On the night of 7 May, Indian and Pakistani fighter jets were involved in one of the fiercest combats in recent history, with around 125 aircraft involved in the aerial engagement over Kashmir.
On India's side, there were approximately 70 Rafales and Su-30MKIs, both made by France, while Pakistan engaged 55 Chinese-made JF-17 Thunders and J-10Cs, both sometimes referred to as Vigorous Dragons.
During the battle that lasted over an hour, both sides reportedly stayed within their own airspace to avoid escalation. Pakistan claims its J-10C fighters equipped with PL-15E missiles shot down five Indian jets, three of which were Rafales. According to reports, a MiG-29 and a Su-30MKI were also shot down near the Line of Control (LoC).
However, India has only said it was all a part of air battle without confirming whether it had lost the fighter jets.
This aerial combat offers a compelling case study for the "quality vs quantity" debate. While both sides have been tight-lipped and the reports they have issued are contradictory, a picture is emerging from analysts and news reports, highlighting how quality and quantity resulted in some surprising outcomes.
The 'quality' factor
What happened on 7 May was a modern, beyond-visual-range (BVR) combat. The key "quality" factor was the advanced weaponry and aircraft on both sides.
Reports suggest that Pakistan's Chinese-made J-10C jets, armed with the formidable PL-15 BVR missiles, provided a decisive qualitative edge. The PL-15s are long-range, active-radar-homing missiles. Their range exceeded what Indian intelligence had assessed. This qualitative advantage in missile technology allowed Pakistani pilots to engage Indian aircraft from a distance and reportedly shoot down three Rafales.
The Rafales are considered to be highly advanced 4.5-generation of fighters. The aircraft is known for its powerful sensors, electronic warfare capabilities and a range of effective weapons.
However, the intelligence failure regarding the range of the PL-15 missiles gave the Rafale pilots a false sense of security, reports suggest. Their range caught the pilots by surprise. This showed that even the most advanced aircraft can be shot down if the opponent has a qualitative edge in one specific area, in this case, range.
The 'quantity' factor
The aerial engagement was mostly a quality-focused affair of BVR missiles. But the quantity of aircraft provided a crucial strategic backdrop.
The Indian Air Force (IAF), with its larger overall fleet, was able to launch a multi-pronged operation (titled Operation Sindoor) that involved a large number of jets. Reports mention that the planes were a mix of different types Rafales, Sukhoi Su-30MKIs, and other platforms. This numerical superiority allowed the IAF to strike multiple targets simultaneously and project a powerful image of its capabilities.
On the other hand, the Pakistan Air Force (PAF) appears to have used its available assets strategically. By deploying a combination of J-10Cs and other planes, it was able to respond effectively to the Indian strikes and could inflict a significant loss on the IAF.
The lessons learnt
With the involvement of what some reports suggest were 125 jets, the combat was one of the largest BVR dogfights in recent history.
The outcomes of the air battle indicate a shift in the "quality vs quantity" dynamic. Instead of a simple choice between one over the other, the key takeaway appears to be the importance of intelligence superiority and the effective use of a qualitative advantage.
Even with a larger and generally more advanced air force in terms of variety and overall numbers, India's reported loss of Rafales to Pakistan's J-10Cs was due to a specific qualitative disadvantage: an intelligence failure about the range of a particular BVR missile. This allowed a smaller force with a qualitative edge in one specific area to achieve a significant victory.
The battle highlights that in today's military landscape, a nuanced understanding of an adversary's capabilities and the effective strategies are just as, if not more, important than the fleet size.
Comments