Why did it take the Indian side three months to conclude the downing of five Pakistani planes during Operation Sindoor? CNN-News18 tries to decode the scenario.
Air Chief Marshal AP Singh’s statement on
Saturday is credible and consistent with historical disclosures by the Indian Air Force (IAF). This post-incident technical validation followed a comprehensive three-month assessment involving multi-layered verification. Aircraft signature identification was crucial in this process.
CNN-News18 was the first to report losses at Pakistan’s Nur Khan airbase following Indian attacks, supported by top intelligence sources. Indian agencies thoroughly tracked radar data, AWACS inputs, IAF ground stations, technical intercepts, and corroborative satellite imagery to eliminate speculation. Every aircraft emits a unique radar cross-section (RCS) and electronic signature, allowing Indian defence systems to match downed targets to specific Pakistani Air Force platforms beyond visual range (BVR).
Despite attempts by the PAF to evade detection through terrain masking or electronic countermeasures, Indian radar and passive sensors continued to track the engagements, confirming multiple losses. In 2019, when India publicly named the downing of a PAF F-16 after the Balakot attack, it was backed by AMRAAM debris evidence. Today, the Air Chief’s statement is informed by intelligence inputs.
India consistently maintains proper checks and balances, holding operational kill details until the intelligence cycle is complete to avoid compromising sources and methods. This explains the three-month gap before confirming the five PAF losses.
Pakistan has a history of concealing or underreporting military losses, as seen with the 1971 air combat records, Kargil losses, and the 2019 F-16 count, to maintain morale and avoid internal backlash. Open-source satellite imagery and intercepted communications indicated operational disruptions at the Nur Khan base after the strikes. Unusual troop movements and restricted access at the airbase post-engagement suggest damage control measures.
This further reinforces the credibility of the IAF’s multi-aircraft attack claims.
