How Artillery And Air Power Shaped Thailand-Cambodia Border Conflict
On July 24 a long simmering border dispute between Cambodia and Thailand erupted as both sides unleashed heavy weaponry as they vied for control of culturally important temples and their environs along disputed sectors of the border: Preah Vihear to the east, and Prah Muen Thom and Ta Kwai to the west.
As in a preceding eruption of hostilities in 2011, infantry on the ground armed with small arms and support weapons seized and defended contested terrain which was also bombarded by rocket and howitzer artillery (including cluster munitions). But for the first time, drones and jet fighters armed with precision-guided weapons also joined the fray.
By the time a ceasefire was declared on July 29, there were at a minimum several dozen dead, including many civilians. Artillery and air power caused the most destruction, though the threat of weapons not used in the war also loomed.
The conflict also involved a curious mix of western and eastern weaponry, both old and new. While Cambodia is supported by China (and Vietnam prior), while Thailand has bought arms from the United States, Israel, Ukraine, France, Sweden and others. But Bangok too had increasingly turned towards China in recent years, including weapons and joint military exercises.
Note: Confirming actions in military conflicts (especially recent/ongoing ones) is difficult due to prevailing confusion, optimism bias regarding own-side performance, and propaganda aimed at influencing public perceptions. Thus this account stresses the claims and allegations made by the parties, and what credible photos or videos of the conflict.
Both Thailand and Cambodia have large and diverse arsenals of artillery, with Cambodia particularly invested in rocket artillery. Thai accounts mark a bombardment by Cambodian BM-21 Grad rockets on the morning of July 24 near Ta Muen Thom temple, which reportedly killed 11 Thai civilians and a soldier, led to larger-scale hostilities and retaliatory strikes (see below).
Cambodian soldiers tride a truck equipped with a Russian-made BM-21 rocket launcher in Cambodia's northern Oddar Meanchey province, which borders Thailand, on July 27, 2025. Thailand and Cambodia clashed for a fourth day on July 27, despite both sides saying they were ready to discuss a ceasefire after a late-night intervention by US President Donald Trump. (Photo by TANG CHHIN Sothy / AFP) (Photo by TANG CHHIN SOTHY/AFP via Getty Images) AFP via Getty Images
Multiple rocket launch systems (MRLSs), typically mounted on trucks, can very rapidly unleash large salvoes of rockets saturating a broad area with high explosives—imprecise, but shocking in scale and intensity.
Additionally, some 21st-century artillery rockets are incorporating satellite-guidance capability, transforming them into missiles capable of precision strikes involving much smaller salvoes.
The Soviet 122-millimeter Grad rocket, dating back to the 1960s, is perhaps the most widely used rocket artillery on the planet compatible with diverse truck-launchers. Cambodia uses the original Soviet BM-21 launchers, Czech RM-70s on 8x8 trucks, Chinese PHL-81s (reverse-engineered from a BM-21 captured from Vietnam) and succeeding PHL-90Bs launchers with improved fire control systems. Meanwhile, Thailand uses Chinese PHL-11s (or SR-4s).
All of these model have barrels sufficient to unleash 40 rockets in one salvo, with the PHL-90Bs and RM-70s also carrying a second salvo of ammunition. Typical Grad rockets have a maximum range of 12 miles, though extended-range rockets may reach twice as far or further.
Larger-caliber rockets than Grads typically have considerably greater range—enough to strike distant military bases or population centers. Cambodia disposes of six PHL-03 launcher trucks with 12 tubes each packed with 300-millimeter rockets with a range of at least 81 miles.
Meanwhile Thailand operates license built DTI-1s and DTI-1Gs (based on Chinese WS-1B and WS-32) with four 302-millimeter rockets. The DTI-1G in particular can launch satellite-guided missiles out to 87 miles using China's Beidou satellite network, allowing much more precise strikes using a lower volume of rockets.
Technically, Cambodia's PHL-03 supports a Fire Dragon-140 guided munition too, but it's not confirmed that Cambodia acquired any.
Ultimately, it doesn't appear either side attempted long-distance strikes outside the disputed areas, though Thai media claims the destruction of a Cambodian PHL-03.
Thai and Cambodian howitzer artillery also saw extensive action. Prior to the sustained fighting on May 30, Cambodia deployed a dozen Chinese-built SH-1 122-millimeter howitzer trucks (PCL-09s in Chinese service) to the border. Meanwhile, Thailand has acquired over 600 towed 105- and 155-millimeter towed howitzers from diverse countries, M109 tracked armored howitzers, and modern French Caesar and Israeli ATOMS-2000 truck-mounted howitzers with more sophisticated guidance capabilities.
ATMOS 2000s—known as M758s in Thai service—were recorded in action during the conflict--as were M101 howitzers of World War II pedigree, and Soviet D-30 122-millimeter systems by Cambodia.
Howitzers were a likely vector for cluster munitions the Thai army says it used to target Cambodian military positions (though aerial or rocket systems are possible too). The controversies surrounding cluster weapons will be discussed in greater detail in a separate article.
Air power and air defense on the Thai-Cambodia border
Thailand's military elected to employ combat aircraft for the first time to retaliate against the Cambodian rocket bombardment on July 24. As the Royal Cambodian Air Force no longer has any operational combat aircraft--other than a mix of Soviet and Chinese Z-9 transport/utility helicopters--it could not intercept such raids or retaliate in kind.
The initial raid involved six Thai F-16s which struck the command posts of Cambodia's 8th and 9th divisions. F-16s continued to be deployed on strikes in subsequent days, including strike package on July 26 including two F-16s and two of the RTAF's newer Gripen-C jets imported from Sweden, marking the first combat use of this aircraft type nearly three decades after it entered operational service. This attack reportedly targeted two Cambodian artillery positions with 500-pound GBU-12 Paveway II laser-guided bombs.
World Air Forces estimates Thailand retains 35 or 36 operational F16As and-two-seat F-16Bs in three squadrons based at Korat and Takhli airbases, out of 52 imported from the U.S. PEACE NASREUN or donated by Singapore. Furthermore, eighteen of those F-16s received a Mid-Life Update in the 2010s integrating more modern computers supporting longer range sensors, weapons and self-defense systems.
Thai F-16 landing at Donmeung Airport getty
Meanwhile, the RTAF also retains 11 of its original twelve single-seat Gripen-Cs and two-seat Gripen-Ds, distinguished by their additional pair of small, bendable 'canard' wings close to the cockpit. Though Gripens have lower thrust-to-weight ratio than F-16s, they also have a smaller radar-cross section, lower operating costs, and can safely operate from much shorter improvised runways. Thai Gripens reportedly outfought Chinese J-11 jets in beyond-visual-range air-to-air combat in a 2015 exercise.
SINGAPORE, SINGAPORE - FEBRUARY 20: A Saab JAS 39 Gripen of the Royal Thai Air Force (RTAF) is on display during the Singapore Airshow at Singapore's Changi Exhibition Centre on February 20, 2024 in Singapore. The airshow kicked off on February 20 and will last until February 25. It is attended by over 1,000 participating companies and is expected to attract 50,000 trade attendees from over 50 countries and regions. (Photo by Zhang Hui/VCG via Getty Images) VCG via Getty Images
In terms of weaponry, the RTAF is known to have acquired French ATLIS-II laser/optical targeting pods used in conjunction with Paveway II laser-guided bombs (actually upgrade kits that convert regular 500 and 2,000 lb. bombs into smart munitions.) It also has imported newer GPS-guided KGGB glide bombs from Korea with a ranges exceeding 50 miles (depending on release altitude) and shorter range AGM-65D and G Maverick missiles using imaging infrared guidance.
Such guided munitions are significant, not just because they enable more precise and effective attacks, but also allow the jets to engage targets from sufficient standoff that they may avoid short-range air defenses, such as the Cambodian's army's Chinese-built man-portable missiles and Soviet anti-aircraft guns.
While Cambodia lacks jet fighters, in 2023 the Royal Cambodian Army did acquire batteries of Chinese KS-1C medium-range surface-to-air missiles (or HQ-12s in Chinese service) integrated alongside H-200 phased array radars for targeting. If forward deployed to the border area--which has its risks--KS-1Cs could potentially threaten Thai jets with their maximum engagement range of 43.5 miles and altitude of 86,000 feet,
However, Thailand also imported KS-1Cs from China and thus may have testedthem to devise effective countermeasures. Furthermore, Thailand operates Erieye AWACS jets from Sweden that may have help its fighters avoid air defense threats. Despite rumors alleged the downing of an F-16 jet, no evidence has emerged supporting this claim.
The RTAF's old American F-5 light fighters (due for retirement in 2031) and German/French Alphajet trainer/attack aircraft do not appear to have been deployed. Bangkok is now seeking to acquire an additional squadron of more advanced Gripen-E/F jets from Sweden, though Stockholm is apparently evaluating whether Thailand's use of Gripens in the July 2025 conflict accorded with their views on international law before authorizing further sales.
Drones in the Thai-Cambodia conflict
The war in Ukraine has revealed that even small, short-range civilian-grade drones—produced in vast quantities at low prices by China—are highly as reconnaissance system and easily converted to precise lethal attacks, either gravity dropping grenades or as kamikazes with anti-tank warheads.
Despite China being the ultimate exporter of low-cost drones, and testing of Chinese drones over Cambodian airspace (judging by crashed Chinese UAVs) the border conflict did not offer much evidence that Cambodia's armed forces had integrated drones extensively.
Thailand, however, released videos of quadcopter drone attacks on Cambodian positions employing gravity-dropped munitions, reportedly 60-millimeter M261 and M472 mortar rounds. One attack falls into a position alleged to store 122-millimeter Grad rockets. Another allegedly destroyed a loaded RM-70 rocket artillery truck.
Cambodian troops recorded themselves shooting down one such quadcopter drone with small arms fire. However, electronic warfare jamming the videofeeds, navigation and control signals of drones offer broadly more effective protection.
The video feeds of remotely-piloted drones produce effective propaganda as a by product. While the Thai military may not have operated drones on a massive scale, the recording of successful attacks provided rare concrete proof of tactical successes in the conflict (ie. fires hitting targets, not just firing at targets).
While on one level, the July 2025 Thai-Cambodia border conflict involved a traditional struggle for physical control over territory, 'indirect' fires by artillery, jets and remotely-piloted aircraft likely inflicted most of the casualties and produced media that attracted media attention.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New York Times
33 minutes ago
- New York Times
When Trump Fires the Ref, What Game Are We Playing?
Imagine a group of 5-year-olds playing a board game. The rules are clear, the goal is fair, and one child edges ahead — until, suddenly, another child starts losing. That's when the trouble begins. 'He cheated!' the losing child yells. 'I'm the winner anyway!' he declares. And then, like clockwork, he flips the board. In the world of kindergarten conflict resolution, we expect this kind of behavior. We chalk it up to development. We teach better sportsmanship. What do we do when the president of the United States behaves this way? On Friday, President Trump fired the head of the Bureau of Labor Statistics — the nation's workaday scorekeeper of employment, wages and productivity. Why? Because the data didn't make Mr. Trump look good. The statistics were inconvenient. So the president didn't just challenge the findings; he fired the statistician. That's not governing. That's board flipping. For over a century, the integrity of U.S. economic data has rested on a fragile but vital precept: independence. Agencies like the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the Census Bureau and the Bureau of Economic Analysis operate under the executive branch, but their mandates are to serve the truth, not the administration. Their job is to report what is, not what the White House wishes were true. Yes, legally, the president can fire the bureau's commissioner. The position is not protected by statute. But like many pillars of democracy — free press, fair elections, impartial courts — what protects the Bureau of Labor Statistics is not law but a common set of assumptions about how government should function. A basic idea that says: Presidents don't manipulate the scoreboard. Past presidents respected this boundary. Ronald Reagan didn't fire the head of the agency when it reported double-digit unemployment during his first term. Bill Clinton, George W. Bush and Barack Obama took bad news from official statistics on the chin. Mr. Trump has charted a different course. This is not his first tangle with truth. He has questioned unemployment numbers and dismissed Covid fatality figures as inflated. Removing the Bureau of Labor Statistics chief because the numbers were off narrative is a new breach. It is not only attacking the game; it is removing the referee. This may sound like inside baseball, of importance mostly to labor economists. But it's not. The credibility of American statistics is foundational. It undergirds investor trust. It guides fiscal and monetary policy. It tells businesses when to hire, when to expand and when to hold. When those numbers are tainted or appear to be, the ripple effects are vast. Markets can lose faith in the data and in the country that produces it. Want all of The Times? Subscribe.
Forbes
33 minutes ago
- Forbes
International Enrollment Could Drop By 150,000 Students, Report Warns
U.S. colleges and universities could see their international student enrollment decline by as many as 150,000 students this fall. That projection — by NAFSA: Association of International Educators in conjunction with JB International — is based on recent Student and Exchange Visitor Information System (SEVIS) and State Department data that suggest that visa bans and disruptions by the Trump administration could dramatically reduce new international enrollment unless issuances rebound sharply in July and August. In the 2023-24 academic year, 1,126,690 international college students were enrolled in U.S colleges and universities, according to the Institute of International Education's Open Doors report. That number was an all-time high, representing about 6% of all college students in the nation. It includes individuals in a category called 'optional practical training,' which covers international students who legally extend their time in the country by working for up to a year before or after they complete their degree requirements. In the years since the pandemic, when the number of international students declined by a record 15%, enrollments have increased by a total of 200,000 students. But now, continued increases appear highly unlikely. According to the NAFSA analysis, a potential 30-40% decline in new foreign students would yield a 15% drop in overall international enrollment in the U.S. That decrease would equate to nearly $7 billion in lost revenue and more than 60,000 fewer jobs. The new estimate includes a breakdown on the possible impact the enrollment losses would have on each state. California would stand to lose more than $1 billion from the anticipated drop, and New York's total cost would approach that total. Several other states — including Illinois, Massachusetts, Ohio, Texas, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Florida— would face financial losses exceeding $200 million each, according to the report. NAFSA pointed to four factors it said were driving the projected decline. International students are an important source of tuition revenue at American colleges. Most of them pay the full tuition price at private colleges and the out-of-state rate at public schools, allowing many schools to discount the tuition charged to a large percentage of their domestic students. The new projection confirms the worst fears of higher education leaders, who have become increasingly concerned that the Trump administration's anti-immigration rhetoric and actions would have a chilling effect on international enrollment and their financial bottom line. Here are some leading examples of those tactics, which began almost immediately after Trump assumed the presidency. In addition to slowing down visa processing, the president has issued executive orders to tighten controls over immigration and implement travel bans against several countries. In one of its highest profile confrontations with higher education, the administration has tried to prevent Harvard University from being able to enroll international students, part of its pressure on the institution to bend to its demands on several issues. Even though those actions have been blocked — at least temporarily– by the courts, they have caused both current and prospective international students to grow increasingly alarmed about their prospects in the United States. Secretary of State Marco Rubio has called for the deportation of foreign university students who 'abuse our hospitality" or engage in a variety of other activities that Rubio has condemned. The Department of Homeland Security has threatened the legal status of international students at scores of universities before lawsuits around the country have largely stopped the attempted deportations, forcing the administration to back down at least for now. In May, Joseph Edlow, Trump's choice to head up the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, testified before a congressional committee that he favored ending the optional practical training program, an avenue that most business leaders and educators believe is key to helping recruit and retain international talent. NAFSA called on the State Department to make two changes to mitigate the predicted damage: In a news release, Fanta Aw, executive director and CEO of NAFSA, said the organization's analysis was 'the first to calculate the potential economic impact of fewer international students on cities and towns across the country,' and that it "should serve as a clarion call to the State Department that it must act to ensure international students and scholars are able to arrive on U.S. campuses this fall.' Describing the immediate consequences as 'just the tip of the iceberg," Aw went on to say that "international students drive innovation, advance America's global competitiveness, and create research and academic opportunities in our local colleges that will benefit our country for generations. For the United States to succeed in the global economy, we must keep our doors open to students from around the world.'
New York Times
an hour ago
- New York Times
Some Chinese Weigh Painful Question: Stay or Flee Under Trump?
Ever since immigration raids swept Los Angeles in June, Han Lihua, 46, has spent much of his time hiding in his apartment, skipping his Amazon delivery shifts and scrolling on social media to look for nearby sightings of Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents. In 2022, he fled China, where he ran an independent student newspaper and taught high school literature. He crossed the treacherous Darién Gap on the border of Colombia and Panama before crossing the Southern border of the United States illegally in early 2023. Now, with the Trump administration carrying out a sweeping immigration crackdown, he is among the Chinese immigrants who say fear has eclipsed their fragile new lives, forcing difficult questions about whether the United States can offer them a better situation after they fled an authoritarian government. 'Everyone is so afraid,' Mr. Han said. 'I didn't expect this would happen in the United States.' Since China reopened its borders in January 2023 after Covid lockdowns, more than 63,000 Chinese nationals like Mr. Han have fled and crossed the U.S. southern border without authorization, according to the U.S. Customs and Border Protection, making them the fourth-largest group by nationality after migrants from Venezuela, Haiti, and Ecuador. Under Trump's policies, however, illegal crossings along the southern border have dropped dramatically, reaching 6,000 arrests in June, a low not seen in decades. Most Chinese immigrants fled strict censorship, growing political repression or Beijing's zero-Covid policies, which often shut down entire cities for weeks, if not months, trapping people in their homes with little access to food, medical care or work. Those who spoke out against the policies could face harassment or detention. But with the Trump administration's escalating immigration enforcement, many Chinese immigrants like Mr. Han now confront a question they never imagined they would face: Should they stay or leave? Huang Xiaosheng, a Los-Angeles-based Chinese immigration lawyer, described the situation as 'much harsher' since May, when the Trump administration set a goal of a minimum of 3,000 arrests a day. Securing bail has become nearly impossible, he said. Want all of The Times? Subscribe.
