Pakistan's Homegrown Link-17 Kill Chain Helped Shoot Down India's Rafale Fighter Jets
Using a homegrown datalink (Link-17) communication system, Pakistan has integrated its ground radars with a variety of fighter jets and airborne early warning aircraft (Swedish Erieye AWACS) to achieve high level of situational awareness in the battlefield, according to experts familiar with the technology developed and deployed by the Pakistan Air Force. This integration allows quick execution of a "kill chain" to target and destroy enemy aircraft, according to experts. This capability was demonstrated recently in the India-Pakistan aerial battle of May 7-8 that resulted in the downing of several Indian fighter jets, including the French-made Rafale.
 |
| Pakistan PAF's Homegrown Link-17. Source: Secret Projects |
Pakistan Air Force (PAF) pilots flying Chinese-made J10C fighter jets fired the Chinese PL-15 air-to-air missiles and shot down at least two Indian Air Force's French-made Rafale jets in history's largest ever aerial battle, according to multiple media and intelligence reports. India had 72 warplanes on the attack and Pakistan responded with 42 of its own, according to the Pakistani military.
Speaking on a recent podcast, Michael Dahm, a senior fellow at AFA’s Mitchell Institute for Aerospace Studies, said the kill chain may have started with a Pakistani ground radar—“maybe a surface-to-air missile system, or some other type of radar system”—which “illuminated the Indian target.” Then, a Pakistani J-10C fighter “launched its missiles, probably at range, and finally, an airborne early warning and control aircraft used a midcourse datalink to update and guide the missile to the Indian fighter.” “The Pakistani Air Force deployed …’ A’ launched by ‘B’ and guided by ‘C’” and hit the target, he added.
Link-17 enables secure and jam-resistant voice and data exchanges between connected assets. Combined with electronic warfare, it allows the Pakistani military to control the electromagnetic spectrum, giving access to the enemy communications and denying them access to their own. It also enables networked participants to view in real-time each other’s sensor feeds, which could come from radars, sonars, electro-optical (EO) systems such as cameras, and others. Link-17 has given the PAF a network protocol that it can use with a wide range of aerial assets, especially domestically driven programs, such as the JF-17 Thunder.
Military aviation analysts conclude from the results of the air battle that the Chinese technology is as good, if not better than, the western technology. However, it must be understood that the way the technology is actually deployed in the battlefield is as important in achieving good results as the technology itself. Also, the men count as much, if not more than, the machines. The legendary US Air Force pilot Chuck Yeager called Pakistan Air Force pilots "the best in the world". In another tweet in 2015, Yeager said "they (PAF pilots) kicked the Indians butt".
Related Links:
Haq's Musings
South Asia Investor Review
Pakistan Downs India's French Rafale Jets in a Major Aerial Battle
Has Modi Succeeded Diplomatically or Militarily Against Pakistan After Pahalgam?
Has Pakistan Destroyed India's S-400 ADS?
Pakistan's Aircraft Exports
Pakistan Navy Modernization
West's Technological Edge in Geopolitical Competition
Modi's India: A Paper Elephant?
Pahalgam Attack: Why is the Indian Media Not Asking Hard Questions?
Ukraine's Lesson For Pakistan: Never Give Up Nukes!
Pakistan Economy Nears Trillion Dollars
Pakistan's Sea-Based Second Strike Capability
Riaz Haq Youtube Channel
VPOS Youtube Channel
Comments
@SushantSin
As per CDS's (Chief of Defense Staff Gen Anil Chauhan's) interview to Bloomberg, the IAF didn't fly for two days after the losses on the 7th night. Whether he refers only to Rafale isn't clear.
“we made, remedy it, rectify it, and then implement it again after two days and flew all our jets again, targeting at long range”
https://x.com/SushantSin/status/1928737490740859039
@PravinSawhney
What this fellow Anil Chauhan is saying is that for two days IAF fleet was grounded. This is enough reason for him to resign - making light of a serious matter.
When for two days out of four, the IAF (which will be the key determinant of war outcome) is not in the air, it needs some guts to say that India did well in #OperationSindoor!
https://x.com/PravinSawhney/status/1929004953353466183
While the Pakistan Navy might be smaller in size compared to some regional counterparts, it is actively pursuing technological advancements and modernization to enhance its capabilities.
Here's a breakdown of aspects related to the Pakistan Navy's size and technological focus:
1. Size and Context:
Smaller Fleet: Compared to the Indian Navy, for instance, the Pakistan Navy has a smaller fleet size, according to Warpower: Pakistan.
Resource Constraints: The Pakistan Navy operates within a resource-constrained environment.
2. Technological Advancements:
Modernization Efforts: The Pakistan Navy is actively engaged in modernizing its fleet with new acquisitions and indigenous development.
Focus on Technology: The Navy is emphasizing the use of technology and innovation to improve its combat readiness and address evolving threats.
Key Areas of Advancement:
Submarines: Acquiring modern submarines with air-independent propulsion (AIP).
Frigates: Inducting advanced frigates like the MILGEM-class corvettes.
Unmanned Systems: Investing in unmanned technologies, including drones and remotely operated vehicles.
Air Defense Systems: Strengthening air defense capabilities with new systems.
Maritime Patrol Aircraft: Upgrading its maritime patrol aircraft capabilities.
Indigenous Capabilities: Pakistan is also focusing on developing indigenous naval capabilities and shipbuilding.
3. Strategic Considerations:
Defensive Posture: The Pakistan Navy's strategy is primarily defensive, focused on protecting its coastline and maritime interests.
Regional Dynamics: The Navy operates within the context of regional naval power dynamics, particularly with India.
In Conclusion:
The Pakistan Navy might be smaller than some of its regional counterparts, but it's focused on enhancing its capabilities through technological advancements, modernization, and indigenous development efforts.
Munim 🍁
@Munimusing
India may suffer billions in damages and a permanent blow to its blue-water ambitions – and the world will finally settle its debate on the satellite imagery of Pakistan’s early bet on niche, smart-tech asymmetry. The Pakistan Navy’s high-tech, pack-hunting midget submarines – fitted with modular, mission-specific pods for ISR, ASW, and strike – were designed for such a moment. Surgical, quiet, and lethal.
Yet this moment of reckoning wasn’t born of strategy; it was scripted by domestic politics. Indian leadership – obsessed with optics – pushed its military into theatrical deployments for electoral headlines. That recklessness has now imperilled the entire Indo-Pacific balance. If Delhi continues to demand visible retaliation or salvaging of prestige, it risks provoking preemptive shifts in both Chinese and Pakistani nuclear postures. Strategic restraint cannot survive repeated tampering by political amateurs. What begins as showmanship may spiral into full-spectrum escalation – beyond the control of any regional actor.
Unlike India’s overstretched and accident-prone underwater fleet, Pakistan has played a precise, quiet game at sea. Between 2016 and 2022, PN detected and filmed four Indian submarine intrusions – in 2016, 2019, 2021, and most critically, on 1 March 2022. The 2022 interception exposed India’s most advanced underwater asset: a Kalvari-class Scorpène. By tracking it inside operational waters, PN burned its acoustic profile – permanently compromising its stealth. It cannot be risked in high-threat zones again. For submarines, that is a kill without firing a shot.
This isn’t new. The Pakistan Navy has a history of overperformance under constraints – from striking Dwarka in 1965 to sinking INS Khukri in 1971, it has always punched above its weight. That doctrine of disruption remains alive in every officer today.
Apart from that, India’s submarine force has suffered chronic readiness failures and basic seamanship issues. In 2018, India’s $2.9 billion SSBN INS Arihant was out of commission for nearly a year due to flooding from a hatch left open while docked. Let that sink in!
In 2017, its leased nuclear attack sub INS Chakra was damaged entering Visakhapatnam. In 2024, a Kalvari-class Scorpène submarine collided with a fishing vessel northwest of Goa, resulting in two deaths. Even India’s legacy boats have fared no better – with the Sindhughosh colliding with a civilian boat in 2015.
This is more evident in India’s aircraft carriers. Vikramaditya and INS Vikrant are 70s-era concepts re-skinned with vulnerable tech. The GE LM2500 propulsion system is cyber-prone. The Shakti EW suite is rudimentary. L-band radars are inadequate for strike projection and can hardly protect, and the MiG-29Ks onboard offer little beyond visual-range optics. These are not instruments of deterrence – they are $6 billion liabilities.
In contrast, Pak Navy’s air-sea integration has matured in parallel. Pakistan’s legacy P-3C Orions, despite their age, have outperformed Indian Poseidons in actual detection and engagement theatres. Multiple PN’s AIP submarines have silently breached Indian waters undetected – and these are the same class of subs that routinely shadow US supercarriers in exercises. Indian Navy stands no chance.
Pakistani naval officers were reportedly hoping India’s carriers would enter their predefined kill web rehearsed for a decisive hit. Now famed CM-400AKG – PAF spec’d and OEM produced – was envisaged to destroy carriers actually and it was a tweaked version that destroyed Indian S-400s. Publicly listed at 240–290 km range, its true envelope remains classified. Its quasi-ballistic profile and terminal hypersonic velocity were designed from the outset to defeat moving carrier targets. There’s nothing in whole Indian inventory to counter that. Let the Indian Navy make its move, and the genius behind that design will be fully realised.
https://x.com/Munimusing/status/1928795359540621666
@Munimusing
This isn’t about symbolism. It’s about hard, technical overmatch. Pakistan’s naval deterrent has been calibrated, integrated, and field-proven. India has exposed its best assets – and lost them – to a quieter, faster, more adaptive doctrine.
Platforms don’t win wars. Doctrine does. Discipline does. Integration does.
And the Pakistan Navy will run the same script the PAF ran: precise, humiliating, and irreversible.
https://x.com/Munimusing/status/1928795359540621666
https://www.thenews.com.pk/print/1315714-the-data-link-divide-in-modern-warfare-pakistan-vs-india
Modern warfare is no longer just about who has the most advanced jets or the biggest missiles. The real game-changer lies in information dominance-the ability to share real-time battlefield data across fighters, airborne early warning systems (AWACS), and surface-to-air missile (SAM) batteries. In this new era of combat, Pakistan and India present a stark contrast - one has embraced seamless digital integration, while the other struggles with technological fragmentation.
What is a data-link, and why does it matter?
A data-link is a secure, high-speed communication system that allows military assets to exchange critical information in real time. Think of it as a battlefield group chat - jets share enemy positions, missile warnings, and targeting coordinates instantly. For example, the U.S. military’s Link-16 allows an F-35 stealth fighter to transmit target data to a naval destroyer, which can then launch a missile without delay. Without such systems, pilots and ground forces operate in isolation-effectively blind in a high-speed, high-stakes environment.
The security risks behind the divide
Why don’t all militaries use the same data-links? Because sharing them means exposing vulnerabilities. Different military ecosystems speak different data-link “languages.” NATO’s Link-16, Russia’s TKS-2, and China’s proprietary systems are incompatible by design - to prevent adversaries from reverse-engineering stealth technology or electronic warfare capabilities.
Turkey, a NATO member, purchased Russia’s S-400 missile system, which operates on the TKS-2 data-link. The problem? NATO’s F-35 stealth jets use Link-16. The S-400’s radars could have collected F-35 stealth signatures, potentially exposing them to Russia. The U.S. kicked Turkey out of the F-35 program, costing Ankara billions. This clash underscores the risks of mixing rival defense ecosystems.
India’s Rafale jets (French) are among the most advanced in the region, equipped with: AESA radars (superior detection), Meteor missiles (200 km range, beyond-visual-range lethality), but they cannot digitally communicate with: Su-30MKIs (Russian, using TKS-2), S-400 missile systems (Russian), and Netra AWACS (Indian, custom data-link). France refuses to share the Rafale’s source code, preventing India from integrating it with Russian or indigenous systems.
What are the consequences?
No real-time data-sharing between Rafales and Su-30s, S-400 missiles cannot receive instant targeting updates from Rafales, manual radio relays slow down response times (10-30 seconds vs. milliseconds), and in a dogfight where jets move at 1 km per second, these delays are fatal.
In contrast, Pakistan has developed Link-17, a homemade, encrypted data-link that connects: JF-17 & 35 Thunder fighters, ZDK-03 AWACS (Chinese), HQ-9 SAMs (Chinese equivalent of S-300), and PL-15 (Chinese). During the Balakot crisis, Pakistan’s integrated network proved decisive: AWACS tracked Indian jets and relayed data to JF-17s, JF-17s launched SD-10 missiles, while SAMs stood ready, no friendly fire incidents - everything was synchronized. This real-time coordination allowed Pakistan to execute surgical strikes with precision.
https://www.thenews.com.pk/print/1315714-the-data-link-divide-in-modern-warfare-pakistan-vs-india
Why fighters must talk to SAMs (Like the S-400)?
India’s S-400 is a formidable system (400 km range, tracks 80 targets). But without data-link integration, its potential is crippled. Rafale spots an enemy at 200 km - but cannot digitally transmit coordinates to the S-400. S-400 must wait for its own radar (600 km range) to detect the threat - wasting precious seconds.
Can’t they just use radio?
Yes, but: Voice relays take 10-30 seconds - manual inputs introduce errors. Data-links transmit in milliseconds, error-free. In modern combat, those seconds decide victory or defeat.
The deadly cost of fragmentation: India’s Mi-17 friendly fire (2019).
During the 2019 Balakot tensions, India’s own SPYDER missile system shot down an Mi-17 helicopter, a deadly fratricide killing six. Why? No data-link integration between IAF fighters and air defense. SPYDER operators misidentified the helicopter as hostile. This tragic incident highlights the dangers of a disconnected military.
In a hypothetical battle scenario: Pakistan vs. India
Let’s imagine a future clash: Pakistan’s Networked Approach: AWACS detects Indian jets 300 km away. Data instantly shared via Link-17 to JF-17s and HQ-9 SAMs. JF-17s fire SD-10 missiles; SAMs finish the job. India’s Disjointed Response: Rafale spots Pakistani jets but cannot digitally alert Su-30s or S-400. Su-30s rely on voice radio - delays, confusion. S-400 fires late - enemy escapes or strikes first.
Integration wins over raw firepower.
Who’s ahead?
Pakistan’s Link-17 provides a unified, real-time kill chain. India’s Rafales and S-400s are superior individually, but fragmentation weakens them. India lacks a universal data-link (like Link-17) to bridge French, Russian, and Indian systems. India would request France or Russia for source-code access - or risk obsolescence- which the French would never accept.
In the age of information warfare, network cohesion trumps standalone superiority. Pakistan has adapted better to this reality. India is struggling with fixing its data-link divide; and its risks of losing the next battle before it even begins continue.