How air power shaped Op Sindoor dynamics | Veteran Arjun Subramaniam exclusive

A rapid escalation between India and Pakistan ended with a ceasefire after three tense days, with India's formidable air campaign credited for forcing Pakistan’s hand.

In an exclusive interview with The Federal’s Editor-in-Chief S Srinivasan, Air Vice Marshal Arjun Subramaniam (Retd) offers a detailed analysis of Operation Sindoor, why air power dominated, and what the three-day conflict signals for the future of warfare. Arjun Subramaniam is an accomplished military historian and the author of India's Wars 1 and II.

Q: Did Operation Sindoor achieve its objectives?

Arjun Subramaniam: I’m glad you asked about objectives and not victory or defeat, because those are outdated concepts in modern conflict. What matters are strategic outcomes. Operation Sindoor wasn’t a fight against the Pakistan military or its people. It was targeted at the terror establishment embedded in their landscape. Past deterrent efforts had proven suboptimal. This time, climbing the escalatory ladder with air power—air-launched and surface-to-surface missiles—helped restore deterrence.

Also read: 'Satellite pictures proof enough': MEA debunks Pak claims of attacking Indian bases

Q: Has this strike changed the calculus for future terror attacks?

Subramaniam: I’m a realist. To expect Lashkar-e-Taiba or Jaish-e-Mohammed to dismantle their networks after one operation is wishful thinking. If India wants to sustain deterrence, it must show readiness to strike again if the Pakistani state enables terror. The Prime Minister has rightly stated that if future attacks are state-sponsored, it would be tantamount to war—and India would respond on its terms.

Q: How should India interpret the nuclear threat from Pakistan?

Subramaniam: Pakistan is a near-bankrupt state bordering on being labelled a state sponsor of terror. Will it act like a responsible nuclear power? I don’t know. The nuclear threat remains real. If India is serious about not being deterred by nuclear blackmail, some adjustments to our nuclear doctrine may be necessary—but that’s for the strategic community to debate.

Q: Did the Indian Air Force demonstrate air superiority?

Subramaniam: Total air superiority? No. Pakistan’s air force is a peer competitor. But India achieved a favourable air situation across the western border. Despite Pakistani countermeasures, our Air Force conducted widespread, effective strikes. That speaks volumes about its flexibility and operational resilience.

Also read: What Op Sindoor marked in warfare: More power to air force, zero boots on ground

Q: Was Pakistan caught off guard on Day 1?

Subramaniam: Yes, completely. Even with heightened alert post-Pahalgam, the IAF’s surprise strike showed a maturity and learning curve since Balakot. Precision, scale, and surprise were all executed brilliantly. The Army also played a role with drones and missiles. It was a joint operation with air power at the helm.

Q: What changed by Day 3?

Subramaniam: The strikes on May 10—attacking Pakistani infrastructure and air defence—broke their will to continue. The breadth of strikes from north to south resembled the scope of the 1971 war. That pressure pushed Pakistan to seek a ceasefire.

Q: What might have unfolded during the 20-minute aerial skirmish?

Subramaniam: Likely dozens of aircraft from both sides—support, air defence, EW platforms—engaged in a high-speed aerial ballet from Kashmir to Bahawalpur. AWACS, EW jets, drones—all operated as part of coordinated packages. The Pakistani Air Force scrambled but was outpaced by the scale and speed of India’s response.

Also read: After Op Sindoor, Modi has many questions to answer to Indians

Q: Did India lose any aircraft? There are reports about Rafale losses.

Subramaniam: There’s speculation on both sides. Some say we lost a Rafale; others say Pakistan lost JF-17s, F-16s, or even AWACS. At this stage, it’s premature to confirm. But Rafales and Su-30s played key roles in our offensive. That’s undeniable.

Q: Has Pakistan shaped the narrative around Rafale vs. J-10 and PL-15 missiles?

Subramaniam: It’s expected. When faced with asymmetry, Pakistan leaned on comparative narratives to save face. But that won’t last. The focus will shift to the IAF’s strategic outcomes—where real damage was inflicted.

Q: Was the ceasefire a diplomatic win or a lost opportunity?

Subramaniam: Ending the conflict in three and a half days was timely. Some hawks wanted more, but the strikes on the 10th were enough. Indian diplomacy will ensure that this is seen globally not as India-Pakistan, but as India vs. terror.

Q: Did air power finally emerge as India’s lead deterrent force?

Subramaniam: Absolutely. I’ve long believed air power should lead in short, high-intensity conflicts. This proved it. Air power caused rapid attrition and moral degradation without boots on the ground. It’s a turning point in India’s warfighting doctrine.

Also read: Targeting of civilians marks alarming shift in terror tactics: DGMO

Q: Are there lessons here for China and the LAC?

Subramaniam: Yes. Future India-China skirmishes will likely see major aerial action. China got to test its platforms via Pakistan, and India got a glimpse of how Chinese systems fare. Both sides will study this conflict closely.

Q: Could the use of air power and UAVs become the new normal?

Subramaniam: Phase 1 of any modern war will be aerial—missiles, UAVs, air strikes. Land and naval action will follow only if necessary. India must integrate air, land, and sea operations effectively. But yes, the skies will lead the fight.

Q: Have UAVs and drones been overrated in this conflict?

Subramaniam: The blind faith in drones has been punctured. India’s layered air defence shot down swarms. Pakistan may have exhausted its inventory. We need a balanced offensive strategy combining manned aircraft, missiles, and UAVs—not a blind drone doctrine.

The content above has been generated using a fine-tuned AI model. To ensure accuracy, quality, and editorial integrity, we employ a Human-In-The-Loop (HITL) process. While AI assists in creating the initial draft, our experienced editorial team carefully reviews, edits, and refines the content before publication. At The Federal, we combine the efficiency of AI with the expertise of human editors to deliver reliable and insightful journalism.