India and Pakistan have traded fire across the Line of Control (LoC) in Kashmir for more than a week, reviving one of the world’s most volatile military flashpoints. The latest escalation follows mutual accusations of sabotage.
New Delhi claims the militants involved in a prior attack in Kashmir were trained and armed by Islamabad. Pakistan, in turn, accuses India of harboring expansionist ambitions to seize all of Kashmir.
While such political posturing is familiar, the military contours of this round of conflict are not. For the first time in the modern era, two almost evenly matched powers, particularly in airpower, have engaged in open combat.
Comparisons to Ukraine are misleading: Nuclear-armed Russia enjoys clear military superiority and can isolate much of its society from the consequences of war. In contrast, India and Pakistan both field advanced air forces and hold nuclear weapons, with technological parity in many conventional domains. The result is a high-stakes deadlock, one misstep away from catastrophe.
A history written in skirmishes
Since their partition in 1947, India and Pakistan have fought multiple wars and engaged in countless skirmishes. The very year of their creation saw Pakistan exploit post-partition chaos to send tribal militias into Muslim-majority Kashmir, then ruled by a Hindu maharaja. The 1965 war followed a similar playbook—and ended the same way. Though Pakistan avoided territorial losses, it faced clear battlefield defeats.
The 1971 Bangladesh Liberation War marked Islamabad’s most devastating loss. Pakistan’s navy was destroyed, over 90,000 troops were captured, and East Pakistan was severed to form an independent Bangladesh. The 1999 Kargil conflict—limited in scope—again ended along the LoC. Despite initial Pakistani gains, they were compelled to withdraw under U.S. pressure. Another major standoff followed in 2001—2002.
A pattern is clear: These wars start and end on familiar ground, but Pakistan emerges diminished each time. Demographics, military stockpiles, economic capacity, and geography all weigh in India’s favor.
Crucially, Islamabad’s 1998 nuclear test failed to usher in the kind of strategic balance that Cold War deterrence once created. Instead, the two countries have settled into a precarious “gray zone” where short, sharp exchanges avoid crossing the nuclear line, but come dangerously close.
A lopsided balance
India enjoys military superiority in nearly every category—from hardware and troop numbers to domestic defense production. Its population stands at 1.42 billion compared to Pakistan’s 245 million.
Its GDP is 11 times larger. These disparities enable higher arms procurement and more mature weapons manufacturing. India fields more than twice the number of active and reserve troops as Pakistan.
To offset this gap, Pakistan leans heavily on its nuclear deterrent and focuses on maintaining parity in the air. While India holds twice the number of total weapons systems and 10 times more armored vehicles, the margin is narrower in airpower.
That is no accident: Islamabad has prioritized air force capabilities, investing in quality aircraft, radar systems, and pilot training.
Dogfight in the sky: How their air forces stack up
India’s fleet includes French Rafale jets equipped with AESA radars, which offer stealth, superior target tracking, and jamming resistance. It also operates over 300 Russian Su-30s and MiG-29s, powerful and maneuverable but hampered by outdated PESA radar systems that limit long-range engagement.
Some Indian MiG-21s and Mirage-2000s remain in service, though slated for retirement. Crucially, India also flies Russian A-50 AWACS aircraft upgraded with Israeli ELM-2090 radars, enabling it to detect non-stealth fighters at 400—450 kilometers (km), more than twice the range of standard combat aircraft.
Pakistan counters with Chinese-made JF-17s and J-10Cs. Though cheaper, these export models pack AESA radars and fire PL-15 BVR missiles with estimated ranges of 150—200 km, placing them on par or ahead of many Indian fighter jets. Pakistan also flies legacy F-16s, comparable to India’s MiG-29s, and uses Swedish Saab 2000 Erieye AWACS, slightly less capable than India’s but still effective.
The biggest aerial clash since World War II
This round of conflict has been driven largely by air engagements, with limited ground movement and artillery, and kamikaze drone strikes—Israeli Harops on the Indian side, Turkish Bayraktars for Pakistan.
On 8—9 May, Pakistan reportedly downed five Indian jets, including three Rafales, later announcing it had downed six jets—the largest dogfight since World War II. What stood out was the mass deployment of beyond-visual-range missiles in an environment of relative military parity.
The New York Times (NYT) reported that at least two Indian jets had been downed. Debris found on Indian soil confirms at least four aircraft lost: three Rafales, one MiG-29, and one Su-30. Remnants of Chinese PL-15 missiles suggest they were fired by Pakistani JF-17s or J-10Cs.
A senior French intelligence official, speaking to CNN, confirmed the loss of at least one Rafale, marking the first combat loss of this advanced fighter jet globally.
India’s initial strikes used French SCALP/Storm Shadow cruise missiles launched from Rafales, requiring those fighters to venture near Pakistani airspace. The lack of confirmed Pakistani losses implies their aircraft remained deep within friendly territory, potentially flying radar-silent or using mountainous terrain for cover.
Pakistani AWACS may have fed targeting data to the fighters, allowing missiles to be launched without radar detection. In the final approach, the PL-15’s onboard radar would have taken over, guiding the missile independently.
Notably, this time—unlike in previous confrontations—Pakistan appears to have come out on top against its conventionally superior adversary,
revealing the weaknesses of India’s air force.
Last week, Pakistan’s Deputy Prime Minister Ishaq Dar, while addressing the National Assembly, stated, “Our Air Force has made the nation proud,” noting that “the much-hyped Rafale jets failed miserably, and Indian pilots proved to be utterly incompetent.”
Escalation without victory
India responded with strikes on Pakistani military airbases. Satellite imagery shows damage to control centers, runways, radar installations, and hardened aircraft shelters—but no confirmed aircraft losses. Pakistan returned fire on Indian airbases and weapons depots. Claims that Islamabad destroyed India’s S-400 systems remain unverified.
India has relied on Israeli Harop drones and BrahMos cruise missiles—supersonic, sea, and land-attack weapons derived from Russia’s Yakhont system. These are difficult to intercept and highly accurate. Pakistan, meanwhile, has fired short-range ballistic missiles like the Fattah (150 km range) and Hatf (70 km), as well as Turkish Bayraktar drones.
India’s strategic posture remains anchored in its Cold Start Doctrine (CSD), designed to allow rapid, conventional strikes inside Pakistan without triggering nuclear retaliation. CSD envisions integrated battle groups launching attacks within 48—72 hours, hitting military—not civilian—targets. In response, Pakistan has deployed Nasr/Hatf tactical nukes to deter such incursions.
Tensions at the brink
Both governments face mounting internal pressure to escalate. In India, Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s administration is grounded in hardline Hindu nationalism, leaving little room for retreat. In Pakistan, the military remains the dominant political force and may view escalation as a political lifeline amid economic turmoil and post-coup instability following prime minister Imran Khan’s ouster in 2022.
Although a ceasefire has officially been announced, both accused the other of breaching the truce on Sunday, suggesting that a tit-for-tat cycle may drag on for longer before a decisive inflection point is reached. The road to escalation is fraught, not least because both sides are nuclear-armed.
Pakistan’s evolving nuclear doctrine remains deliberately ambiguous, making its thresholds for first use unclear. Any Indian push to target strategic sites or launch a deeper invasion could provoke a rapid and unpredictable response. Pakistan’s lack of geographic depth amplifies its sense of vulnerability.
No easy victory—even without a nuclear war
Both armies are formidable. India has the upper hand on paper, but Pakistan’s border with China complicates the equation. Beijing has no interest in seeing India dominate Kashmir or sever the China—Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC), which forms a key artery in Beijing’s ambitious, multi-continent Belt and Road Initiative (BRI). If India attempts to seize all of Kashmir or block China’s overland access, Chinese intervention is highly likely.
Even without third-party involvement, a full-scale war would be disastrous. Neither side is likely to achieve decisive territorial gains. The human and financial toll would rival that of global wars. And with both nations governed by fragile political structures, neither could absorb such losses in a protracted conventional conflict.
The risk, ultimately, is not just of war, but of a war that spirals far beyond anyone’s control.