India's clash with Pakistan sees use of Chinese missiles, French jets, Israeli drones, and more
Claims on exactly what was hit and where have differed widely, with neither India nor Pakistan releasing many specific details. Making the ongoing conflict even more confusing, the internet has been 'flooded with disinformation, false claims, and manipulated photos and videos,' the Soufan Center think tank said in a research note Friday.
'This information warfare is compounded by both sides' commitment to save face,' it said.
Still, some information can be gleaned from official statements and paired with what is known to gain greater insight into the clash:
Pakistan says it shot down 5 Indian planes involved in the attack
Hours after India's attack early Wednesday, in retaliation for last month's
massacre of tourists in Indian-controlled Kashmir,
Pakistan's military spokesperson Lt. Gen. Ahmed Sharif claimed that the Pakistan air force had shot down five Indian attack aircraft: three French-made Rafales, a Russian-made SU30MKI and a Russian-made MiG-29.
He said that Pakistan's air force suffered no casualties, and that all of its aircraft returned safely to base.
Pakistan's Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif repeated the claim, saying that the Pakistan air force had the opportunity to shoot down 10 Indian planes, but exercised restraint and downed only the five that had fired on Pakistani targets.
He told Parliament that overall 80 Indian planes had been involved in the attack.
India, meantime, has not acknowledged any losses, though debris from three aircraft came down in at least three areas.
Did it happen that way?
India does have all three types of jets among its more-than 700 combat capable fighter aircraft, according to the International Institute for Strategic Studies' Military Balance report.
All three aircraft are fighters with the capability of carrying bombs or missiles for ground attacks.
Pakistan and India have both said that their planes did not leave their home airspace, suggesting that if Pakistan's account is accurate, rather than a dogfight in the skies over Kashmir, Pakistani pilots fired multiple air-to-air missiles over a long distance to take down Indian planes.
Presuming India fired back, even though Pakistan said none of its planes were hit, the aerial skirmish would have been quite the show. But there have been no eyewitness reports of it or video to emerge on social media.
What is known for sure is that Indian planes were in the air and attacked at least nine targets, and that debris from three has been found.
It's also plausible that Pakistan used surface to air missiles to hit Indian planes — which the war in Ukraine has shown to be very effective and would not have meant risking any of its own planes.
Pakistan has a wide range of such missiles, primarily Chinese-made.
Test of Chinese tech?
Pakistan's air force includes American-made F-16s, the French Mirage, and the new Chinese-built J-10C, as well as the Chinese JF-17, which was developed jointly with Pakistan.
In addition to American air-to-air missiles, Pakistan also has several Chinese products in its arsenal, including the PL-12 and PL-15, both of which can be used to fire at targets beyond visual range.
Pakistan's Foreign Minister Ishaq Dar told lawmakers it was the J-10C that shot down the Indian aircraft, raising the likelihood that Chinese-built missiles were also employed.
'It's interesting that Pakistan is saying it is using Chinese jets that it has imported from China to shoot down Indian aircraft,' said Lisa Curtis, director of the Indo-Pacific security program at the Center for a New American Security, a Washington think tank.
In 2019, during the rivals' previous military confrontation, 'it was a Pakistani F-16 provided by the United States that was used to shoot down an Indian aircraft,' Curtis said in a conference call. 'It's interesting to see that Pakistan is relying more on its Chinese equipment than it did six years ago.'
The news convinced traders with shares in AVIC Chengdu Aircraft, which builds both the J-10C and J-17, to post large gains Wednesday and Thursday on the Shenzhen Stock Exchange.
Meanwhile, the stock of Dassault Aviation, the maker of the Rafale jet, which is among those Pakistan claims to have shot down, dropped sharply on Wednesday on the Paris Stock Exchange, though had recovered by close on Thursday.
What else is known?
India hasn't talked about what assets were involved in the attacks. The Indian Defense Ministry said that the strikes targeted at least nine sites 'where terrorist attacks against India have been planned.'
Pakistan, meantime, has said 31 civilians were killed, including women and children, in Pakistan-administered Kashmir and the country's Punjab province, and that buildings hit included two mosques.
India did show video of eight of the strikes at a briefing on Wednesday. four in Pakistan-controlled Kashmir and four in Pakistan.
Both sides have talked about missile strikes, but it was clear from the video that bombs were also dropped on some targets, possibly from drones. In addition to claiming the five Indian aircraft shot down, Pakistan also said it downed an unspecified number of drones on Wednesday.
Indian officials said the strikes were precision attacks, and from the videos shown, it did appear that specific areas of installations were targeted with individual missiles or bombs, rather than widespread areas.
What happened next?
India sent multiple attack drones into Pakistan on Thursday, with Pakistan claiming to have shot down 29 of them.
The drones were identified as Israeli-made Harop, one of several in India's inventory.
One drone damaged a military site near the city of Lahore and wounded four soldiers, and another hit the city of Rawalpindi, which is right next to the capital Islamabad., according to the Pakistani army.
India did not deny sending drones, but the Defense Ministry said its armed forces 'targeted air defense radars and systems' in several places in Pakistan, including Lahore. It did not comment on the claims of 29 being shot down.
India similarly did not comment on Pakistani claims to have killed 50-60 soldiers in exchanges along the Line of Control, though it did say one of its soldiers was killed by shelling on Wednesday.
Pakistani Information Minister Attaullah Tarar, meantime, denied Indian accusations that Pakistan had fired missiles toward the Indian city of Amritsar, saying in fact an Indian drone fell in the city.
___
Associated Press writers Munir Ahmed in Islamabad and Sheikh Saaliq in New Delhi contributed to this report.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Newsweek
an hour ago
- Newsweek
Judge Hit With Complaint Over Making 'Improper' Comments About Trump
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. Attorney General Pam Bondi announced a complaint filed by the Department of Justice (DOJ) against U.S. District Judge James E. Boasberg, appointee of former President Barack Obama, for "improper public comments" made about President Donald Trump and the administration. Newsweek reached out to a legal analyst via X, formerly Twitter, on Monday night for comment. Why It Matters Boasberg has been at the center of MAGA fury as he has presided over a case involving the Trump administration's speedy deportation of migrants through his invocation of the Alien Enemies Act of 1798. The act is a wartime law granting the commander in chief authority to detain or deport noncitizens. The implementation was blocked in federal court and has thus sparked a contentious legal back-and-forth with Boasberg, a chief judge. What To Know According to the Associated Press (AP), Boasberg's alleged remarks stem from comments he made to Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts and other federal judges that the Trump administration could trigger a constitutional crisis if they intentionally sidestep rulings. "Today at my direction, @TheJusticeDept filed a misconduct complaint against U.S. District Court Chief Judge James Boasberg for making improper public comments about President Trump and his Administration. These comments have undermined the integrity of the judiciary, and we will not stand for that," Bondi said on X. Boasberg's comments were reportedly made at a meeting of the Judicial Conference, as first reported by The Federalist, citing a memo obtained of the meeting. According to the AP, Bondi's complaint calls for Boasberg to be reassigned from the deportation case amid the investigation and possible impeachment if the allegations are substantiated. Trump previously called Boasberg a "troublemaker and agitator" and floated the suggestion of his impeachment earlier this year, prompting Roberts to issue a rare statement. "For more than two centuries, it has been established that impeachment is not an appropriate response to disagreement concerning a judicial decision. The normal appellate review process exists for that purpose," Roberts said. U.S. District Judge James Boasberg attends a panel discussion in Washington, D.C., on April 2 (Photo by DREW ANGERER/AFP via Getty Images) U.S. District Judge James Boasberg attends a panel discussion in Washington, D.C., on April 2 (Photo by DREW ANGERER/AFP via Getty Images) What Happens Next The complaint now awaits review by Chief Judge Sri Srinivasan and could be referred to a special investigative committee for further examination. Bigger questions about judicial independence, the limits of executive authority over immigration policy and the standards for disqualification or sanctioning of federal judges may also be shaped by the developments in this closely watched dispute.
San Francisco Chronicle
2 hours ago
- San Francisco Chronicle
Justice Department files misconduct complaint against federal judge handling deportation case
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Justice Department on Monday filed a misconduct complaint against the federal judge who has clashed with President Donald Trump 's administration over deportations to a notorious prison in El Salvador. Escalating the administration's conflict with U.S. District Judge James E. Boasberg, Attorney General Pam Bondi said on social media that she directed the filing of the complaint against Boasberg 'for making improper public comments about President Trump and his administration.' The complaint stems from remarks Boasberg allegedly made in March to Chief Justice John Roberts and other federal judges saying the administration would trigger a constitutional crisis by disregarding federal court rulings, according to a copy of the complaint obtained by The Associated Press. The comments 'have undermined the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary,' the complaint says, adding that the administration has 'always complied with all court orders.' Boasberg is among several judges who have questioned whether the administration has complied with their orders. The meeting took place days before Boasberg issued an order blocking deportation flights that Trump was carrying out by invoking wartime authorities from an 18th century law. The judge's verbal order to turn around planes that were on the way to El Salvador was ignored. Boasberg has since found probable cause that the administration committed contempt of court. The comments were supposedly made during a meeting of the Judicial Conference, the federal judiciary's governing body. The remarks were first reported by the conservative website The Federalist, which said it obtained a memo summarizing the meeting. Boasberg, the chief judge in the district court in the nation's capital, is a member of the Judicial Conference. Its meetings are not public. The complaint calls for an investigation, the reassignment of the deportations case to another judge while the inquiry is ongoing and sanctions, including the possible recommendation of impeachment, if the investigation substantiates the allegations. Trump himself already has called for Boasberg's impeachment, which in turn prompted a rare response from Roberts rejecting the call. The complaint was filed with Judge Sri Srinivasan, chief judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. More than 250 Venezuelans who were deported to a Salvadoran mega-prison known as the Terrorism Confinement Center, or CECOT, were sent home to Venezuela earlier this month in a deal that also free 10 U.S. citizens and permanent residents who had been held by Venezuela.
New York Post
2 hours ago
- New York Post
Obama's bruised ego was behind the corrupt plot to bring down Trump
The Donald Trump-Russia collusion scandal that first broke in December 2016 and roared on until April 2019 has no parallel in our history — it's not even close. As president-elect and later as sitting president, Trump was accused by the country's intelligence and law-enforcement apparatus of conspiring with a hostile power to subvert the 2016 election and sneak a crooked path to the White House. Along the way, a damning Intelligence Community Assessment was issued, a major FBI investigation, code-named Crossfire Hurricane, targeted the president, and a special counsel, Robert Mueller, was granted a team of prosecutors and a budget of millions to bring the guilty to justice. Advertisement It was the most sensational news story in history. By one estimate, more than half a million articles were written about the collusion issue, the vast majority asserting or assuming criminality on Trump's part. A manic media competed fiercely to deliver the latest 'bombshell.' Advertisement For over two years, the first Trump administration was forced to conduct America's business while in the fetal position. How much truth, you ask, did the accusations of collusion with Russia contain? None. Zilch. Nada. The entire episode was concocted out of whole cloth by the Obama White House, with an assist from the Hilary Clinton campaign and the eager cooperation of the heads of the FBI (James Comey), the CIA (John Brennan), and NSA (James Clapper), plus various zealous underlings. Bam on a mission Advertisement Before asking the obvious questions, let's pause for a moment to absorb this astounding fact: There was zero evidence, classified or otherwise, to justify the fuss, distraction and cost of the whole clamorous affair. Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard declassified documents that show the intelligence agencies did not believe that 'Russian or criminal actors' impacted the 2016 presidential election. Eric Lee – Pool Via Cnp/CNP via ZUMA Press Wire Pro-Trump fake news, as independent studies have consistently shown, had no effect on the outcome of the 2016 presidential election. Mueller, in his final report, rather grumpily admitted that the two-year-plus investigation he led 'did not establish that members of the Trump campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government.' Advertisement In fact, as of Dec. 8, 2016, the intelligence agencies believed that 'Russian or criminal actors did not impact recent US election results,' according to documents recently declassified by Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard. Yet on Dec. 9, President Obama, in essence, tasked the agencies to change their minds and come up with the opposite conclusion. They complied with a hastily-drafted ICA stating that 'Russian President Putin ordered an influence campaign in 2016 aimed at the US presidential election,' and 'Putin and the Russian government developed a clear preference for President-elect Trump.' On Jan. 17, three days before Trump's swearing-in ceremony, an unclassified version of the ICA was made available to the public. The lack of evidence was obscured with a tactic familiar to those who have worked in intelligence: The proof, the authors claimed, was super-secret and hyper-classified. Gabbard's declassification campaign has exposed the naked falsehood of that claim. The Obama administration, Gabbard now maintains, was guilty of a 'treasonous conspiracy' to undermine Trump's 2016 election victory. Advertisement Now, 'treasonous' is a strong word — although, to be fair, former CIA chief Brennan applied the same word to Trump at the height of the collusion uproar. One thing is certain: The corpse of the Trump-Russia scandal has risen like a zombie and is now shambling towards its originators in the hope of eating their brains. I'm content to leave the legal and constitutional implications of this tawdry episode to the experts who can best explain them. My interest is in finding the answer to a basic question: What, in the end, was the point of the exercise? Out to sully '16 win Advertisement Evidently, the Obama White House, in its waning days, aimed to 'subvert President Trump's 2016 victory,' as Gabbard has said. In that, it succeeded brilliantly. Leaks to The New York Times and The Washington Post began as early as Dec. 9, before the intelligence people even had time to concoct their story. The bombardment continued for the duration, leaving the Trump administration bruised and battered under the shadow of the scandal. A chart shared by the White House on the creation of the 'Russia Hoax.' LENIN NOLLY/SIPA/Shutterstock Advertisement To this day, 60% of Democrats believe that Trump climbed to high office with a helpful push from his friend Vladimir. But the case against Trump was based on nothing. For all the bureaucratic grinding, leaking and noise-making, the investigation was bound sooner or later to arrive at that point: nothing. Trump would be exonerated. The probability was much higher than zero that he, or some future Republican president, would demand an accounting for the fraud. The Obama and Clinton people would then trade places with the Trumpists. Advertisement The prosecutors would be prosecuted. That, of course, is precisely what has happened. Again: What political advantage was worth taking that risk? One grateful beneficiary of the collusion story was Clinton, who could now answer, to everyone's satisfaction, the question that had been tormenting her since Election Day: 'How on earth could you possibly lose to that guy?' The election that ended with her defeat, Clinton happily proclaimed, 'was not on the level.' The scandal, however, was a wholly owned Obama operation. His tasking of the intel community, a month after the election had passed, fixated the government on the collusion question. The Dec. 9 meeting to which he abruptly invited the agency heads to reach a foregone conclusion included White House enforcers like Ben Rhodes. The rushed schedule ensured the ICA was completed on his watch and under his watchful eyes. Did Dems believe it? Barack Obama was deeply invested in discrediting Donald Trump, even before the latter assumed the presidency. No doubt there were partisan and personal reasons for the rancor. We may take it for granted that Obama loathed the sight of Trump. But by that point, he was the lamest of lame ducks. Only weeks remained of his time in office. Obama was already ascending majestically to the Olympus reserved for retired two-term presidents. The extraordinary activity of those last days requires an explanation. One possibility is that Obama and his people believed their own lies. They really thought Trump was a Russian operative, inserted into the Oval Office so he could destroy the country following the script of the 1962 movie, 'The Manchurian Candidate.' That's unlikely, for a couple of reasons. If President Obama truly imagined Trump to be a foreign agent, he had every incentive to raise the alarm — not in an obscure intelligence report, but in public, before a national audience. More to the point, when it came to American politics, Obama was a cold and calculating realist. He knew perfectly well when he was shading the truth to obtain a political advantage. As the bizarre drafting process of the ICA demonstrates, the same was true of top bureaucrats like Brennan and Comey. Everyone in this affair knew exactly what they were doing. My take is that the attempted smearing of Trump was literally a vanity project for Obama, a man with an exalted view of himself, his personal achievements and his place in history. His followers — a set that included pretty much all institutional elites — worshipped him. From the idealist perspective, he was seen as the embodiment of hope and change, humane policymaking and smart diplomacy. From a political angle, he was thought to be, like Franklin Roosevelt, a 'transformational' figure, as the coalition he assembled of college-educated, minority, and young voters would provide a permanent Democratic Party majority for decades, if not forever. That was the realistic position as the 2016 elections approached. It would take a man with a prodigious capacity for self-criticism not to believe such a flattering appraisal — and Obama, to put it mildly, was not that man. Trump's victory in 2016 shattered all of these illusions. Suddenly, Obama was no longer a political messiah ushering in a liberal golden age. He was a helpless failure and an object of repudiation. New level of deranged He understood, as a realist, that he had been the cause of which Trump was the effect. His vanity and self-image, I'm guessing, must have suffered a tremendous shock. Trump was a fluke, a hoax, an impossibility. He had to be exposed as both a monstrous aberration and a depraved departure from his predecessor's enlightened ways. President Obama wanted his mojo back. With the collusion scandal, he got it. On the day he left office, he was more popular with the public than he ever had been, while Trump's popularity plummeted. Was the elaborate charade worth it? Maybe so — only the former president is privy to his own internal states. But on July 23, Gabbard referred his case to the Department of Justice for potential criminal investigation. Call it tit for tat, with terrible repercussions all around — for himself, the country, even his antagonists. A Trump administration prosecution of Obama, I believe, would be a moral and political horror show. In these days of rage and riots, it would inaugurate a whole new level of derangement. At a time when we need forward progress, it would swivel our heads backwards the better to inspect minutely the sins of the past. There's a saner way to proceed. Find Robert Mueller's evil twin, appoint him special counsel, and let him loose for years to hound the paper trail of Barack Obama and the rest of the Trump-Russia crowd. That, in my humble opinion, would really be tit for tat . . .
