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.
 |
| PAF Kill Chain During Op Sindoor. Source: Blackbird |
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.
By Farhan Bokhari | 04 June 2025
https://www.janes.com/osint-insights/defence-news/air/pakistan-to-start-inducting-fc-31-fighters
China is set to start supplying the Pakistan Air Force (PAF) with its Shenyang FC-31 ‘Gyrfalcon' multirole stealth fighter aircraft, a senior Pakistani government official has told Janes.
The FC-31 aircraft “will begin arriving within months”, the official said recently, while also confirming that PAF pilots are in China undergoing training to fly the aircraft. The official did not disclose any terms of the deal, including the date it was signed.
In May another Pakistan government official told Janes that the procured FC-31 will be equipped with China's PL-17 air-to-air missile (AAM), which has a range of about 400 km.
Pakistani officials have not confirmed the number of platforms to be supplied to the PAF, although Janes has previously reported that the PAF was in talks to acquire 30–40 aircraft.
The FC-31 is likely to become the first major Chinese military platform to be inducted by Pakistan following the end of its 7–10 May conflict with India.
Search Labs | AI Overview
Yes, Pakistan Navy assets are networked with the Pakistan Air Force (PAF) as part of their efforts to achieve inter-services integration and enhance interoperability.
Evidence of Networking:
Joint Exercises: The Pakistan Air Force (PAF) and Pakistan Navy (PN) conduct joint exercises like "Sea Spark" and "RIBAT-2018" to validate war fighting concepts and enhance interoperability between naval and air assets.
Networking of Key Assets: There is evidence that Pakistan has an objective of integrating key assets such as AEW&C (Airborne Early Warning and Control) aircraft and surface warships through networking.
Data Link System: Pakistan has developed a homegrown data link system known as "Link-17" to facilitate data-link connectivity between the Army, Navy, and Air Force. This suggests an effort towards achieving tactical operational benefits through integrated communication.
Air Support and Interoperability: The Pakistan Air Force provides essential air support to the Pakistan Navy to cover aerial threats, especially for the PN which lacks a credible medium-to-long-range anti-air warfare capability from its surface fleet. Joint exercises like RIBAT-2018 contribute to improving interoperability between the two services.
JF-17 Integration: The PAF's JF-17 fighter aircraft have been tested and equipped to deploy anti-ship missiles like the C-802AK. This further indicates integration and coordination between the two services.
In summary, the Pakistan Armed Forces, including the Navy and Air Force, have taken steps towards greater integration and networking of their assets, conducting joint exercises and developing data link systems to enhance interoperability and operational effectiveness.
https://www.airandspaceforces.com/india-pakistan-air-battle-kill-chain/
May 19, 2025 | By John A. Tirpak
The most important element of an air-to-air engagement in the recent India-Pakistan conflict may be how Pakistan integrated its Chinese-origin weapons and air defenses to shoot down at least one Indian Rafale fighter, an expert on the Chinese military said.
The effectiveness of the kill chain may have been more important than the capabilities of the specific fighters, said Michael Dahm, a senior fellow at AFA’s Mitchell Institute for Aerospace Studies, who is an expert on Chinese military affairs.
Pakistan can “integrate ground radars with fighter jets and airborne early warning aircraft,” said Dahm. “The Pakistani Air Force deployed …’ A’ launched by ‘B’ and guided by ‘C’” and hit the target, he added, citing a May 12 report from China Space News, a Chinese defense industry magazine.
Speaking on a recent podcast, Dahm said the 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.”
It was a “long-range shot, beyond visual range,” likely using the export version of China’s PL-15 air-to-air missile, which Dahm said has an 80 nautical mile range.
The kill chain is the same kind the U.S. is attempting to create within and between its services through the Combined Joint All Domain Command and Control (CJADC2) concept.
“When, and if, we do find out more about the details of the engagement, this may tell a story, more about systems integration and how well Pakistan has done systems integration, versus how well India has done systems integration,” Dahm said.
No details are available about where the Rafale was when it was hit, although Pakistani news agencies showed wreckage that may or may not have been the remains of an Indian Rafale on Pakistani territory. Pakistan claimed after the engagement that it had shot down five Indian aircraft—four fighters and a drone—which conducted an airstrike in Pakistan.
Pakistan seems to have very recently converted several Chinese airborne early warning and control aircraft into electronic warfare aircraft, Dahm said, but it’s unknown whether those aircraft were manipulating the electromagnetic environment. Pakistan’s radar systems and the J-10 are also Chinese in origin.
“What does this say about Chinese technology versus Western technology? Probably not a whole lot, but it probably says a lot more about systems of systems, about training, about tactics … about all of those difficult-to-quantify things,” rather than the relative capabilities of the J-10 versus the Rafale, Dahm said.
He also noted that while India’s air force is bigger than Pakistan’s, it includes “a hodgepodge” of Western, Israeli, Russian, and Indian-produced technology, which makes systems integration much more difficult.
Dahm said that while many news outlets are playing up the angle of the fourth-generation J-10C shooting down a fourth-and-a-half generation Rafale, the comparison of aircraft “probably tells us absolutely nothing.” It’s not known whether the Rafale was departing the target area or whether it had fired any missiles at the Pakistani aircraft, he said.
The Rafale was sold to India with the Meteor missile, which Dahm described as “a beast”—a solid-fueled ramjet missile with a top speed of Mach 4 and a range of 108 nautical miles—with a “wicked … no-escape zone.”
@Blaxk__Bird
Shooter-Illuminator Kill Chain: Networked Air Combat in Action
Modern air warfare has evolved far beyond dogfights and radar duels. Today’s air combat is driven by real-time data sharing, electronic warfare, and multi-platform coordination. Among the most advanced tactical doctrines in this realm are the Cooperative Engagement Capability (CEC), Shooter-Illuminator (Remote Shooter) tactic, Offboard Targeting, and Mid-Course Missile Guidance. These concepts prioritize survivability, precision, and tactical deception.
Cooperative Engagement Capability (CEC) allows multiple platforms like fighter jets, AEW&C aircraft, and ground stations to operate as a single integrated combat system. One platform may detect a threat, another may provide guidance, and a third may fire the missile. The entire system functions through secure datalinks, removing the need for each platform to work in isolation.
The Shooter-Illuminator concept, also called Remote Shooter, adds a strategic layer to engagements. One jet acts as the shooter and flies closer to the threat with its radar off, staying hidden. Another platform, often a second fighter or AWACS, acts as the illuminator and actively tracks the enemy. The shooter launches missiles based on this offboard targeting data without ever alerting enemy radar warning systems.
This feeds into Offboard or Third-Party Targeting, where the missile is fired by a platform that never locked onto the target itself. The targeting data is streamed from a separate asset over datalink. During the missile’s flight, it receives mid-course updates from the radar platform until its own seeker activates in the final approach. This significantly increases hit probability while keeping the launching platform safe.
On the night of 6–7 May 2025, these doctrines were put into action by the Pakistan Air Force in response to India’s Operation SINDOOR. This was a standoff strike operation where the Indian Air Force launched over 70 aircraft to fire long-range munitions at civilian infrastructure in Pakistan, all while remaining within Indian airspace.
Pakistan did not initiate any offensive action but responded with a defensive counter-air operation. J-10C and JF-17 Block III fighters were launched, supported by Saab 2000 Erieye AEW&C aircraft. All platforms were linked through Pakistan’s secure LINK-17 datalink, ensuring real-time coordination across the battlespace.
In each engagement cell, one PAF fighter approached the threat zone in EMCON mode, with its radar off to remain undetectable. A second fighter at standoff distance, or the Erieye, maintained active radar tracking and sent target data over LINK-17 to the forward jet. When the timing was right, the forward jet launched PL-15 long-range air-to-air missiles without ever emitting a radar signal.
The Erieye provided mid-course guidance updates to the PL-15s, ensuring precision tracking throughout the missile’s flight. The missiles only activated their own seekers in the terminal phase, giving Indian aircraft minimal warning and time to react. While IAF jets were focused on their standoff strike mission, they were caught off-guard by missiles they never saw coming.
Despite being numerically outmatched, the PAF executed a flawless defensive mission. Six Indian aircraft were downed inside Indian airspace, including Rafale, Su-30MKI, Mirage 2000, and MiG-29 fighters. Not a single PAF aircraft crossed the border or was lost. The entire operation was managed through networked warfare, electromagnetic discipline, and real-time data fusion.
This engagement wasn’t just a battlefield success. It was a demonstration of how modern air forces must fight: through connectivity, coordination, and electronic dominance. The use of offboard targeting, remote shooters, and mid-course guidance allowed PAF to turn India’s numerical advantage into a tactical vulnerability. In doing so, PAF redefined defensive air superiority in the digital age.
https://x.com/Blaxk__Bird/status/1930159222567702618
Baqir Sajjad
@baqirsajjad
PAF has formally credited its Cobras (15th Squadron) for downing 6 IAF jets in 5/7 showdown. J-10Cs assigned to squadron brought down Rafales with help of PL15s exposing Indian "game-changers" as myths. Cobras asserted Pakistan's skies, Pakistan's rules.
https://x.com/baqirsajjad/status/1930852548358844685
-------------
Air force credits Cobras with ‘six IAF kills’
https://www.dawn.com/news/1915722/air-force-credits-cobras-with-six-iaf-kills
ISLAMABAD: Just past midnight on May 7, a low hum of tension filled the Combat Operations Centre at Pakistan Air Force (PAF) Headquarters in Islamabad.
On radar screens, dozens of Indian Air Force (IAF) fighters began clustering to the north, maneuvering with unmistakable intent.
Within minutes, Pakistan’s skies were alive with scrambling fighter jets — including the most recently inducted J-10C aircraft, flown by one of its most storied units: No. 15 Squadron, the “Cobras.”
Nearly a month later, the PAF formally acknowledged what many had speculated — that it was the Kamra-based 15 Squadron that led the charge in shooting down six Indian Air Force (IAF) jets during what’s now considered one of the largest air-to-air engagement in South Asia in more than half a century.
Eighteen of the squadron’s 20 J-10C aircraft took part in the mission, executing a high-risk intercept against a large-scale Indian formation as part of Pakistan’s defensive response.
In a post released by the PAF’s media directorate, the Cobras were hailed for their legacy and professionalism: “From heroic air battles in the 1965 war, where Flt Lt Imtiaz Bhatti downed two Indian Vampires, to Cold War-era vigilance during the Soviet-Afghan War, the squadron has always remained combat-ready… Now equipped with J-10C 4.5+ generation fighters, the Cobras continue to embody precision, courage, and aerial dominance.”
The May 7 confrontation — triggered by India’s launch of Operation Sindoor following a deadly attack in Pahalgam — saw more than 120 aircraft take to the skies from both sides.
According to the Pakistani military’s official account, the six Indian aircraft downed included three Rafales, a MiG-29, a Mirage-2000, and a Su-30MKI — all hit by PL-15 BVR missiles fired from PAF J-10C fighters. Each launch was executed by pilots from the 15 Squadron, who are expected to be publicly named and decorated at a formal ceremony later this month.
A senior PAF official, speaking on condition of anonymity due to the sensitivity of the matter, confirmed: “The pilots involved in the operation will be honoured soon. These are some of the finest aviators in our ranks — and their performance speaks for itself”.
The engagement, insiders say, was the result of a calculated bait-and-counter strategy. With credible intelligence of an impending Indian incursion, the PAF deployed four defensive counter-air formations and monitored over 60 Indian aircraft using its electromagnetic spectrum management systems.
“We fought the battle on our terms,” the official added. “Our kill chain was fully active. When the command shifted, while aircraft were airborne, from ‘Deter’ to ‘Assure Kill, Deny Own Loss,’ the Cobras carried out their mission with precision and control.”
Among the targets prioritised were the Rafales — the pride of the IAF since their induction in 2019. “The Indians expected the Rafales to be game chan-gers,” the official said. “So we made them our first target.”
The Indian response was initially evasive. On May 11, IAF Director General of Air Operations, Air Marshal A.K. Bharti, downplayed the situation, merely stating that “losses are a part of combat” and insisting all pilots had returned safely.
But the facade cracked during the Shangri-La Dialogue in Singapore on May 31, when India’s Chief of Defence Staff, Gen Anil Chauhan, was compelled to admit the losses, attributing them to “tactical errors.”
The admission triggered a storm of criticism back home. In a bid to contain the fallout, Gen Chauhan resorted to baffling cricket metaphors to explain away the embarrassment.