ISLAMABAD: Indian defence analysts have advanced a new explanation for theMay 2025 aerial clashes with Pakistan, asserting that the Indian Air Forceoperated under strict rules of engagement that barred pilots from targetingPakistani military assets during the initial phases of the conflict. Theyclaim these limitations focused operations on non-military terrorist-linkedsites to prevent escalation, while the Pakistan Air Force receivedauthorisation to pursue all-out engagement against Indian aircraft. Theanalysts argue this asymmetry contributed to significant Indian losses,including a Rafale fighter jet, without any verified PAF casualties,highlighting how political restraints shaped tactical outcomes in the briefbut high-stakes confrontation.
The conflict erupted on May 7, 2025, following Indian missile and airstrikes codenamed Operation Sindoor, targeting purported militantinfrastructure in Pakistan territory in response to cross-border threats.Pakistan responded swiftly with defensive counter-air operations, involvingJ-10C fighters equipped with PL-15 missiles, resulting in what independentassessments describe as at least four confirmed Indian aircraft downed,though Pakistani claims reached six, including three Rafales, one MiG-29,one Su-30MKI, and a Heron UAV. Open-source intelligence, including wreckageanalysis, supported losses of at least one Rafale, marking its first combatdowning, amid a large-scale beyond-visual-range engagement involving over100 aircraft from both sides.
Analysts point to India’s initial mission profile as surgical andrestrained, with ingress focused on designated targets and return, withoutclearance for air-to-air combat unless in direct self-defence. Thisapproach aligned with political directives to calibrate responses and avoidfull-scale war between nuclear-armed neighbours. In contrast, PAF’sdirectives allowed proactive interception and maximum infliction of damage,enabling effective use of long-range missiles and electronic warfare todisrupt Indian formations. The analysts contend that had IAF rulespermitted engagement of military targets from the outset, the dynamic wouldhave shifted dramatically.
Advanced Indian platforms, including Rafale jets armed with Meteorbeyond-visual-range missiles, S-400 surface-to-air systems, Su-30MKIs withBrahMos cruise missiles, and Rafales with SCALP standoff weapons, couldhave neutralised PAF fighters in air combat and struck key Pakistaniairbases, army installations, and naval facilities decisively. The firstcombat employment of Meteor missiles, they suggest, might have occurred,altering the beyond-visual-range kill ratios favourably for India. Instead,restrictive orders limited offensive potential, allowing PAF to exploitnumerical advantages in certain sectors and achieve tactical successesearly in the engagement.
Post-conflict reflections emphasise the role of escalation control in SouthAsia’s volatile security environment. India’s strategy prioritiseddemonstrating resolve against terrorism without triggering broader militarymobilisation, while Pakistan balanced retaliation with measured actions toclaim defensive victories. Independent think tanks note both sides avoideddeep strikes on high-value strategic assets after initial exchanges,facilitating a ceasefire within four days. The episode underscoredintelligence failures, such as underestimating PL-15 missile ranges, whichcontributed to Indian aircraft vulnerabilities during penetration attempts.
Since the May events, both air forces have accelerated modernisationefforts. India has bolstered Rafale squadrons and S-400 deployments forenhanced deterrence, while Pakistan pursued upgrades to JF-17 platforms andintegration of Chinese systems proven in combat. These developments reflectlessons on rules of engagement, electronic warfare integration, and theinterplay between political constraints and operational effectiveness inlimited conflicts.
Read Top Stories
Sceptics question the analysts’ narrative, noting absence of official IAFconfirmation on specific restrictive orders during air-to-air phases andviewing it as potential post-hoc rationalisation for setbacks. Somehighlight that later phases saw adjusted tactics with more aggressiveresponses, including claims of downing Pakistani aircraft using S-400systems, though these remain disputed. The debate continues in strategicforums, influencing doctrines on calibrated escalation under nuclearthresholds.
The 2025 clashes serve as a critical case study in crisis management,demonstrating perils of miscalculation in aerial domains and the profoundimpact of command directives on battlefield results. As recurrent tensionsover Kashmir and militancy persist, such analyses reinforce the necessityof clear communication channels and restraint mechanisms to avert widerconfrontation between the two neighbours.
Dassault Rafale
ogimageimage-name