ISLAMABAD: Air defence remains one of the most debated and frequentlymisunderstood elements of modern military strategy, where ground-basedsystems like the S-400 Triumf are often perceived as ultimate shieldsagainst aerial threats. However, recent conflicts have exposed theirlimitations when confronted by adversaries possessing sophisticatedelectronic warfare (EW) capabilities and suppression of enemy air defences(SEAD) tactics. India’s acquisition of five squadrons of the Russian-madeS-400, with three regiments operational as of early 2026 and the remainingexpected by mid-year, has sparked concerns over whether this dependencecreates an over-reliance that could prove costly in high-intensity warfare.The system, capable of engaging targets at ranges up to 400 kilometres, hasbeen deployed along borders with Pakistan and China, yet lessons fromongoing wars suggest stationary or semi-mobile ground systems remainvulnerable to determined countermeasures.
The core issue lies in the distinction between air superiority and airdenial. Air superiority enables an air force to operate freely in contestedairspace, supporting ground operations with strikes and reconnaissance. Airdenial, conversely, aims to restrict enemy aircraft access. Ground-basedsystems excel in denial roles but struggle to secure superiority withoutcomplementary air assets. In India’s case, the Indian Air Force (IAF)maintains approximately 29-31 combat squadrons against a sanctionedstrength of 42, reflecting persistent shortages in fighter aircraft despitemodernization efforts including Rafale and Tejas inductions. This imbalanceamplifies dependence on the S-400 for protection, potentially leavingoffensive air capabilities constrained.
Recent global conflicts, particularly the Russia-Ukraine war, provide starkdata-driven insights into these vulnerabilities. Russian S-400 batterieshave faced repeated attacks from Ukrainian drones, loitering munitions,decoys, low-flying cruise missiles, and heavy EW jamming. Reports indicatemultiple radars and launchers destroyed, highlighting how active radaremissions make systems detectable and targetable by anti-radiation missileslike the AGM-88 HARM. Experts from the Royal United Services Institute(RUSI) have noted that while the S-400 performs well against high-altitudethreats, sustained SEAD campaigns combining diverse low-cost threatsoverwhelm such systems. Ukraine’s success in degrading Russian air defencesunderscores that no ground-based platform is invulnerable in peer-levelengagements.
India’s strategic environment presents similar challenges. Facing potentialthreats from Pakistan’s evolving capabilities, including advancedelectronic countermeasures and cruise missiles, and China’s superior EW anddrone technologies, the S-400’s fixed or slow-to-redeploy nature couldbecome a liability. Pakistan has reportedly prioritized SEAD options inresponse to India’s acquisitions, with analysts suggesting enhancedanti-radiation missiles and EW platforms could target high-value S-400components. Furthermore, supply chain risks persist, as Russia’s productionrelies heavily on foreign components, exacerbated by sanctions and theongoing Ukraine conflict, potentially affecting long-term sustainabilityfor Indian operators.
Despite these concerns, the S-400 has demonstrated tactical successes inIndian exercises and deployments, with reports of long-range engagementsduring simulated operations. The IAF has positioned regiments to coverstrategic areas, including Punjab and the Siliguri Corridor, providinglayered protection for vital assets. India’s broader air defence strategyincorporates indigenous systems like Akash and Barak-8, aiming for amulti-tiered network rather than sole reliance on the S-400. Ongoingmodernization, including Project Kusha for indigenous long-range systemsand investments in UAVs, AWACS, and network-centric warfare, seeks toaddress gaps in aerial platforms and EW integration.
Nevertheless, the evolving nature of aerial warfare demands a balancedapproach. Modern threats increasingly involve swarms of low-observabledrones, hypersonic missiles, and integrated EW that exploit radardependencies. Heavy focus on ground-based denial without proportionateinvestment in fighter squadrons and SEAD/EW capabilities risks placingdefenders on the defensive. The Ukraine experience illustrates how suchimbalances lead to attrition-based stalemates, where neither side achievesair dominance, resulting in prolonged ground engagements.
Read Top Stories
In conclusion, while the S-400 bolsters India’s defensive posture againstimmediate threats, over-reliance on ground-based systems without robustoffensive air components and countermeasures could represent a strategicmiscalculation. As warfare becomes more network-centric andtechnology-driven, nations must prioritize integrated air power to avoidvulnerabilities exposed in contemporary battlefields. India’s ongoingefforts toward indigenization and fleet expansion will be critical inmitigating these risks.
Source: https://www.dawn.com/
Tags: India, S-400, Indian Air Force, Electronic Warfare, SEAD
ogimageimage-name