Operation Sindoor: Pakistan Demands International Aircraft Audit to Debunk Indian Air Force Kill Claims

(DEFENCE SECURITY ASIA) — In a dramatic escalation of South Asia’s information warfare, Pakistan has issued a high-stakes challenge to India—calling for a mutually verified Joint Aircraft Inventory Audit to expose what it describes as fabricated claims of Pakistani losses during the intense four-day aerial clashes of Operation Sindoor in May.

The proposal, if accepted, would require both nations to open their complete air fleet inventories to independent international verification, comparing operational aircraft numbers before and after the conflict to determine actual combat attrition.

India has recently declared that its forces destroyed five Pakistani fighter jets and a Pakistan Air Force (PAF) Airborne Early Warning and Control (AEW&C) aircraft, allegedly using long-range surface-to-air missiles during the operation. These claims included the reported longest-range surface-to-air engagement in South Asian history, said to be at approximately 300 kilometres.

Pakistan has dismissed the statements as implausible and strategically unconvincing, insisting that not a single PAF aircraft was lost during Operation Sindoor.

Instead, Pakistan asserts it inflicted heavy losses on the Indian Air Force (IAF), destroying six Indian fighter jets, neutralising S-400 air defence batteries, downing multiple unmanned aircraft, and disabling several forward airbases in the opening days of the conflict.

The Joint Aircraft Inventory Audit demand is far more than a public relations counterstrike—it is a precision-targeted move in the strategic information domain.

If India refuses, the rejection could be perceived internationally as a tacit admission of inflated battlefield claims. If India accepts, the audit risks revealing gaps between official statements and verifiable data, potentially damaging the credibility of its airpower narrative.

From Pakistan’s perspective, this is an opportunity to reposition itself as the transparent actor in South Asia’s airpower rivalry, flipping the post-conflict narrative from defensive rebuttals to proactive verification. The proposal also invites international observers into a process that could set a precedent for post-conflict military transparency in a region where war claims have historically gone unverified.

Speculation is already circulating about the reluctance of Indian authorities to permit full inspections of their Rafale fleet by manufacturer audit teams in the months following the conflict.

International defence sources have suggested that at least one Rafale was lost during the opening hours of Operation Sindoor. If confirmed in a joint inventory review, it would mark the first Rafale combat loss in the region, raising questions over IAF pilot training standards, maintenance protocols, and the overall combat readiness of India’s most advanced fighters.

Operation Sindoor erupted after a high-casualty militant attack triggered India’s largest cross-border air campaign in decades. The IAF targeted multiple sites deep inside Pakistani territory, deploying precision-guided munitions, loitering drones, and stand-off missiles in the first wave.

Pakistan responded with integrated air defence operations and precision retaliatory strikes, engaging in sustained aerial clashes over contested airspace. Both sides claim significant aerial victories, but the absence of independent verification has left the truth mired in a fog of war.

Pakistan maintains that during the operation it successfully downed six IAF fighters, including high-value assets from the Su-30MKI and Rafale fleets. In addition, it claims the destruction of S-400 Triumf long-range air defence systems—platforms touted as the backbone of India’s strategic air defence shield.

The PAF’s integrated approach allegedly combined beyond-visual-range missile strikes, electronic warfare suppression, and network-centric coordination between fighters, AEW&C aircraft, and ground-based radar systems. The claimed results, if validated, would represent one of the most decisive air defence operations in recent South Asian history.

India’s account focuses heavily on the reported destruction of a Pakistani AEW&C platform at extreme range by an S-400 battery. The loss of such an asset, if true, would temporarily degrade PAF’s battle management network, reducing its ability to coordinate intercepts and direct air combat assets in real-time.

Pakistan categorically denies the incident, stating that all AEW&C aircraft remained operational throughout the conflict and continued post-mission sorties without interruption.

Pakistan’s post-conflict strategy has been to seize control of the narrative by offering full transparency, hosting technical briefings, and presenting radar imagery, wreckage analyses, and verified combat footage to foreign defence attachés and media observers.

International intelligence assessments and some independent analysts have already suggested that multiple Indian aircraft were lost, lending indirect support to Pakistan’s position. The proposed joint audit is therefore both a public relations offensive and a strategic credibility test.

Possible Outcomes of the Joint Audit Demand

If the audit were conducted under international oversight, several potential outcomes could reshape the regional strategic balance:

• Credibility Realignment — Confirmation of Pakistani claims would significantly alter perceptions of IAF operational readiness, impacting its standing among global arms suppliers and strategic partners.

• Procurement Pressure — Verified Indian losses could accelerate procurement timelines for additional fighters, missile systems, and force multipliers, while raising questions about platform survivability and crew training.

• Deterrence Impact — A shift in perceived combat effectiveness would affect both countries’ deterrence postures, particularly in contested airspace along the Line of Control and over the Arabian Sea.

• Information Warfare Momentum — A verified Pakistani victory would give Islamabad a decisive edge in the regional information war, shaping both domestic morale and foreign policy leverage.

• Diplomatic Repercussions — Refusal by India to participate could be weaponised diplomatically, portrayed as an unwillingness to subject claims to impartial verification.

Beyond the aerial engagements, the conflict had a substantial economic impact. Pakistan’s closure of its airspace to Indian overflights for several weeks inflicted significant revenue losses on regional aviation routes. Simultaneously, the IAF was forced to redistribute its assets across multiple airbases to avoid concentrated losses—an operational strain that could have implications for readiness in other theatres.

Both nations are engaged in an unrelenting information battle, each seeking to project dominance while discrediting the other’s account. In a nuclearised environment, the danger of strategic miscalculation is heightened when unverified battlefield claims become the basis for public posturing and military planning.

By framing the debate around verifiable military records, Pakistan’s audit proposal underscores the need for fact-driven conflict assessments—a rarity in the subcontinent’s long history of contested war narratives.

The audit challenge has implications well beyond Operation Sindoor. If accepted, it could establish a precedent for post-conflict transparency measures between nuclear-armed rivals, potentially lowering the temperature of future disputes by introducing a factual baseline for loss assessments.

If rejected, the refusal itself becomes a strategic data point—one that Islamabad can wield in multilateral defence and diplomatic forums to argue that its counterpart’s claims are unsubstantiated.

In modern conflict, the control of the narrative can be as decisive as control of the battlespace. Verified combat results influence not only deterrence calculations but also procurement deals, alliance politics, and the morale of armed forces and populations.

Pakistan’s joint audit challenge therefore represents both a military confidence maneuver and a psychological operations campaign designed to shift momentum in its favour.

Whether India accepts or rejects the proposal, the challenge has already forced a reframing of the post-Sindoor discourse. Instead of focusing solely on Indian claims of long-range kills and PAF attrition, the debate now includes questions about verification, transparency, and credibility.

The answer to Pakistan’s challenge—be it through acceptance, rejection, or prolonged silence—will shape not only the historiography of Operation Sindoor but also the next chapter in South Asia’s airpower rivalry.

Indian Air Force Strength in 2025:

The Indian Air Force (IAF) remains one of the world’s largest and most capable aerial services, but faces growing capability gaps due to squadron shortfalls and ageing platforms.

According to World Directory of Modern Military Aircraft (WDMMA) data, India operates a total of 1,716 aircraft in its air force inventory, including 532 combat aircraft, 498 helicopters, 282 transport aircraft, and 374 trainers. The IAF also maintains six aerial refuelling tankers and about 14 special mission platforms such as AEW&C, ELINT, and maritime patrol aircraft.

When including all aviation branches — the IAF, Indian Army Aviation Corps, and Indian Naval Air Arm — India’s total military aircraft strength rises to between 2,200 and 2,300 aircraft, placing it fourth globally behind the United States, Russia, and China, according to World Population Review.

Squadron Numbers and Capability Gap

India currently fields 31 combat squadrons, significantly below the government-sanctioned strength of 42 squadrons. With a typical IAF squadron consisting of 18 to 20 fighter aircraft, this represents a shortfall of roughly 200 combat aircraft, as reported by Deutsche Welle (DW)

The gap is especially concerning in the context of regional airpower dynamics. DW notes that the IAF’s current number of fighter squadrons is now almost on par with that of the Pakistan Air Force (PAF), despite India’s larger defence budget and more extensive overall fleet.

The IAF’s fighter inventory currently includes Russian-origin Su-30MKI and MiG-29 variants, French-built Rafales, and indigenous HAL Tejas Mk1 jets, alongside legacy MiG-21 Bison aircraft that are being phased out. Transport assets range from the C-17 Globemaster III and Il-76 to the C-130J Super Hercules and An-32. Helicopter units include the AH-64E Apache, Mi-17V5, Dhruv, and Cheetah/Chetak series.

India’s Ministry of Defence has prioritised modernization to close the squadron gap and replace ageing aircraft. In February 2025, government sources indicated plans to seek global bids for 114 multi-role fighter aircraft to bolster IAF strength.

In parallel, Russia has offered India local production rights for its most advanced Sukhoi Su-57 fifth-generation stealth fighter, potentially giving the IAF a leap in capability over regional rivals.

India’s long-term airpower planning aims to restore and sustain 42 combat squadrons by 2035, covering both its western and eastern fronts. This would be supported by a blend of imported aircraft, domestically developed fighters like the Tejas Mk2 and Advanced Medium Combat Aircraft (AMCA), and a growing fleet of unmanned combat aerial vehicles (UCAVs).

While the IAF’s current strength ensures it remains a top-tier regional airpower, the combination of squadron shortfalls, ageing airframes, and increasing operational demands has intensified the need for accelerated acquisitions and fleet modernisation.

The decisions made over the next decade—particularly regarding the 114 fighter tender and possible Su-57 procurement—will determine whether India can maintain air superiority in an increasingly contested Indo-Pacific airspace. — DEFENCE SECURITY ASIA