'PAF couldn't find a place to hide': Former IAF officer hits back. 

During the recent public debate over Indian Air Force (IAF) jet losses to the Pakistan Air Force (PAF) during Operation Sindoor in May 2025, former IAF officer Ajay Ahlawat provided a detailed rebuttal to criticisms, emphasising that the losses were due to technical, not strategic, surprise.

Ahlawat said India lost some jets as the first wave of airstrikes was carried out under some very exacting circumstances. "Our strikers were operating under very restrictive rules of engagements, against an adversary that was pre-warned and well-armed," he added. 

According to Ahlawat, the initial wave of Indian airstrikes was conducted under very restrictive rules of engagement, imposed by political directives that specifically limited strikes to terror infrastructure and avoided military targets.

This meant that standard SEAD (Suppression of Enemy Air Defences) and DEAD (Destruction of Enemy Air Defences) missions, which are typically essential to any air campaign’s opening phase, were not carried out.

Ahlawat explained that surprise—usually an advantage for the attacking force—was absent because the adversary was pre-warned and well-prepared. Instead, the IAF faced a "technical surprise" when the PAF employed data-linked beyond-visual-range (BVR) missiles at extreme ranges, exceeding Indian assumptions about missile capabilities.

The guidance provided to these air-launched weapons by satellites and AEWC (Airborne Early Warning and Control) platforms was not fully anticipated, and the IAF’s electronic warfare threat libraries were not sufficiently updated to counter these tactics.

However, Ahlawat noted that the IAF quickly adapted, learning from the initial setback and resuming operations effectively in the following days, carrying out decisive attacks without further interference.

The controversy intensified after India's defence attaché to Indonesia, Captain (Indian Navy) Shiv Kumar, acknowledged at a seminar in Jakarta that the IAF lost "some aircraft" during the operation, attributing these losses to political constraints that prohibited targeting Pakistan’s military assets and air defences.

Kumar stated that, following these losses, Indian forces revised their tactics, prioritized suppression of enemy air defences, and subsequently conducted successful strikes on military installations using advanced munitions like BrahMos missiles.

This admission led to political backlash in India, with opposition parties accusing the government of hiding the extent of the losses and demanding greater transparency. In response, the Indian Embassy in Jakarta clarified that Kumar’s remarks had been taken out of context and misrepresented by the media. 

The embassy emphasised that the intent was to demonstrate the Indian armed forces’ adherence to civilian political leadership and the non-escalatory nature of Operation Sindoor, which was focused on counter-terrorism rather than direct military confrontation.

the jet losses, if any, suffered by the IAF were primarily the result of technical underestimation and restrictive engagement rules, not strategic or political mis-judgment. The IAF adapted quickly, and subsequent operations proceeded without similar setbacks, while the episode sparked a broader debate about transparency and civil-military relations in India.

Based On Business Today Report