When Indian and Pakistani jets took to the skies last month, the world witnessed one of the largest and technologically most complex air confrontations in recent history. For four days, both sides unleashed precision strikes, drones, and long-range missiles in an engagement that, while brief, could reshape thinking about modern warfare in the region and beyond.

Although the fighting de-escalated as a ceasefire was brokered amid risks of a nuclear confrontation, the battle—its tactics, technologies, and consequences—offers rich insights for militaries, defense planners, and experts worldwide. With confirmed losses, unverified claims, and evolving doctrine, the air war between India and Pakistan in 2025 underscores that future conflicts may be won or lost far from the battlefield—in the invisible domains of sensors, algorithms, and contested airspace.

The Spark: A Strike and a Race to the Skies

The latest India-Pakistan crisis was triggered on April 22, when twenty-five innocent tourists and a local guide were killed in a terrorist attack in Indian-controlled Kashmir. India blamed Pakistan-based militants for the attack and responded by launching precision airstrikes on May 7 against multiple sites, which New Delhi called terrorist camps, across Pakistani cities and Pakistan-controlled Kashmir. Pakistan retaliated by scrambling its jets and targeting the Indian fleet.

What followed was not a conventional border skirmish, but a complex, beyond-visual-range (BVR) aerial confrontation involving more than one hundred combat aircraft. Interestingly, neither side penetrated the other’s airspace. The missile exchanges between the adversaries took place at distances of up to one hundred miles. Among the aircraft used in the confrontation were some of the most advanced jets, including 4.5-generation fighters. The Indian Air Force is reported to have deployed, inter alia, French-built Rafale fighters armed with Meteor missiles, while Pakistan scrambled Chinese-made J-10s carrying PL-15 missiles.

While the initial air battle reportedly lasted an hour, the military confrontation between the two countries continued to escalate in the coming days. The second round of violence culminated with the Indian and Pakistani militaries striking each other’s military bases following a carefully calibrated drone war. An uneasy ceasefire came next, averting a nuclear confrontation. Still, the world is examining the momentous developments that unfolded in the South Asian skies as a compelling case study with lessons on modern warfare.

Aerial Engagement and the First Rafale Loss

The Pakistan Air Force claimed it shot down five Indian jets—three Rafales, a MiG-29, and an Su-30—during the initial phase of the conflict. While these claims remain partially unverified, and possibly exaggerated, at least two Indian aircraft losses have been independently confirmed, as well as corroborated by US officials.

A forensic analysis by The Washington Post identified wreckage consistent with an Indian Mirage 2000 and a Rafale, including debris photographed in Indian-controlled territory marked “BS 001” and the word “Rafale.” This would be the first combat loss of a much-coveted Rafale jet globally, a symbolic and strategic setback for India and possibly the Western defense industry. New Delhi procured the aircraft in 2019 to modernize its fleet and counter not only Pakistan but also China’s formidable aerial capabilities.

India has shied away from confirming or denying the losses. “We are in a combat scenario and losses are a part of it,” said a senior official of the Indian Air Force, without elaborating. Defense analyst Michael Clarke holds that “India will want to keep it only as a rumor for as long as possible,” adding that the loss of a Rafale would be “embarrassing.” Though India’s chief of defense staff recently admitted to suffering “losses,” he refrained from commenting on how many aircraft were downed, saying that numbers were “not important.”

The possible downing of a Rafale is more than an embarrassment in the grand scheme of things. It reflects the limits of Western technology in modern air combat. It diminishes global confidence in the robustness of Western military technology and, on the flip side, increases interest in Chinese weaponry. The soaring of J-10 manufacturer Chengdu’s share price following reports of the downing of Rafale lends credence to this.

The Rafale, one of the top jets in Western military inventory, is designed to maintain a relatively low radar cross section and emit a reduced infrared signature. Nevertheless, the stealth-mimicking design of Rafale could not prevent Pakistani forces from detecting the jet—and shooting down at least one. Interestingly, even this entailed technological innovation. Pakistan’s defense minister claimed that Pakistani J-10 aircraft had electronically interfered with India’s radar and communication systems a week prior to the air combat. Furthermore, reports attributed to Pakistani officials indicate that electronic warfare played a pivotal role in shooting down an Indian Rafale during the air combat. Such claims have not been verified and it is unclear if such interference played a role in the downing of Indian aircraft, since public information about the J-10’s electronic warfare suite remains limited.

The aerial confrontation also has an important element related to BVR air combat dynamics. Rafale jets are known for their maneuverability. Still, this capability did not come into play. There are indications that India may have underestimated the capabilities of both the Chinese J-10 aircraft and its combination with PL-15 guided missiles.

Another factor that may have been underestimated is the integration of Chinese military technology with Western systems. Circumstantial evidence suggests that Europe’s sophisticated Saab 2000 Erieye Airborne Early Warning and Control (AEW&C) aircraft reportedly functioned effectively with Chinese jets. Some Indian sources report that Pakistan and China collaborated to establish technological synergy between Saab 2000 Erieye AEW&C and Chinese fighter aircraft. This raises questions over the possibility of the Saab 2000 being used to provide launch or midcourse guidance to the PL-15 missiles that the J-10s were carrying.

The PL-15 vs. the Meteor: A New Missile Duel

The May military engagement offered what might be the first real-world test of two of the world’s most sophisticated BVR air-to-air missiles: the Chinese PL-15, carried by Pakistan’s J-10s, and the European Meteor, integrated into India’s Rafale fleet.

The meteor was considered a formidable weapon and a leap in the development of BVR missile technology. While some have regarded the PL-15 as comparable to the Meteor, others note that the Meteor has a significantly larger no-escape range and a superior long-range kill probability due to its ramjet motor. However, even as the brochures have been touting the cutting-edge advantage the Meteor offered, defense experts emphasize that the real-world performance of the Meteor missile is more critical than what is theoretically promised or advertised.

The Meteor, considered the most capable air-to-air missile in service on Western combat aircraft, is already being scrutinized. Following the aerial combat between India and Pakistan, global defense sectors and analysts will be asking: Does the Chinese PL-15 outperform the Meteor in real combat? The answer to this million-dollar question will have far-reaching implications for global security, politics, and defense sectors.

The PL-15 has long drawn the attention of Western analysts. With an estimated range exceeding 124 miles, a speed over Mach 5, and an active electronically scanned array radar seeker, it represents a major development in Chinese missile technology. The export PL-15E variant of the missile is believed to have a downgraded range of ninety miles. It is unclear whether Pakistan possesses and has recently used the PL-15 or the PL-15E variant of the missile against India, but this information may become known soon. Components of some PL-15 missiles fired by Pakistan reportedly came down on Indian territory—some largely intact. Intelligence agencies will now analyze the missile debris to gather information about its configuration.

As it is becoming clearer that the PL-15, no matter what the variant may have been, carried by the J-10 aircraft was used to target Indian jets, including a Rafale, Western defense industry has already started acknowledging that the Chinese missile’s capability “may be greater than was thought.” This does not bode well for the West and its allies, but the Chinese would be delighted. A viral Chinese social media video mocking the downing of Rafale reflects Chinese joy over the possible success of its airborne platform over Western technology. More importantly, the better-than-expected performance of Chinese weaponry in real combat marks a milestone in Beijing’s ambitions to project power, showcase technological superiority, and become a global defense exporter—all without directly partaking in an armed conflict.

Despite initial assessments, it will be premature to contend that the PL-15 decisively outperforms the Meteor in real-world conditions. Nevertheless, whatever the outcome, the competition will be closely watched, and it will have a massive impact on perceptions of China’s capabilities in relation to the West. Defense analyst Douglas Barrie described the duel as “China’s most capable weapon against the West’s most capable weapon.” Although evidence on actual missile usage remains sparse, one implication is already clear: Real combat is testing the theoretical edge that defense manufacturers claim in marketing brochures.

No Dogfights—But a Doctrinal Shift

Despite articles dubbing the clash “the largest dogfight to have taken place in a generation,” or even the largest since World War II, the air combat between India and Pakistan was not a traditional-style close-range aerial battle. Instead, it occurred at long distances, well beyond what we call visual range. This shift reflects the evolution of air combat from maneuver-based dogfights to long-range detection, targeting, and missile avoidance contests.

That does not make the engagement less significant. In fact, it makes it more revealing and strategically impactful. In the classic dogfights that were seen from the world wars until the Gulf War in 1991 (and in films from Top Gun to Independence Day), fighter jets engaged one another in within-visual-range (WVR) aerial combat. This is no longer the case. Close-range dogfights are deemed a contingency to the extent that if two competing fighter planes can see each other in combat, it is assumed that something has probably gone wrong. This is because BVR combat occurs beyond the pilot’s line of sight. The pilot relies on information from both onboard and offboard sensors to make decisions.

In BVR combat, which can be assumed to dominate in high-end conventional warfighting, the advantage is therefore largely determined by software, sensors, system integration, and human decision-making based on these. Because software, sensors, and system integration play a pivotal role in modern aerial combat, the traditional attributes of fighter aircraft—speed, acceleration, and maneuverability—can be seen as less important than before. Such traditional characteristics play a reduced role in both offensive and defensive capabilities of an aircraft in BVR combat.

Meanwhile, electronic warfare in BVR offers significant benefits. It can be used for jamming operations to interfere with and disrupt the adversaries’ radar, communication, and weapon-delivery systems over long distances. Such electronic warfare can be operated from both airborne platforms and ground systems for defensive and offensive purposes.

A key element that shapes BVR combat is the synchronized use of offensive weaponry. Once an enemy target is detected, BVR engagement requires medium- and long-range air-to-air missiles that can travel dozens and even hundreds of miles. Three attributes of such missiles remain paramount: speed, range, and precision. A fourth, and cutting-edge, attribute is how active the missile is: its ability to guide itself and hit the target on its own. The fire-and-forget feature allows the aircraft that fired the missile to avoid getting too close to the target, thereby reducing the risk of exposure and thus destruction.

Drones and Air Defenses

The India-Pakistan military aerial confrontation was marked by not only BVR combat but also other kinds of cutting-edge technological innovation. The most innovative component of the conflict was the use of drones, which cost a fraction of manned aircraft but deliver tangible results. This was the first time the two countries extensively used drones in a military engagement, reflecting a broader trend of integrating drones into modern warfare. The Pakistani military is reported to have attempted massive intrusions into Indian airspace using a large number of drones, not least Turkish-developed drones. For its part, India launched dozens of drones, including advanced Israeli-made loitering munitions, into Pakistan.

The purpose was to interfere with, deceive, and suppress enemy air defense systems by not only mapping and saturating them but also penetrating contested airspace to trigger hostile radar emissions, which could subsequently be targeted by other weapons, such as loitering munitions and antiradiation missiles. Critical data collected through drones could also be used for subsequent full-scale strikes. Initial evidence suggests that the drones delivered concrete dividends to both sides. It was reported that Pakistan employed drones to saturate and trigger Indian air defenses besides using crucial information collected through drones to carry out a comprehensive jamming operation and hit Indian military targets with precision. New Delhi admitted that Pakistan attacked twenty-six sites inside India and damage was done to equipment and personnel at four military bases in the wake of Pakistan’s drone operations. This could only have been achieved by degrading India’s sophisticated Russian-made air defense systems. Pakistan also claimed to have targeted and hit an Indian S-400 air defense system, although this is unconfirmed.

India followed the same modern drone playbook in the conflict. Indian drones penetrated deep inside Pakistan to map and degrade its air defense systems. These drones were reportedly equipped with electronic support measures technology to detect electromagnetic emissions from Pakistan’s ground-based air defense systems and transmit them back home. This data could then be used to locate and subsequently hit Pakistan’s air defense systems. To prevent India from gaining strategic advantage through drones, Pakistan did not shoot them down by means of missiles launched from its strategic air defense sites. Instead, the Indian drones were intentionally allowed to penetrate Pakistan’s airspace, where they were delicately shot down using soft kill (jamming and other technical methods) and hard kill (kinetic attack) tactics.

Despite Pakistan’s countermeasures, it appears that India achieved some objectives by leveraging drones. Indian drones reportedly targeted Pakistan’s radar infrastructure in the strategically important border city of Lahore. One can assume that the suppression of air defense systems through drones was instrumental in enabling Indian strikes on key military bases deep inside Pakistan.

Analysts contend that India and Pakistan’s use of drones will transform warfare in the South Asian region and beyond. The deployment of drones shows they can not only target but also be instrumental in creating vulnerabilities in enemy defense systems. On a broader level, as the India-Pakistan military confrontation reveals, the future of warfare is not just about brute force but also technological innovation, deception, and calibrated maneuvering. This is possible at low costs through drones.

A Learning Moment for the World

From Washington to Taipei, global militaries, defense industries, and experts will examine the recent India-Pakistan military clash as a case study in the future of warfare, particularly air combat. Long-range precision aerial combat, electronic warfare, drone warfare, and suppression of enemy air defenses not only defined the battlefield but also replaced traditional dogfighting in visual range. Moreover, technological, strategic, and operational innovation in the skies underlines the maxim that to have command of the air is to have victory.

The complex conflict was nevertheless fraught with risks as it was fought between two archrivals with nuclear weapons. The fact that a ceasefire was brokered should not obscure how close South Asia came to the brink, despite the creation of additional space for conflict below the nuclear threshold. On top of lessons on nuclear brinksmanship, it is urgent for global powers to understand the technologies and doctrines reshaping modern warfare and the potential implications they can have for the world.

It may take a long time for the fog to clear completely. Many details of the brief conflict remain unknown or unconfirmed, and many might never be disclosed to the public. But one thing is clear: The skies over the subcontinent are no longer a regional concern—they provide insights into the future of global conflict. In particular, they unveil the performance of advanced weaponry, whether Western or Chinese, in real combat conditions. And they provide a possible glimpse into Sino-Western military competition in a real-world setting, not just on paper.

Arsalan Bilal is a researcher at UiT The Arctic University of Norway’s Centre for Peace Studies. He is the coordinator of the institute’s Grey Zone research group that focuses on hybrid threats and warfare. Arsalan is also a nonresident fellow at the Sié Chéou-Kang Center for International Security & Diplomacy at the University of Denver’s Josef Korbel School of International Studies. He can be reached at a.bilal@uit.no.

The views expressed are those of the author and do not reflect the official position of the United States Military Academy, Department of the Army, or Department of Defense.

Image credit: Government of India