Exactly, however, it will be really odd if Pak does a surprise attack after begging for ceasefire! But then again, as per CDS, Pakistan is a “rational” actorWell... Even CDS said... its not a ceasefire but pause fire....
Any idea which asset(s) hit our jets? Are there any reliable sources stating this?As per some reports, all our combat losses were because of surface-to-air fire and not because of BVRs/Air-to-Air missiles.
Need to dial up X-Guard software to not repeat that in future along with taking out all their SAMs that are waiting in ambush. @randomradio
Most probably ground-to-air SAM, which were close to the border.Any idea which asset(s) hit our jets? Are there any reliable sources stating this?
As per some reports, all our combat losses were because of surface-to-air fire and not because of BVRs/Air-to-Air missiles.
Need to dial up X-Guard software to not repeat that in future along with taking out all their SAMs that are waiting in ambush. @randomradio
Most probably ground-to-air SAM, which were close to the border.
HQ9 is a decent SAM system. in close range, any SAM is effective, even our legacy Pechora (S-125) systems. The IAF definitely downed PAF aircraft; they are not invisible, and we are also not invisible. But air-to-air battles are counterproductive, so we stay back and change the tactics. using standoff missiles, we break the PAF's backbone.What I meant was if we know which systems were active near border. I am curious about the performance of their HQ9s against our jets given they flopped really hard at Noor Khan against our CMs.
The fact and the outcome of the assault by IAF is dawning upon the Pakistanis, slowly but surely!
Agreed, but here the point was performance against a specific vector, missiles vs jets. Could be that HQ9 performed better against jets (comparatively lot slower than brahmos)..HQ9 is a decent SAM system. in close range, any SAM is effective, even our legacy Pechora (S-125) systems. The IAF definitely downed PAF aircraft; they are not invisible, and we are also not invisible. But air-to-air battles are counterproductive, so we stay back and change the tactics. using standoff missiles, we break the PAF's backbone.
Agreed, but here the point was performance against a specific vector, missiles vs jets. Could be that HQ9 performed better against jets (comparatively lot slower than brahmos)..
I generally ignore this fellow completely, however, I agree with his PoV on the argument against dependency on US.
He is speaking from a Chinese lens, not a pro-India opinion. At the very least China and India are on the same page when it comes to India's dependency on the US, but they have a more extreme view compared to India where they want absolutely no positive relationship between US and India.
While the F-35 is burned toast, there's plenty of stuff from the US that are necessary and will be bought.
unknown men~ unknown men~And my gut says this guy will be dead before Op Sindoor finally concludes.![]()