From drones to the doctrine: A technical analysis on the Indo-Pak conflict with complete analysis from a technical POV.

The May 2025 conflict between India and Pakistan marks a turning point in modern warfare, representing what analysts have called the world's first "drone war" between nuclear-armed neighbors. As an aerospace engineer, I find this conflict particularly fascinating for its deployment of next-generation military technologies, unconventional tactics, and the lessons it offers for future conflicts. This analysis examines the technical aspects of the engagement, the weapons systems employed by both sides, and assesses the operational outcomes from a neutral perspective.

The Kashmir Conflict: Historical Context & The Illegal Scrapping of Article 370 and 35A

The Kashmir dispute lies at the heart of the Indo-Pakistani conflict, originating from the 1947 partition of British India. When British colonial rule ended, the princely state of Jammu and Kashmir, with its Muslim-majority population, became the turning point that has defined relations between the two nuclear powers for over seven decades.

The conflict began when Maharaja Hari Singh, Kashmir's Hindu ruler, sought to remain independent despite presiding over a predominantly Muslim population. As Pakistani tribal militias invaded in October 1947, he signed an Instrument of Accession to India in exchange for military assistance.1 This triggered the first Indo-Pak War (1947-1948), establishing a pattern of territorial dispute that continues to this day.

The conflict internationalized when India took the issue to the United Nations in January 1948, resulting in UN resolutions calling for a plebiscite to determine Kashmir's future vote which has never taken place.2 The 2019 revocation of Articles 370 and 35A, which had granted Kashmir special autonomous status within India, further escalated tensions, with Pakistan condemning the move as illegal under international law and a violation of UN resolutions, while India maintained it was an internal constitutional matter.3

The May 2025 conflict was triggered by a terrorist attack in Pahalgam, Indian-administered Kashmir, on April 22, which killed 26 people.4 India blamed the attack on Pakistan-sponsored terrorists, while Pakistan denied any involvement.5

Operation Sindoor: A retaliation strategy

Operation Sindoor, launched by the Indian Armed Forces on May 7, 2025, represented an uncalled strategic shift in India's response to the Pahalgam attack, despite providing no proof of Pakistan’s involvement. The operation targeted nine locations across Pakistan-administered Kashmir and Pakistan mainland, employing a combination of precision missile strikes and drone warfare against terrorist infrastructure.6 Indian military officials described the operation as "justice served" and "a lesson Pakistan won't forget".

The operation was supposed to demonstrate India's evolving military capabilities through a calculated application of force that deliberately avoided civilian areas while striking deep into Pakistani territory. But did it?

The operation's execution involved 14 coordinated attacks against supposed terrorist camps, training facilities, and support infrastructure, utilizing a mix of standoff weapons and unmanned systems to minimize the risk to Indian personnel while maximizing strategic impact.7 This tactical approach represented a significant evolution in India's policy against Pakistan, moving from limited cross-border attacks to more comprehensive strikes within Pakistan.

Technical Battle Assessment

The conflict revealed a significant technological gap that shaped its outcome. Pakistan's J-10CE fighters, equipped with PL-15E missiles with a 150km range, outperformed India's more expensive Rafales, whose MICA missiles maxed out at 80km.8 This range advantage proved to be critical in beyond-visual-range engagements, allowing Pakistani pilots to target Indian aircraft while remaining outside their engagement zone. U.S. officials confirmed that Pakistan's Chinese-made jets successfully brought down at least two Indian fighter aircraft 9, though Pakistan claims a total of five downed Indian jets, including three Rafales, a MiG-29, and an Su-30.10

The conflict also highlighted India's integration challenges across its mixed-origin fleet. While India deployed sophisticated systems, including S-400 AD batteries that successfully neutralized many Pakistani drones 11, its aging fleet of Jaguars and Mirages (retired in France since 2005) revealed capability gaps. Both sides leveraged drone technology extensively, India with Israeli-developed Harop loitering munitions that destroyed Pakistani air defense radars 11, and Pakistan with Turkish Bayraktar TB2 drones targeting Indian logistics bases.12 This technical assessment shows how electronic warfare, sensor integration, and missile range have become more decisive than platform specifications or quantitative superiority in modern air combat.

Military Aircraft Analysis

The aerial conflict was one of the largest dogfights since World War II. According to multiple sources, approximately 125-130 fighter jets participated in the hour-long battle. Pakistani officials stated that India initially deployed 60 aircraft, including 14 Rafale fighter jets, and gradually increased this number to 72 throughout the operation.13 Meanwhile, Pakistan reportedly mobilized more than 60 fighters within 25 minutes of detecting the Indian formations.14 15
India's air force relied on its 36 Dassault Rafales ($288 million per unit)16 featuring RBE2 AESA radar and SPECTRA electronic warfare suite (developed by Thales), Sukhoi Su-30 MKIs, 65 MiG-29s, and aging Jaguar and Mirage fighters.17 18 Pakistan countered with the remarkably effective Chengdu J-10CE, a single-seat multirole fighter costing about $50 million, achieving Mach 1.8 speeds and an 18,000-meter service ceiling.19

The conflict revealed a surprising effectiveness gap, with Pakistan's Chinese-made J-10CE fighters equipped with PL-15 missiles reportedly downing multiple Indian aircraft in beyond-visual-range engagements.20 U.S. officials confirmed that Pakistan's J-10 jets successfully brought down at least two Indian fighter aircraft, including one Rafale, despite India's numerical advantage of 616 combat aircraft compared to Pakistan's 387.20 Four local government sources in Indian Kashmir told Reuters three fighter jets had crashed in separate areas of the Himalayan region during the night, with their pilots admitted to hospital. This outcome challenges conventional assumptions about Western military’s technological superiority and demonstrates that sophisticated electronic warfare capabilities and sensor integration may prove more decisive in modern air combat.

Missiles and Air Defense Systems

The conflict featured a confrontation between Chinese and Western military technologies, providing a rare real-world testing ground for competing weapons systems.

Pakistan's air defense network relies heavily on Chinese-manufactured systems, including the long-range HQ-9, medium-range LY-80 (HQ-16), and short-range FM-90 (HQ-7) missile systems.21 These systems faced their first major combat test against the Russian S-400 long-range systems and indigenous Akash medium-range systems.22

The conflict produced conflicting narratives regarding the performance of these systems. Pakistan claimed its Chinese-built air defenses successfully intercepted the "majority" of Indian missiles targeting its airbases, though satellite imagery confirmed strikes on Nur Khan, Rafiqi, and Murid airbases did penetrate these defenses.23 Pakistan also claimed that its forces successfully "neutralized" two S-400 systems at Adampur and Bhuj during Operation Bunyan-un-Marsoos, which turned out to be false. Barak-8 missiles jointly developed with Israel successfully intercepted Pakistani ballistic missiles, including a Fatah-2 over Sirsa.24 The conflict marked the first battlefield test of Indo-Russian BrahMos supersonic cruise missiles, demonstrating their effectiveness in actual combat conditions.

The conflict also saw the operational debut of indigenous Pakistani Fatah-1 rockets and Fatah-2 tactical ballistic missiles.25 Most notably, Chinese-made PL-15 air-to-air missiles equipped on Pakistani J-10CE fighters demonstrated superior range compared to Western counterparts, downing two Indian Rafales in beyond-visual-range engagements.

Kamikaze Drone Deployment Strategies

This marked as the first "drone war" between nuclear-armed nations. India deployed Israeli-developed Harop loitering munitions (kamikaze drones) capable of hovering for up to 6 hours before striking targets, alongside IAI Searcher and Heron reconnaissance UAVs for surveillance operations.26 27 These kamikaze drones proved particularly effective against Pakistani air defense sites, with India successfully launching Harop drones against four air defense installations, destroying at least one radar system.28

Pakistan's drone arsenal featured the Turkish-manufactured Bayraktar TB2 combat drones, which were used in cross-border attacks against Indian military logistics bases.29 The Pakistani strategy involved a saturation approach, deploying an estimated 300-400 drones across 36 locations while simultaneously firing heavy-caliber weapons along the Line of Control.30 This overwhelming drone presence challenged even India's sophisticated S-400, thus showing how quantity can overcome quality in modern drone warfare. Additional Turkish-supplied systems like Asisguard Songar and Chinese Wing Loong-2 unmanned combat aerial vehicles further enhanced Pakistan's offensive capabilities.

ADs were activated across Srinagar, Jammu & Kashmir, on two consecutive nights, after drones were spotted across the city. Blackouts were carried out and the airspace remained closed for multiple days.

What made the prestigious Rafale face its first loss? What failed?

The Rafale's underperformance can be largely attributed to critical integration failures within India's mixed-origin air defense network. Times of India revealed that India's Russian and French fighters sometimes even failed to communicate, let alone guide each other's missiles, highlighting a fundamental interoperability problem. This prevented the formation of a cohesive battlefield awareness picture, leaving Rafale pilots vulnerable despite their aircraft's advanced capabilities.

Pakistan's strategic advantage stemmed from its more homogeneous Chinese-supplied systems, which enabled seamless data sharing across platforms. When Pakistani J-10C fighters engaged Indian Rafales with PL-15E missiles, the French jets' vaunted SPECTRA electronic warfare suite proved ineffective against the full-spectrum electronic warfare environment they encountered 31 32. The conflict exposed how even the technologically sophisticated platforms like Rafale become vulnerable when operating in isolation rather than as part of an integrated network. Moreover, the Pakistani pilots have been reported to have been training in China constantly, thus holding an upper hand in the air combat.

Pakistan’s Response: Operation Bunyan-un-Marsoos

Pakistan's response to India's Operation Sindoor came in the form of Operation Bunyan-un-Marsoos (one of the titles of Imam Ali as), which was a coordinated counterattack that targeted several Indian military installations. Following the initial Indian strikes on May 7, Pakistan's National Security Council, convened by Prime Minister Shahbaz Sharif, authorized the military under General Asim Munir to respond with full force.33 The operation represented Pakistan's most significant military action against India in nearly three decades.

The Pakistani response featured a multi-layered approach combining conventional airpower with drone saturation tactics. Pakistan deployed an estimated 300-400 drones across 36 locations while simultaneously engaging in artillery shelling along the Line of Control.34 35 The J-10CE fighters proved particularly effective, with Pakistan claiming to have downed five Indian aircraft, including three Rafales, one MiG-29, and one SU-30MKI.36 While India disputed these numbers, U.S. officials confirmed to Reuters that Pakistani J-10 aircraft had shot down at least two Indian fighter jets, with satellite imagery later identifying crash sites of a Dassault Rafale and a Mirage 2000.37 The conflict escalated further on May 10 when Pakistani forces targeted deeper Indian military installations, prompting both sides to agree to a ceasefire later that day, after Trump threatened to cut trade with both countries.

Battle Damage Assessment and Civilian Losses

The four-day conflict inflicted significant damage on military installations and resulted in civilian casualties on both sides. Satellite imagery analyzed by The Washington Post confirmed Indian strikes damaged six Pakistani airfields, including three hangars, two runways, and mobile air force buildings at locations up to 100 miles inside Pakistani territory.38 At PAF Base Mushaf, precision weapons created visible craters on the runway, while Rahim Yar Khan Airport remained non-operational for a week following the strikes.39

The human toll was substantial, with Pakistan reporting 31 civilian deaths including two children40, while India acknowledged 21 civilian and 5 military casualties.41 Most Indian civilian casualties occurred in Poonch district, where Pakistani shelling damaged a gurudwara, a school, and residential buildings. There were concerns about potential nuclear escalation, particularly as both nations targeted each other's strategic military facilities across multiple provinces beyond the disputed Kashmir region.43

Who won?

Like they say in chess, it was a clear stalemate! The conflict produced no clear victor, with both nations claiming victories while suffering significant losses. Pakistan emerged with tactical advantages in the air domain, where its Chinese-made J-10C fighters and PL-15 missiles demonstrated surprising effectiveness against India's more expensive Western equipment.44 45 This performance boosted the Pakistani military's domestic popularity and enhanced the reputation of Chinese military technology on the global stage.46

India, despite losing several combat aircraft, successfully demonstrated its willingness to strike deep inside Pakistani territory in response to perceived terrorist threats, establishing new strategic red lines.47 The conflict ultimately benefited several external powers: China gained prestige for its military equipment; Turkey enhanced its international standing through diplomatic intervention; and Russia increased its leverage over both nations.48 The hasty US-brokered ceasefire prevented further escalation but cemented a dangerous new baseline for future conflicts, which analysts warn could erupt faster and escalate more intensely.49 As one expert noted, "long-term tensions and conflict with India does not favor either side, "50 suggesting that the true losers in this brief but intense confrontation were the civilians caught in the crossfire and regional stability.