IAF chief breaks silence on Op Sindoor—6 Pakistani aircraft shot down by S-400, many destroyed on ground
New Delhi: Breaking his silence on Operation Sindoor, Indian Air Force (IAF) chief Air Chief Marshal A P Singh Saturday said India's S-400 Triumf air defence system had shot down five Pakistani fighter jets in the air along with an AEW&C/ELINT aircraft at a distance of about 300 kilometres, besides some parked F16s at the Jacobabad air base.
ThePrint was the first to report on 8 May that the S-400 system had seen action for the first time during Operation Sindoor. Information related to actual kills was then held back since the IAF was still in the process of analysing the technical inputs.
All the five fighter aircraft along with the AEW&C/ELINT were shot down on 7 May, sources had then told ThePrint.
Sources said the identity of the fighter aircraft was discerned based on the signature and they are all of Chinese origin. No F16s were shot down in the air, as per preliminary inputs.
The other aircraft shot down at a distance of about 300 kilometres was a slow moving large aircraft which could have been the Saab Erieye, an airborne early warning and control (AEW&C) aircraft, or the Chinese-made electronic intelligence (ELINT) and electronic warfare (EW).
(Edited by Gitanjali Das)
Also Read: 'Will strike deeper within India, starting from east': Pakistan army on if there's another Sindoor-like op
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
&w=3840&q=100)
First Post
9 minutes ago
- First Post
What is Pakistan's nuclear weapons capability? Who is in-charge of its nukes?
Pakistan army chief Asim Munir's threat from the US has put a spotlight on the country's nuclear weapons. It is estimated that Islamabad has an estimated 170 warheads and is quickly developing more with the help of China read more Pakistan's nuclear-capable missile, Shaheen 1, is driven in Islamabad. The country boasts of several nuclear weapons and spends billions to develop them. File image/Reuters 'We are a nuclear nation, if we think we are going down, we'll take half the world down with us.' That's what Pakistan army's Field Marshal Asim Munir said on Sunday while speaking at a private dinner being held on American soil. But the army chief didn't stop there; on India's decision to pause the Indus Waters Treaty after the Pahalgam attack, he said, 'We will wait for India to build a dam, and when it does so, phir 10 missile sey faarigh kar dengey [we will destroy it with 10 missiles].' STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD While Pakistan has made nuclear threats in the past, what makes these remarks notable is that this is the first time such ultimatums have been issued from US soil against a third country. Munir issues nuclear threats from US Visiting the US a second time within a month, Field Marshal Munir at a dinner being hosted by businessman Adnan Asad, who serves as honorary consul for Pakistan in Florida's Tampa, said that Pakistan would respond with nuclear weapons if it faced an existential threat in a future war with India. He told attendees as per a report in The Print, 'We are a nuclear nation, if we think we are going down, we'll take half the world down with us.' At a dinner in the US, Pakistan army chief raised the spectre of a nuclear war, stating that Pakistan would respond with nuclear weapons if it faced an existential threat in a future war with India. File image/Reuters He further threatened to destroy any infrastructure that India builds, which has the potential to disrupt the flow of the Indus river. Munir claimed that New Delhi's decision to place the Indus Waters Treaty into abeyance after the Pahalgam terror attack in April could put 250 million people at risk of starvation. 'We will wait for India to build a dam, and when it does so, phir das missile sey faarigh kar dengey [we will destroy it with 10 missiles]…The Indus River is not the Indians' family property. Humein missilon ki kami nahin hai, al-hamdulillah [we have no shortage of missiles, Praise be to God],' Munir reportedly said. Munir was in the US to attend the retirement ceremony of outgoing US Central Command (CENTCOM) Commander General Michael Kurilla and the Change of Command Ceremony for Admiral Brad Cooper, who took over as CENTCOM head. Munir praised Kurilla's leadership and contribution to US-Pakistan military ties, while wishing Cooper success in tackling shared security issues. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD This visit follows Munir's rare five-day US trip in June, when he attended a private luncheon with President Donald Trump. That meeting led to announcements of increased US-Pakistan cooperation, including an oil deal. Pakistan's nuclear power With Munir issuing a nuclear threat, the question on everyone's mind is: how many nukes does Pakistan possess? According to Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (Sipri), a leading defence and armaments think tank, Pakistan is a strong nuclear power, having an estimated 170 warheads as per its latest assessment. In comparison, India has 180 nuclear stored warheads as of January 2025. The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, however, noted in 2023 that Islamabad has the potential to increase its nuclear arsenal quickly as it has several new delivery systems in development, four plutonium production reactors, and an expanding uranium enrichment infrastructure. Pakistan's nuclear-capable air-launched 'Ra'ad' cruise missile seen in Islamabad. Pakistan is a strong nuclear power, having an estimated 170 warheads. File image/Reuters Christopher Clary, a security affairs expert at the University at Albany in the US, has noted that a bulk of Pakistan's nuclear arsenal lies in its land-based missile forces, though it is developing nuclear triads capable of delivering warheads by land, air and sea STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD Moreover, the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons wrote in 2023 that Pakistan had spent a whopping $1 billion to develop its nuclear weapons programme. According to the Center for Strategic and International Studies, Pakistan's arsenal consists primarily of mobile short- and medium-range ballistic missiles, which have enough of a range to target India. China's significant technical assistance on its nuclear and missile programmes has helped Pakistan in recent years. For years, Pakistan's possession of nuclear weapons has been a concern for the world over. This is because Islamabad has never formally declared an official nuclear doctrine. Pakistan's nuclear button Munir's threat to use nuclear weapons has also raised questions about control of Pakistan's nuclear arsenal. In Pakistan, nuclear weapon control lies with the top leadership, including the president and the prime minister, with oversight provided by the Nuclear Command and Control System (NCCS). The president and the prime minister make the final decision to use nuclear weapons jointly. The military, responsible for the security and launching of these weapons, has significant involvement in this process. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD Reports state that Pakistan's arsenal is controlled by the National Command Authority (NCA), which is officially chaired by the prime minister. Formed in 2000, it is the nation's highest decision-making authority on nuclear and missile policy issues, and oversees all nuclear and missile programmes. However, the International Institute for Strategic Studies notes that although the makeup of the committee grants substantial authority to the civilian government, 'in practice, the military would probably prevail on nuclear decision-making during wartime or a military crisis.' However, there have been rumours that the United States has a contingency plan in place. In 2011, NBC News reported that the US has a plan of 'snatch and grab' when it comes to Pakistan's nuclear weapons. According to the news outlet, this would come into effect if and when the US president believed that Pakistan's weapons were a threat to either the country or its interests. Moreover, According to NBC, such plans were drawn up even before the 9/11 terror attacks in the US. Washington became even more concerned of Pakistan's nuclear arsenal in the aftermath of the Osama bin Laden raid in 2011. US military officials had testified before Congress about the security of Pakistan's nuclear weapons and the threat posed by 'loose nukes' or materials outside the government's control. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD Reacting to the report, former Pakistan military ruler Pervez Musharraf had warned that a snatch-and-grab operation would lead to all-out war between the countries, calling it 'total confrontation by the whole nation against whoever comes in'. With inputs from agencies
News18
24 minutes ago
- News18
Indian Air Force Shares Unseen Footage Of Attack On Terror Camps During Op Sindoor
Last Updated: Stating that "IAF responded with precision, speed, resolve", the video showed aerial strikes by the Indian fighter jets on terror sites in Pakistan and PoK. Showcasing the success of Operation Sindoor, the Indian Air Force (IAF) on Sunday shared a video showing a glimpse of an attack on terror camps in Pakistan and Pakistan-occupied Kashmir (PoK). IAF posted a video of about 6 minutes on X showcasing its power and strength in safeguarding the country. The clip shows how India avenged the April 22 Pahalgam attack, in which 26 civilians lost their lives. Stating that 'IAF responded with precision, speed, resolve", the video showed aerial strikes by the Indian fighter jets on terror sites in Pakistan and PoK. It also featured clips and pictures that showed the 'decimated" terror camps. Indian Air Force -Touch the Sky with Glory #IndianAirForce #YearOfDefenceReforms @DefenceMinIndia @SpokespersonMoD @HQ_IDS_India @adgpi @IndiannavyMedia @indiannavy @CareerinIAF — Indian Air Force (@IAF_MCC) August 10, 2025 The video also showed fighter jets in action during the 1971 war with Pakistan. It also mentioned the Kargil war and Indian strikes in response to the Pulwama attack in 2019. 'When the skies grow dark and danger looms across land or sea, there's one force that rises. Vast, fearless and precise. The Indian Air Force." The Indian armed forces launched Operation Sindoor on May 7 after and struck multiple terror camps in Pakistan and PoK, killing over 100 terrorists. In response, to India's action, Pakistan then launched a massive missile and drone attack, which India intercepted. In retaliation, Indian forces struck airfields in Pakistan. Air Chief Marshal Amar Preet Singh last Saturday said the IAF shot down five Pakistani fighter jets and a large aircraft during Operation Sindoor. 'We have an indication of at least one AWC in that AWC hangar, and a few F-16s, which are under maintenance there. We have at least five fighters confirmed killed and one large aircraft, which could be either an aircraft or an AWC, which was taken at a distance of about 300 kilometres. This is actually the largest ever recorded surface-to-air kill that we can talk about," he said during an event in Bengaluru. view comments First Published: August 11, 2025, 13:09 IST Disclaimer: Comments reflect users' views, not News18's. Please keep discussions respectful and constructive. Abusive, defamatory, or illegal comments will be removed. News18 may disable any comment at its discretion. By posting, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
Indian Express
39 minutes ago
- Indian Express
India's cyber doctrine has an ambitious vision, but there are implementation challenges
On August 7 this year, the Chief of Defence Staff of India, General Anil Chauhan, released the Joint Doctrine for Cyberspace Operations. The unveiling of this declassified document represents India's formal acknowledgement that future warfare will be as much about bytes as bullets. While the doctrine articulates laudable strategic ambitions, its success will ultimately depend on addressing several practical challenges that need to be discussed, explored and harmonised. The doctrine's core premise — that cyber threats transcend traditional service boundaries — reflects hard-learned lessons from global conflicts. The 2007 cyber attacks on Estonia, which paralysed the nation's digital infrastructure, demonstrated how adversaries could achieve strategic objectives without firing a single shot. Similarly, the 2010 Stuxnet attack on Iran's nuclear facilities showed how cyber operations could achieve kinetic effects, blurring the lines between digital and physical warfare. India's own experience reinforces this reality. The 2020 Mumbai power grid attack, allegedly linked to Chinese hackers, illustrated how critical infrastructure vulnerabilities could be exploited during military tensions. Not to miss the recent info war using digital media and cyber attacks during Operation Sindoor. The doctrine's emphasis on 'threat-informed planning and real-time intelligence integration' acknowledges cyber warfare's unique characteristics. Unlike conventional military operations that follow established patterns, cyber attacks can emerge from state actors, criminal networks, or lone hackers with equal destructive potential. The 2017 WannaCry ransomware attack, which affected over 300,000 computers globally within days, exemplifies how rapidly cyber threats can escalate beyond traditional containment strategies. However, the doctrine's most ambitious goal — achieving true jointness in cyberspace — faces significant structural obstacles. The Indian military's historical tendency toward service-specific cultures runs deep. Each service has developed distinct procurement systems, operational protocols, and technological preferences over decades. The Army's focus on tactical cyber capabilities, the Navy's emphasis on maritime domain awareness, and the Air Force's space-cyber integration represent fundamentally different approaches to the same domain. Consider the ongoing challenges with India's Defence Cyber Agency, established in 2019. Despite its mandate to coordinate tri-service cyber operations, reports suggest that resource allocation, operational authority, and intelligence sharing still remain non-optimal. The doctrine's success will require overcoming these institutional barriers that have proven resistant to reform efforts. The US offers a cautionary tale. Despite establishing Cyber Command in 2009, American forces still struggle with inter-service coordination in cyberspace. The complexity of integrating Army network operations, Navy information warfare, and Air Force cyber capabilities has required constant organizational adjustments. If the world's most technologically advanced military faces such challenges, India's path toward cyber jointness will likely be even more complex. The doctrine's emphasis on human capital development reveals perhaps its most critical vulnerability. India faces a severe cybersecurity talent shortage, with industry estimates suggesting a deficit of over 10 lakh skilled professionals. The military's ability to compete with private sector salaries and work conditions for top cyber talent remains challenging but not impossible. This challenge is compounded by the specialised nature of military cyber operations. Unlike traditional military skills that can be developed through established training programs, cyber warfare requires continuous adaptation to evolving threats. The half-life of cybersecurity knowledge is measured in months, not years, requiring unprecedented investment in continuous learning and development. The doctrine's call for 'indigenous cyber capabilities' also raises practical concerns about India's technological ecosystem. While initiatives like the more than decade old National Cyber Security Strategy emphasize self-reliance, India's cybersecurity industry remains heavily dependent on foreign technologies and expertise. Building truly indigenous capabilities would require massive investments in research and development, with uncertain timelines for operational readiness. No doubt many start-ups have come up but they are mostly acquired by deep pocket foreign IT giants. The doctrine's analysis of international approaches, while informative, may oversimplify complex realities. China's cyber doctrine, for instance, isn't just about 'comprehensive national power' — it reflects a fundamentally different relationship between state and society. China's ability to mobilise private sector cyber capabilities through national intelligence laws has no equivalent in India's democratic framework. Similarly, the Russian model of leveraging 'non-state actors' for strategic objectives operates within a governance structure that tolerates criminal cyber activities when they serve state interests. India's approach to cyber deterrence must account for these fundamental differences in political systems and strategic cultures. The US model of 'persistent engagement' has also faced criticism for its potential to escalate conflicts and blur attribution lines. India's adoption of similar approaches could complicate its relationships with neighbors and create new vulnerabilities in an already complex regional security environment. Despite these challenges, the doctrine represents necessary progress in India's cyber evolution. Its public release serves important strategic communication purposes, signaling serious intent while maintaining operational ambiguity. However, several critical gaps require urgent attention. First, the doctrine lacks specific timelines and resource commitments for implementation. Without concrete benchmarks, it risks becoming another aspirational document rather than an operational blueprint. Second, the integration of civilian cybersecurity infrastructure with military operations remains underexplored. Given that most of India's critical infrastructure operates in the private sector, effective cyber defence requires unprecedented civil-military cooperation. Finally, the doctrine's deterrence strategy needs clearer articulation. Unlike nuclear deterrence, cyber deterrence operates in a domain where attribution is often uncertain and escalation dynamics are poorly understood. Translating doctrinal ambitions into operational capabilities, therefore, will require sustained political commitment, significant resource allocation, and institutional reforms that extend far beyond military structures. The writer, a defence and cyber security analyst, is former country head of General Dynamics
