I appreciate the technical details in this post. So many interesting aspects, like Western/ Chinese defense tech, 4th/ 5th gen fighters and so on. How much of what actually happened do you think is picked up by US/ Western intelligence, and why should US intelligence get access to missile debris?
Probably a lot. First, the pictures of the missile debris are freely available (e.g. the picture of the PLE-15E's AEASA radar. People smarter than me can already interpret quite a few things from that. India might also forward the tech to the US in return for something. There is of course also a chance that the US already fully understands the capability profile of the PL-15. In this case, there is nothing really new to learn.
I am not sure the IAF ever had a "qualitative edge" - it owns an (inefficiently) wide variety of exciting equipment and I am sure its senior officers love that they can boast of logging time in all of the MiG-21, Jaguar, Mirage 2k, Rafale, Sukhoi 30, and Tejas but it did relatively poorly (or the PakAF relatively better) in 1965, 1971, 2019, and now. Infrastructure, training, doctrine, maintenance all count as well as shiny aeroplanes and EXTREMELY large moustaches.
Also the PakAF has an advantage in that it needs to prepare for exactly one scenario, a war with India in which they start on the defensive.
Good article. However, the only clear evidence available is that physical targets in Pakistan were unquestionably destroyed and people killed, while essentially no damage occurred when counter-missiles were fired later towards India. Based on this simple truth, it is clear that Chinese built much-touted air-defences failed on the Pakistan side, even when it was fully aware that attacks were coming. So all the rest of this analysis is a interesting reading, but mostly conjecture, ignoring things for which there is concrete evidence while making statements based on information that is more speculative in nature. More focus should be given - how could missiles hit targets so successfully and so deep within Pak territory and why did counter-missiles fired later fail to inflict any major damage?
As I mention in the article, Pakistan did not manage to deny the Indian strike, which was able to hit several targets. At the same time, several shootdowns of Indian jets have now been confirmed, including by France, the US, and imagery on social media of wrecks.
Those are all unnamed sources. The evidence is nil, except for a launcher (?) and a fuel tank — both are probably dispensable. BBC has done a nice factcheck. Also FlightGlobal.
two arguments you mentioned. Both are wrong. #1 Pakistan's ground and air defence is based on Italian and Swedish radars. Not Chinese built. Look this up.
#2 Pakistan has not counter struck with missiles. There would be pictures of the smashed or landed destroyed missiles, all over the Media.
Facts and Data supported comments will make this an enjoyable conversation.
The Rafale is not overwhelming capable in BVR. For starters it has the smallest radar of any fighter on the market. Compared to an aircraft of similar size like the typhoon the Rafale has a radar half the size. Compared to smaller aircrafts like the J10 It has a radar 20% smaller and compared to the f16 it's similar the Gripen has a slightly larger radar than the Rafale despite being many tonnes lighter. All these aircrafts are single engine aircraft and still have bigger radars than the Rafale. The typhoons radar is monstrous compared to the Rafales.
On top of that it's not capable of taking full advantage of the meteor missile with a 2 way data link or it's range because of its radar.
So the Rafale will always be at a disadvantage because it needs to get closer to danger to lock and shoot compared to any other modern aircraft.
It's BVR capability is anemic. It wasn't built to be a supreme air to air machine and shouldn't be expected to.
what do you mean by Radar Size ? You've mentioned some size with 10%, 20% bigger ?
Radar's are evaluated based on Scanning Range, Frequencies/Bands supported, Accuracy, Power per sensor, Accurate lock maintenance Range, Relevance, Authority, Steerability, Noise correction, Immunity to ECM jamming, etc. amongst other parameters.
Please specify, what Radar size are you referring to ?
The basic limitation imposed by the airframe in 4G fighters is simply the nose cone diameter.
Exact same power, number of elements, and frequency/switching characteristics, but spread over a larger diameter, means (1) improved angular resolution for the array, which means better perpendicular components in the absolute target position and target speed error at long ranges (2) improved per-element thermal limit due to more area (esp. with advent of more powerful GaN), which means higher peak power, which means better SNR, which means longer range (3) probably also better SNR per same power level, which would mean lower observability - but I'm not 100% sure on this 3rd point
"Size" (diameter and/or area ) gives you more range for the same power, on a very basic level has always been my understanding. For the reasons (1) - (2) you laid out.
So . . . keep your radar small-sized but simply increase its power, eh? Not so easy, of course.
The thing that I may be missing is that the Rafale's radar--on paper at least--boasts pretty standard range numbers, I believe.
Assuming the Pakistani aircraft launched its PL15 from inside Pakistani airspace (range ~100km); the Rafale 'should' have been able to evade it. At that range the Rafale 'should' be able to kinematically defeate a PL15.
So did the missile approach warning not pick it up? Did the pilot not take make appropriate evasive action when/if it was detected? Do the Rafales exported to India have the same missile approach warning system as the French aircraft? Lots of questions, some may never be answered (publicly).
Pakistanis used some form of effective ECM (presumable KORAL) applications to goof out IAF pilots, by the time those Fox 3s arrived, the pilots would have had no warning.
It should also be considered in relation to the Rafale's luxury price tag, 5x or more of the J10c.
Extrapolations to the new PLAAF 3-engine platform might be interesting too. Excess power availability projects to be an order of magnitude higher than the single engine J10 which uses most of its power just to fly, and larger thus more efficient antenna array to compound the advantage.
the price paid for the Rafales include mark-up allegations. A French judge was appointed in 2021 to investigate the corruption, and relation of Anil Ambani's Reliance group.
A particularly important lesson here is that modern air warfare is increasingly a contest between kill chains rather than individual platforms. The performance of a fighter or missile cannot be fully understood without examining the broader system of sensors, AEW&C, data links, electronic warfare, command-and-control, and weapons employment.
Operation Sindoor is therefore valuable not simply as a comparison between Rafale and J-10CE, but as a case study in how force employment and system integration can shape the outcome of a complex BVR engagement. The platform matters—but the architecture connecting the platforms may matter even more.
— Wahidullah Noorzai
Former Senior ANCOP/ANP Officer | Strategic & Security Analyst
I think platform fell short on many counts. Otherwise the argument is that in 2025, a 4.5 Gen Jet will only survive with top mavericks ? No auto-detection, no-maneuvering, no CM/ ECM/ ECCM, almost no self survivability ... ? Almost like a Manual Shift driving auto.
Shortly after the Indian missile strikes, Pakistan launched a retaliatory operation, codenamed Operation Bunyan-um-Marsoos. It claimed to have struck and caused major damage to 26 military targets, including 15 air bases of Suratgarh, Sirsa, Naliya, Adampur, Bhatinda, Barnala, Halwara, Awantipur, Srinagar, Jammu, Udhampur, Mamoon, Ambala and Pathankot. It further said that the BrahMos storage facilities at Beas and Nagrota were destroyed, and that two S-400 systems at Adampur and Bhuj were neutralised by the Pakistan Air Force. Pakistan said that military logistics and support sites such as the Field Supply Depot in Uri and Radar Station in Poonch were targeted, and command headquarters such as 10 Brigade and 80 Brigade at KG Top and Nowshera, as well as proxy training and intelligence fusion facilities in Rajouri and Nowshera, were destroyed.[96] Pakistan further said that Indian military elements across the LoC, including headquarters, logistic bases, artillery positions, and posts, were heavily damaged. It said that its drones flew over major Indian cities and sensitive political and military sites, including New Delhi.
And:
India denied Pakistan's claims that its BrahMos missile base, airfields in Sirsa, Jammu, Pathankot, Bhatinda, Nalia and Bhuj, and ammunition depots in Chandigarh and Beas had been damaged. It also rejected Pakistan's claims that the S-400 defence system and airfield at Suratgarh had been destroyed, calling these allegations part of a "malicious misinformation campaign". Indian officials acknowledged limited damage at four of its air bases — Udhampur, Pathankot, Adampur, and Bhuj — and the family of one Indian soldier confirmed his death at Udhampur.
I appreciate the technical details in this post. So many interesting aspects, like Western/ Chinese defense tech, 4th/ 5th gen fighters and so on. How much of what actually happened do you think is picked up by US/ Western intelligence, and why should US intelligence get access to missile debris?
Probably a lot. First, the pictures of the missile debris are freely available (e.g. the picture of the PLE-15E's AEASA radar. People smarter than me can already interpret quite a few things from that. India might also forward the tech to the US in return for something. There is of course also a chance that the US already fully understands the capability profile of the PL-15. In this case, there is nothing really new to learn.
Details from the downing of the Rafale will hopefully trickle out eventually. As you point out, quite a few governments are interested in that info.
Thanks for this article and your interesting insights on this important topic!
I am not sure the IAF ever had a "qualitative edge" - it owns an (inefficiently) wide variety of exciting equipment and I am sure its senior officers love that they can boast of logging time in all of the MiG-21, Jaguar, Mirage 2k, Rafale, Sukhoi 30, and Tejas but it did relatively poorly (or the PakAF relatively better) in 1965, 1971, 2019, and now. Infrastructure, training, doctrine, maintenance all count as well as shiny aeroplanes and EXTREMELY large moustaches.
Also the PakAF has an advantage in that it needs to prepare for exactly one scenario, a war with India in which they start on the defensive.
Good article. However, the only clear evidence available is that physical targets in Pakistan were unquestionably destroyed and people killed, while essentially no damage occurred when counter-missiles were fired later towards India. Based on this simple truth, it is clear that Chinese built much-touted air-defences failed on the Pakistan side, even when it was fully aware that attacks were coming. So all the rest of this analysis is a interesting reading, but mostly conjecture, ignoring things for which there is concrete evidence while making statements based on information that is more speculative in nature. More focus should be given - how could missiles hit targets so successfully and so deep within Pak territory and why did counter-missiles fired later fail to inflict any major damage?
As I mention in the article, Pakistan did not manage to deny the Indian strike, which was able to hit several targets. At the same time, several shootdowns of Indian jets have now been confirmed, including by France, the US, and imagery on social media of wrecks.
Those are all unnamed sources. The evidence is nil, except for a launcher (?) and a fuel tank — both are probably dispensable. BBC has done a nice factcheck. Also FlightGlobal.
two arguments you mentioned. Both are wrong. #1 Pakistan's ground and air defence is based on Italian and Swedish radars. Not Chinese built. Look this up.
#2 Pakistan has not counter struck with missiles. There would be pictures of the smashed or landed destroyed missiles, all over the Media.
Facts and Data supported comments will make this an enjoyable conversation.
HQ-9 and accompanying acquisition and fire control radars are not Chinese? Would be news to me.
But yes, no evidence available to support the notion of a Pakistani counterstrike.
The Rafale is not overwhelming capable in BVR. For starters it has the smallest radar of any fighter on the market. Compared to an aircraft of similar size like the typhoon the Rafale has a radar half the size. Compared to smaller aircrafts like the J10 It has a radar 20% smaller and compared to the f16 it's similar the Gripen has a slightly larger radar than the Rafale despite being many tonnes lighter. All these aircrafts are single engine aircraft and still have bigger radars than the Rafale. The typhoons radar is monstrous compared to the Rafales.
On top of that it's not capable of taking full advantage of the meteor missile with a 2 way data link or it's range because of its radar.
So the Rafale will always be at a disadvantage because it needs to get closer to danger to lock and shoot compared to any other modern aircraft.
It's BVR capability is anemic. It wasn't built to be a supreme air to air machine and shouldn't be expected to.
what do you mean by Radar Size ? You've mentioned some size with 10%, 20% bigger ?
Radar's are evaluated based on Scanning Range, Frequencies/Bands supported, Accuracy, Power per sensor, Accurate lock maintenance Range, Relevance, Authority, Steerability, Noise correction, Immunity to ECM jamming, etc. amongst other parameters.
Please specify, what Radar size are you referring to ?
The basic limitation imposed by the airframe in 4G fighters is simply the nose cone diameter.
Exact same power, number of elements, and frequency/switching characteristics, but spread over a larger diameter, means (1) improved angular resolution for the array, which means better perpendicular components in the absolute target position and target speed error at long ranges (2) improved per-element thermal limit due to more area (esp. with advent of more powerful GaN), which means higher peak power, which means better SNR, which means longer range (3) probably also better SNR per same power level, which would mean lower observability - but I'm not 100% sure on this 3rd point
"Size" (diameter and/or area ) gives you more range for the same power, on a very basic level has always been my understanding. For the reasons (1) - (2) you laid out.
So . . . keep your radar small-sized but simply increase its power, eh? Not so easy, of course.
The thing that I may be missing is that the Rafale's radar--on paper at least--boasts pretty standard range numbers, I believe.
Assuming the Pakistani aircraft launched its PL15 from inside Pakistani airspace (range ~100km); the Rafale 'should' have been able to evade it. At that range the Rafale 'should' be able to kinematically defeate a PL15.
So did the missile approach warning not pick it up? Did the pilot not take make appropriate evasive action when/if it was detected? Do the Rafales exported to India have the same missile approach warning system as the French aircraft? Lots of questions, some may never be answered (publicly).
Pakistanis used some form of effective ECM (presumable KORAL) applications to goof out IAF pilots, by the time those Fox 3s arrived, the pilots would have had no warning.
Such a great write-up, Fabian! Sadly, the Indians have already started to ruin this space by commenting whatever lies their media feeds them.
Salam. But Internet is also full of fact checked reports of fake pictures and AI generated pictures.
It should also be considered in relation to the Rafale's luxury price tag, 5x or more of the J10c.
Extrapolations to the new PLAAF 3-engine platform might be interesting too. Excess power availability projects to be an order of magnitude higher than the single engine J10 which uses most of its power just to fly, and larger thus more efficient antenna array to compound the advantage.
the price paid for the Rafales include mark-up allegations. A French judge was appointed in 2021 to investigate the corruption, and relation of Anil Ambani's Reliance group.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rafale_deal_controversy
A particularly important lesson here is that modern air warfare is increasingly a contest between kill chains rather than individual platforms. The performance of a fighter or missile cannot be fully understood without examining the broader system of sensors, AEW&C, data links, electronic warfare, command-and-control, and weapons employment.
Operation Sindoor is therefore valuable not simply as a comparison between Rafale and J-10CE, but as a case study in how force employment and system integration can shape the outcome of a complex BVR engagement. The platform matters—but the architecture connecting the platforms may matter even more.
— Wahidullah Noorzai
Former Senior ANCOP/ANP Officer | Strategic & Security Analyst
Very good 👍
Can you comment on Pakistani losses?
A slightly pyrrhic victory then. I can only hope that rafale was enough of a lesson to avoid repeating such mistakes in the future
To be fair to Dassault, I don't think the platform was the issue here.
I think platform fell short on many counts. Otherwise the argument is that in 2025, a 4.5 Gen Jet will only survive with top mavericks ? No auto-detection, no-maneuvering, no CM/ ECM/ ECCM, almost no self survivability ... ? Almost like a Manual Shift driving auto.
Very interesting, would you consider the Indian losses confirmed at this point or are they still claims made in the fog of war?
Very interesting analysis indeed Fabian, very much appreciate the technical detail 👍. This is a conflict zone I need to read up on more.
How much do you think Pakistani instructors' presence in Rafale-operating Arab air forces would've helped them in its downing.
They have been present in exercises with US, Russian, European, and Chinese equipment. Learnings and platform assessments are a part of that.
Shortly after the Indian missile strikes, Pakistan launched a retaliatory operation, codenamed Operation Bunyan-um-Marsoos. It claimed to have struck and caused major damage to 26 military targets, including 15 air bases of Suratgarh, Sirsa, Naliya, Adampur, Bhatinda, Barnala, Halwara, Awantipur, Srinagar, Jammu, Udhampur, Mamoon, Ambala and Pathankot. It further said that the BrahMos storage facilities at Beas and Nagrota were destroyed, and that two S-400 systems at Adampur and Bhuj were neutralised by the Pakistan Air Force. Pakistan said that military logistics and support sites such as the Field Supply Depot in Uri and Radar Station in Poonch were targeted, and command headquarters such as 10 Brigade and 80 Brigade at KG Top and Nowshera, as well as proxy training and intelligence fusion facilities in Rajouri and Nowshera, were destroyed.[96] Pakistan further said that Indian military elements across the LoC, including headquarters, logistic bases, artillery positions, and posts, were heavily damaged. It said that its drones flew over major Indian cities and sensitive political and military sites, including New Delhi.
And:
India denied Pakistan's claims that its BrahMos missile base, airfields in Sirsa, Jammu, Pathankot, Bhatinda, Nalia and Bhuj, and ammunition depots in Chandigarh and Beas had been damaged. It also rejected Pakistan's claims that the S-400 defence system and airfield at Suratgarh had been destroyed, calling these allegations part of a "malicious misinformation campaign". Indian officials acknowledged limited damage at four of its air bases — Udhampur, Pathankot, Adampur, and Bhuj — and the family of one Indian soldier confirmed his death at Udhampur.
From:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2025_India%E2%80%93Pakistan_conflict (scroll down to chapter "10 May", 4th and 6th paragraphs)