USAF no poseía ningún misil de muy largo alcance operativo.
Un solo PL-15 y destruye un caza pesado de 100M más otros 30M en misiles sin disparar en un combate BVR hipotético.
AIM-174B is operational and is long-range indeed, since it's an SM-6 adapted to be fired from a jet. AIM-260 is still in testing
I find it interesting that the PL-15 + Saab AWACS combo struck a Rafale, which I believe is low radar observable (semi-stealth, or at least, very small RCS.) There are some pro-Chinese OSINT accounts on Twitter claiming that the PL-15 has a qualitative edge over modern Western tech against stealth - something to do with more sophisticated fabrication of IC elements on its ASEA radar.
I assume this is propaganda, but on the other hand, who knows how an F-35 (which India is supposedly getting, probably thanks to the good relations of Modi and Vance) would have fared in the same place.
Excellent first part of a very detailed analysis.
Just as a side not to the mentioned 'Atlantic Charter of 1941'.
IMHO this was just a PR piece of paper, which was very clearly shown just 3 days after it's publication during the invasion of neutral Iran by UK and the USSR without any declaration of war.
When the Shah asked Roosevelt for help citing that Atlantik charter he just got a cynical answer.
Back to the main topic, I am eager to read the second part.
My pleasure.
And 'yesno'. The Atlantic Charter was still the fundament of the Rooseverltarian idea for the UN: I think one shouldn't underestimate how seriously was it taken by members of the last Roosevelt administration - even by a few that continued serving under Trumman (see the book Lords of the Desert, by James Barr) - even if (not just once) violated by Roosevelt himself.
first, thank you for an effort. enjoyed the article.
a general question, if i'm permitted - i have very scanty knowledge of ind-pak conflicts but from i know - india has always won general and land battles but PAF has generally outperformed IAF - why is that so - western/chinese training/machines of PAF ?
I do not really find the PAF ever 'clearly outperformed the IAF'. Sure, it run a few daring operations and shot down - or destroyed on the ground - more of IAF aircraft. But, and essentially, it was never 'clearly superior'. It had a few excellent local commanders (Rafiqui for example), but otherwise was suffering from being hampered by the same style of incompetence at the top like the IAF.
Where the PAF always excelled was 'PR'. After the 1965 War, it began inviting British aviation journalists to widely publish about it, and thus 'spread its fame of invincibility'. That 'tradition' is continued into our days, when the editor of one of 'top' British (and world-wide) aviation magazines is also serving as something like 'PAF PR-man', and regularly publishing articles about how great is the PAF.
The biggest PR that PAF managed to receive was Soviet war in Afganistan when the brand new F-16s downed a number of defensless Su-22&25s.
Yup, and Americans were crediting PAF F-16-pilots with 'Soviet MiG-23-kills' - without a reason, and although these were either shooting down each other, or unable to operate radars of their jets.
Curiosamente esos F-16 de la PAF estaban cubriendo lo que hoy en día el gobierno paquistaní niega, campamentos de terroristas.
All I can say with that regard is to repeat Tom's advise to read the "The Bear's trap" written by the Pakistani intel officer. While many things described in the book should be taken with a grain of salt still it contains many particular stories and fact. One of my favourite is that Israel was selling Afgani rebels Soviet weapons captured from Arabs under finance of...Saudi Arabia.)))))
Clásico de Israel.
Great writeup!
One question comes to mind - IF the Brahmos was jetissoned, why only the protective cap? What happened to the missile body and the warhead? What you see here is the cap and booster. If the warhead went off on impact (unlikely) then the cap too should have been blown away, like the body.. I think the caps were not found close to the booster, but some distance away. Probably the photos are taken at different places.
Further, the IAF has reported that all its pilots are safe and accounted for. One may say it is an implicit acceptance of hardware losses. But some losses are to be expected when striking an enemy who is expecting an attack and is well-equipped, too. To add some spice, the IAF presser has also indicated some losses on PAF side, which they will follow up with proofs.. Let's see what the next few days bring.
Looking forward to the second part!
At the launch of the Brahmos, the missile comes down from the aircraft 'fully intact': including the cap and the booster. As next, it is jettisoning the cap and then the booster is ignited and propelling the missile to whatever speed and altitude were pre-selected (before the launch).
With other words: when the missile is launched, the cap comes off and that's it. The booster then burns for its time. The booster is jettisoned at some entirely different place than the cap.
Therefore, if there is missile wreckage where one can find both caps and boosters in the same place, the missile was not 'launched' but 'jettisoned'. The cap didn't separate independently from the booster.
Sorry don't mean to be a bother, but could you answer my doubt about why the missile body is missing in the photos? Did the warhead go off? The boosters surely seem charred..
Gauging by available photos and videos, on 7 May, at least two boosters were found uncharred, and right next to them were caps. That's the missiles I consider for 'jettisoned, not released'.
What happened with the rest of missile: I do not know. There are no photos or videos showing them.
Hmm.. Interesting. Thanks for taking the time to reply. Great content, pleasure to read!
Any subsequent writeups?
Amateur here! Thank you for the wonderful report.
There is so much misinformation and mystery about the Rafale being shot down. Could you please elaborate on why you think it was downed? All the pics that I see show the tail number "BS 001" (https://aviationweek.com/defense/aircraft-propulsion/imagery-suggests-first-rafale-combat-loss), but an older news article mentions that it should be "RB 01" (https://www.livemint.com/news/india/the-story-behind-rb-01-the-first-tail-number-of-an-iaf-rafale-1569242768626.html). This seems contradictory.
RE. Indian Rafales, it's simple:
BS-serials: single-seaters
RS-serials: two-seaters.
Thanks Tom for a detailed and unbiased account of what may have actually taken place. Finally an article worth reading on this conflict.
Social media is garbage and has become a massive propaganda & misinformation tool.
Thanks for this great piece.🙏
Do we think the possible interception of the SU-30MKIs prior to launch resulted in the discrepancy between ‘9 targets hit’ from India and ‘6 sites hit’ from Pakistan! Excellent analysis by the way.
Excellent work. India really needs to up it's game about how to handle war briefings and report news. Their briefings are terrible. The accented English sounds like gibberish. The content appears to be made on the hoof. It would have been OK if the accompanying media reporting wasn't so self important and steeped in parochialism and Bollywood references. It's been like this for 50 years.
Here are few of the many corrections this "analysis" needs:
1. Most madrassas gives housing to families of teachers. Students can evacuate when madrassas are ordered closed for a duration but those families still stay. So despite your snark, children/women logically have higher causalities.
2. I don't know what Pakistani media you watch, but almost all of it gave credit of kills to J-10C except some pseudo youtubers maybe. That JF-17 pilot interview is old.
3. Pakistan used reduced range PL-15E as evident by those photographed in India, at least two of them are clearly marked PL-15E.
So on and so on.
Still laughing at, "If you hit our terrorists, we are going to hit back at you, your armed forces, civilians..." 🤣🤣 Never was there a description of Pakistan more aptly written.
What is the truth behind Western Media articles on Rafale being down in India Pak war.
My wife is Indian and has family that are former military officials. One rumor that is circulating was that by the time India was ready to strike, the terrorists had cleared out all their camps and HQ. Rather than attack empty buildings, India gave the impression that they would cut off the water and nothing else. India waited until the terrorist thought the coast was clear and went back to business as usual.
RUMINT, but makes more sense than India taking a full 2 weeks to prepare a retaliation.
Excellent write-up, beautifully written!
Really needed this amid the confusion & uncertainty wrt aircraft losses on both sides.
I think pakistan used the PL-15E since pictures posted were marked PL-15E. They may have used it in conjunction with Saab AWAC.
It seems that PAF No. 11 Squadron flies F-16 and not JF17, do you confirm ?