Waqas Abdullah

From 1947, when Pakistan and India were two separate nations to pop out of the British colonial Norma, Pakistan and India’s path has not been easy as it was marked with tension, mistrust and repeated war. They have not only gone to war in 1965, 1971 and 1999, but they have also had countless situations where one wrong move could have meant full-scale catastrophe if carried out. These are not stories of armies and boundaries. They are tales that have created the generations on both sides of lives burned, families uprooted and empires held hostage by history. What makes this rivalry dangerous as it is today is the fact that both countries are armed with nuclear weapons.

In 2019, after the Pulwama attack, one of the most intense escalations in decades took place in the region where fighter jets crossed borders and tensions ramped up to unprecedented heights in years. We get to the edge once again now in 2025. A late attack in Parachinar, Pakistan, ended many innocent lives. Pakistan holds India responsible. Less than a week later, on the night of 6th and 7th of May, India allegedly conducted a strike on several Pakistani cities and claimed more lives. Pakistan reacted quickly, shooting down 3 of India’s Rafale jets and neutralising several drones.

The situation has not cooled. Both countries are currently involved in sustained, back-and-forth gunfire, and fear now grips the everyday citizens living in each country on either side of the border. While attacks occur at intervals, the world waits anxiously. This is not a question of strategy or being better with a military, this is all about the future of almost 1.5 billion people. It’s about peace for an area which has experienced too much suffering.  Whenever conflicts arise or standoffs occur between Pakistan and India, both countries' air forces play a vital role. Both nations possess several fighter jets, each designed for various operations ranging from air superiority to strike missions and defence. The jets on both sides vary in their range, with some being short-range fighters primarily used for frontline engagements. In contrast, others are long-range aircraft capable of executing deep strike operations. Today, both countries utilize advanced technologies like BVR (Beyond Visual Range) missiles, AESA radar systems, stealth capabilities, and drones, making their air forces smarter and faster. As technology continues to evolve, both nations are modernizing and enhancing the lethality of their air forces. In every conflict, air power remains at the forefront, whether it’s retaliation, defence, or preemptive strikes.

In the current era of hybrid warfare and rapidly shifting global security dynamics, the traditional metrics of comparing rival states, such as troop numbers or conventional firepower, are no longer sufficient. Technology, particularly in the field of advanced missile systems, has emerged as a decisive and transformative element in the strategic calculus of modern states. The increasing reliance on precision strike capabilities, air defense networks, and long-range deterrent systems underscores the necessity of a comparative assessment of high-tech weapon systems. Today, both conventional rivals, often entangled in historical disputes, and emerging geopolitical flashpoints are steadily integrating next-generation warfare tools into their military doctrines.

This includes enhanced ISR (Intelligence, Surveillance, Reconnaissance), AI-driven targeting systems, and, most notably, advanced missile technologies. Among these, three critical classes stand out: ASM (Air-to-Surface Missiles), which provide the ability to target ground assets with precision; AAM (Air-to-Air Missiles), essential for securing air superiority; and SAM (Surface-to-Air Missiles), which form the backbone of modern air defence systems.

Each of these systems reflects a state's technological depth and signals its strategic intent, whether geared toward offense, deterrence, or layered defense. For instance, the increasing deployment of hypersonic variants in ASM, long-range beyond-visual-range (BVR) capabilities in AAMs, and multi-tiered SAM batteries indicate a shift from reactive defense postures to initiative-taking deterrence doctrines. Hence, a nuanced, technical comparison of these missile systems between rival states is no longer just relevant — it is imperative. It enables analysts, policymakers, and defence strategists to understand the evolving nature of the strategic environment, assess escalation thresholds, and predict conflict trajectories. As traditional rivalries evolve into complex techno-strategic competitions, the battlefield of tomorrow will be shaped not merely by tanks and troops, but by silicon, sensors, and supersonic payloads.

The missile arsenals of the Pakistan Air Force (PAF) and Indian Air Force (IAF) feature a mix of advanced air-to-air missiles (AAMS) that enhance their combat capabilities. The PAF relies on Chinese-made missiles like the PL-15 (BVR, 200-300 km) on the J-10C and JF-17 Block III, and the PL-12 (BVR, 20-100 km), which is used on the JF-17 and F-16 (limited integration). The PL-5E (short-range, 20 km) is a close-combat missile deployed on the JF-17 and F-7PG, while the AIM-9L/M (short-range, 18 km), from the USA, is used on the F-16 for dogfights. Additionally, the AIM-120 AMRAAM (BVR, 105 km) provides the F-16 with long-range strike capabilities. On the Indian side, the IAF has a diverse arsenal, including the Meteor (BVR, 150-200 km) for the Rafale, offering superior range and guidance. The Astra Mk-1 (BVR, 110 km) is an indigenous missile used on the Su-30mki, Mig-29, and Tejas, while the upgraded Astra Mk-2 (BVR, 160 km) is set to be integrated with newer platforms. Russia’s R-77 (BVR, 80-100 km) is employed on the Su-30mki and Mig-29, while the R-73 (short-range, 30 km) is used in close-range combat. The Python-5 (short-range, 20 km), from Israel, is used on the Tejas and Mirage 2000, further enhancing India’s short-range capabilities. Both air forces, with their advanced missile technology, are equipped for superior air combat across different engagement ranges.

PAF and IAF possess advanced air-to-surface missiles (ASMs) for strategic strikes. PAF’s arsenal includes the Ra'ad-II ALCM (600 km), Taimoor ALCM (280 km), H-2/H-4 SOW (60-120 km), and Barq laser-guided missile (8-12 km). IAF’s ASMs feature the BrahMos-A (300 km), Rampage (250 km), Nirbhay (1,000 km), Crystal Maze II (250 km), and Kh-59me (200 km). Both air forces use these missiles for precision strikes, with PAF focusing on stealth and tactical range, while IAF emphasizes supersonic and long-range capabilities, enhancing their strike and deterrent power.

The PAF's SAM arsenal includes the HQ-9 (200 km) and LY-80 (70–85 km) from China, providing long to medium-range defense, alongside the Spada 2000 (25 km) for short-range and Anza Mk-II/III MANPADS (5 km) for infantry use. The IAF's S-400 Triumf (400 km) offers advanced long-range defense, while the Barak-8 (100 km) and Akash (25-30 km) provide medium-range protection. India’s upcoming Project Kusha (XRSAM) (150-350 km) will enhance long-range capabilities, and the Spyder SR/MR (15-50 km) offers mobile short/medium-range defense. Both forces prioritize airspace security with these systems.

Pakistan Air Force (PAF) shoot down Indian aircraft, including Rafale jets and other IAF Jets, from Kargil (1999) till now (2025)

The persisting rivalry between Pakistan and India, considering decades of conflict and geopolitical tensions, has matured into a high-stakes competition, particularly in the military technology domain. The presence of nuclear weapons and advanced air power capabilities has heightened the risks of confrontation, where the balance of power must include the latest technologies in missile systems, drones, and air defense. As both countries modernise their air fleets and deploy modern military weaponry, the nature of violence in the region has evolved. Pakistan and India have been upgrading their arsenals with long-range missiles, advanced radars, and high-tech drones, becoming increasingly capable of executing strike-by-strike, retaliation-by-retaliation, and deterrence-by-deterrence strategies. However, the looming risk of nuclear escalation and the unbearable consequences it would cause make all conflicts, minor or otherwise, a dangerous path toward potential destruction. Ultimately, the future of the region will depend on the political choices made by the leadership of both nations, where the debate will center on diplomacy as a means of conflict resolution, offering a way out of inhumanity that has led to a significant loss of life in the region, with nearly 1.5 billion people at risk. The world waits in hopes for peace as both nations grapple with the risks that accompany their military advancements in a precarious global security environment.

Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official stance of The Himalayan Research Institute Pakistan - (THRIP)

_________________________________

Waqas Abdullah is a geopolitical and strategic analyst with a special focus on Indo-Pacific politics, power patterns, and the Middle Eastern region. He is actively engaged in addressing issues related to climate refugees, displaced people, and climate advocacy, working to raise awareness and drive action on these critical global challenges.