Between May 7 and 10, India and Pakistan were locked in one of the biggest military confrontations since the 1971 India-Pakistan war. The military escalation was a result of an Indian response to a terrorist attack in Pahalgam, a tourist destination in Jammu and Kashmir. As many as 26 people were killed in the attack, most of them tourists. The attack was believed to have been carried out by The Resistance Front (TRF), an alleged Lashkar-e-Taiba offshoot. Indian authorities alleged Pakistani involvement in the attack and retaliated in response.
One notable aspect of the recent military escalation was the heavy use of drones – a first in any form of conflict between the two nuclear states. Drone warfare is opening up possibilities of conventional military confrontations with profound implications for the India-Pakistan rivalry.
Types of Drones Used
Both India and Pakistan used a mix of smaller hobbyist drone systems and larger, military-grade systems that were made accessible with external support of friendly nations. For several years now, India and Pakistan have spent a considerable amount of money and expertise in developing their respective drone warfare capabilities. Most of the drones used by both parties were medium altitude, long endurance (MALE) systems and one-way attack (OWA) drones that explode on impact. The conflict has sparked a drone race between the two countries.
India allegedly used several Israeli-based military grade systems, namely the IAI Searcher and Heron for intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR), and the Harpy and Harop for precision strikes in line with their military doctrine of surgical precision. Both the Searcher and Heron have a range of between 300-350 km and an endurance of 18-45 hours. The Harop has both surveillance and strike capabilities with an endurance of 9 hours, a range of approximately 200–1000 km, and a payload capacity of 23 kilograms. India is also said to have used the Polish Warmate OWA drone.
India also used a locally manufactured OWA drone dubbed the SkyStriker. This drone has a 5-10 kg warhead, a range of 80-100 kilometers, a low radar footprint to evade detection, and is relatively sleek and lightweight. SkyStriker is capable of covert and precise long-distance strikes. India has also developed several indigenous systems, namely the Nagastra-1, Rustom-2, and Archer-NG.
Pakistan, on the other hand, used Turkish Bayraktar and Akinci drones and Chinese CH-4 and Wing Loong II systems. Dubbed the “drone that changed the nature of warfare,” the Bayraktar family of drones is cheaper than American and Israeli drones, can carry laser-guided munitions, and has an endurance of 27 hours and an operational altitude of 16,000 feet. Known for its accuracy and impressive combat performance, it has proved its mettle in several conflicts, including the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict between Armenia and Azerbaijan, the Russia-Ukraine war, and several others in Africa, making it the world’s most exported drone system.
Similar to the Bayraktar, the Wing Loong II and CH4 are MALE systems that can carry explosive payloads of more than 300 kg and are capable of more than 30 hours flight time. Pakistan has also developed and used its own indigenous drones, namely the Burraq and Shapar-type drones, capable of reconnaissance and precision strikes.
Two other types of drones that Pakistan were alleged to have used were the Byker YIHA-III OWA drone jointly produced with Turkiye and the Asisguard Songar armed quadcopters, which have swarming capabilities. Pakistan reportedly launched a massive drone swarm consisting of several hundred drones that was meant to trigger India’s air defense systems, enabling the Pakistanis to gather essential data for future attacks. India was also said to have used swarm tactics to attack cities such as Karachi and Lahore.
Smaller hobbyist systems were also found to have been used to complement the use of larger, military-specific systems. Indian forces were noted to have used quadcopters to drop small munitions on a suspected terrorist camp in Bhimber, similar to how non-state actors have used these commercial systems.
A Strategic Asset
While the use of drones in the India-Pakistan conflict was more controlled and symbolic than in other conflicts, such as in the Russia-Ukraine conflict, for example, it has proven to be a strategic asset for both parties. Drones were a tool for “strategic signaling,” where both parties were able to demonstrate that they had a new, alternative form of air power.
Drones offer states the option of carrying out strikes without the need for putting men on the ground and thus, reduce human casualties. They are also a low-cost, high-impact alternative to manned systems. This, coupled with the accessibility of the technology, makes it an attractive alternative to conventional weapons and tactics. These systems also provide unprecedented benefits such as enhancing ISR and remote, precision strike capabilities.
The use of drones also allows for controlled escalation. It represents a “lower-level military option” and is often viewed as a “restrained move.” These systems “lower the political and operational threshold for action” while reducing the risk of undue escalation. While they may not have the same impact as conventional missiles, they still project a sense of power and purpose at a relatively cheaper cost. However, some analysts caution that viewing drones as less escalatory tools of warfare may be precarious, particularly in the India-Pakistan case, where crises can escalate rapidly and there is inherent danger of inadvertent escalation in a nuclear environment.
What Does This Mean for India-Pakistan Rivalry?
The India-Pakistan rivalry has entered into uncharted territory, redefining the regional balance of power and deterrence in part due to the use of drones. The first ever use of drones and loitering munitions, among other weapons such as conventional missiles, has two important implications.
First, the use of drones and other precision munitions has created a stability-instability paradox where these technologies are encouraging limited action, triggering tit-for-tat escalation and an intractable crisis. Concurrently, this situation is shaping an environment where both sides have signaled restraint in their respective military postures by offering off-ramps to the other side. For instance, after targeting “terrorist infrastructure” inside Pakistan, India maintained its response was “controlled, precise, measured and non-escalatory.” Yet, the escalation continued as these strikes were followed by drone and missile strikes on air bases.
Likewise, the Pakistani military’s media wing, the Inter Services Public Relations, following the retaliatory assaults against Indian military installations, maintained that “Pakistan’s military response has been precise, proportionate, and still remarkably restrained.” Though both sides agreed to a ceasefire on May 10 with American mediation, and a fragile peace has descended upon South Asia since, tensions are far from over, leaving the region in a tinderbox.
Second, the recent conflict has redefined deterrence in the India-Pakistan context, which has largely held between the two sides following their respective nuclear tests in 1998. The notion of mutually assured destruction has convinced both sides to avoid a full-scale conventional conflict. The 1999 Kargil war exemplified this, as both sides fought a limited war. However, the Cold War conception of deterrence between the two South Asian rivals is evolving now due to the introduction of emerging technologies and munitions. Deterrence is not a constant line carved in stone. Rather, it is an optical illusion that evolves constantly and lies in the eyes of the adversary.
Following the recent military confrontation, India believes it has redefined deterrence. New Delhi thinks it has successfully carved out a space under the nuclear overhang and above the subconventional level for a limited conventional war with Pakistan, calling it a new normal. India has signaled to Pakistan, while agreeing to the ceasefire, that it will consider the next terror attack as a declaration of war. In other words, India will respond to subconventional provocation at the conventional level irrespective of the consequences.
Pakistan, on the contrary, believes that by shooting down five Indian aircraft in self-defense and successfully retaliating against Indian provocations, it re-established deterrence, signaled resolve, avenged the violation of its sovereignty, and blunted Indian designs of imposing a new normal.
Conclusion
In sum, India and Pakistan are drawing different conclusions from the May 7-10 military conflict, which is inherently dangerous, especially when the old institutional guardrails regulating their rivalry have nearly collapsed. For instance, no backchannel existed between the two sides until the ceasefire was reached to avoid any miscalculations during the military tensions. Both sides believe that they dominated the escalation ladder and deterred the other.
Given the scope and level of India-Pakistan escalation, drones are likely to play a pivotal role in future conflicts in the region and the next round of tensions will likely be more deadly and dangerous.