A Critical Examination of Pakistan’s Claims of Multiple Indian Aircraft Shootdowns

Modern aerial combat is governed by advanced technology, precise tactics, and strategic restraint. Claims surrounding the downing of multiple Indian Air Force (IAF) aircraft during the first wave of “Operation Sindoor” warrant careful scrutiny. Pakistan has claimed in many instances that it successfully shot down several IAF aircraft during their retreat following an Indian strike. However, when analyzed through the lens of tactical realism, radar coverage, stand-off weapon capabilities, and modern air combat doctrine, such claims appear highly questionable.

Modern air battles are defined by speed and precision rather than prolonged engagements. They involve beyond visual range (BVR) missile exchanges, often without the adversaries ever seeing each other. Heavy reliance on airborne warning and control systems (AWACS) and electronic warfare (EW) assets, along with the use of stand-off weapons that allow aircraft to hit targets without deep penetration into hostile airspace, fundamentally shape how operations such as India’s surgical strikes are conducted.

Indian strike missions, such as those using the Spice-2000, SCALP, or BrahMos missiles, are typically conducted with the doctrine of launching payloads from 30 to over 100 kilometers away from the target, flying at high altitudes - typically between 35,000 and 40,000 feet - often from Indian or near-border airspace. Following weapon release, there is immediate post-release egress under the cover of escort fighters and AWACS surveillance. The mission involves maintaining minimal exposure time to enemy air defenses or interceptors, typically under 10 minutes near contested airspace. This approach prioritizes force protection and strategic messaging rather than prolonged occupation of hostile skies.

Pakistan’s claims of multiple Indian jets being downed during a one-hour air battle imply either that Indian jets lingered unnecessarily after striking, were ambushed mid-retreat by interceptors or surface-to-air missiles (SAMs), or that the strike turned into a protracted dogfight - a scenario highly inconsistent with modern BVR warfare. Such a prolonged and exposed operation would constitute a severe tactical error, especially for a mission with limited objectives against non-state actors.

For Pakistan’s narrative of multiple shootdowns to be plausible, several highly improbable factors would need to align. Indian jets would have to stray far beyond their usual strike range, contradicting stand-off doctrine. Pakistani fighters would need to bypass Indian AWACS detection, a system specifically designed to monitor such threats. Indian escorts such as Su-30MKIs or Rafales, likely deployed in combat air patrol (CAP), would have to fail in engaging Pakistani interceptors. Pakistani SAMs would need to successfully track and hit fast, high-altitude retreating jets with no suppression of enemy air defense (SEAD) interference - a very unlikely scenario. Lastly, Pakistan would have had to down multiple Indian aircraft without producing credible photos, wreckage, pilot capture, or radar logs to confirm its claims. This chain of events is so fragile and unlikely that the absence of even one component breaks the narrative.

One notable issue raised by Indian military professionals is the absence of SEAD during the first wave of strikes. While tactically unorthodox, this omission appears deliberate and politically calculated. According to several Indian defense analysts, SEAD was avoided to minimize escalation risk with Pakistan’s conventional forces, avoid giving Pakistan grounds for a full-spectrum retaliation by targeting its military infrastructure, and keep the operation within the frame of a targeted counter-terrorism strike rather than an act of war. However, this political restraint may have compromised operational safety. Without neutralizing Pakistani air defense systems or radar installations, Indian aircraft potentially faced an elevated risk during ingress and egress. If any aircraft were indeed lost or damaged - even if unacknowledged - it could reflect a strategic gamble that bordered on tactical imprudence. In this light, even a single aircraft loss would suggest that the political intent to show restraint may have overruled conventional military wisdom, raising valid questions about tactical planning and coordination.

A more plausible mission timeline would involve strike aircraft approaching the Line of Control (LoC) using terrain masking and electronic warfare support within the first five minutes, releasing weapons like SCALP or Spice-2000 from high altitude over the next two minutes, and immediately turning back toward Indian airspace. Pakistan might scramble interceptors during this time, but Indian AWACS would guide aircraft safely back within 10 to 20 minutes, and aircraft would return to base with CAP still on patrol by 30 minutes. This timeline aligns with precision-strike doctrine and demonstrates how unlikely it is for multiple IAF jets to be caught and destroyed during retreat unless there was a lapse in execution or support planning.

Inflated or unverified claims in post-conflict narratives are not uncommon. When evidence is lacking - such as wreckage, prisoners of war, radar signatures, or footage - such claims often serve strategic communication goals rather than factual recounting. In the information war that follows any kinetic engagement, perception can become a weapon, but it should not be mistaken for reality.

In conclusion, claims that multiple Indian aircraft were shot down during a high-altitude retreat post-strike, over the span of a drawn-out one-hour air battle, collapse under technical and tactical scrutiny. Stand-off weapons, layered defense, and modern air combat doctrine make such losses extremely unlikely. That said, the absence of SEAD, likely due to political constraints, introduces an element of vulnerability that could lead to isolated tactical losses - particularly if Pakistani defenses reacted faster than anticipated. If Indian aircraft were indeed lost, it could imply that the desire to minimize escalation compromised operational robustness. Unless corroborated by verifiable evidence, however, the Pakistani narrative remains speculative. Understanding these dynamics is critical - not only for evaluating the truth but also for appreciating how modern militaries operate in an era where speed, stealth, and political signaling shape every engagement.