In a major and unusually detailed public statement, India’s Air Chief Marshal Amar Preet Singh told an audience on August 9 that Indian forces shot down six Pakistani military aircraft during a short but intense exchange of strikes and counter-strikes in May — five of them fighter jets and one a larger airborne platform that Indian officials describe as a surveillance or early-warning aircraft. The announcement is the first comprehensive enumeration by the Indian Air Force of what New Delhi calls Operation Sindoor, the retaliation campaign launched after a deadly terror attack in late April.
The core claim: six Pakistani aircraft downed
At a defence event in Bengaluru, Air Chief Marshal Amar Preet Singh said India confirmed the downing of five Pakistani fighter jets and one larger military aircraft during the May clashes. He attributed most of the kills to India’s Russian-supplied S-400 surface-to-air missile systems, and said one of the large aircraft was engaged at a range he put at roughly 300 kilometres — a figure the chief described as unprecedented for a surface-to-air engagement.
The statement is based on Indian tracking and engagement data, with the air chief referring to electronic tracking as the basis for the assessment.
Islamabad’s answer: firm denial and calls for verification
Pakistan’s defence and foreign ministry sources immediately rejected the Indian claims. Senior Pakistani officials, including the country’s defence minister and foreign ministry spokespeople, called the Indian announcement “implausible” and demanded independent verification. Islamabad’s public position remains that Pakistan did not lose the number or type of aircraft India described. Pakistan has previously asserted it shot down several Indian aircraft during the same May engagements.
The sharp divergence in the official narratives — both sides offering opposing tallies — is typical of high-intensity cross-border engagements between India and Pakistan, where information is tightly controlled and both militaries seek to shape domestic and international perceptions. Independent, verifiable confirmation of aircraft losses in combat — through imagery, wreckage, or neutral third-party monitoring — is difficult to obtain in real time in such contests, and both capitals have a strong incentive to emphasise versions that bolster internal political standing.
What happened in May: a short timeline
While both sides have given fragmentary public accounts before the recent statement, the broad sequence of events accepted by most observers is as follows:
-
Late April 2025: A major terror attack inside Indian-administered Jammu & Kashmir triggered a decision in New Delhi to mount a swift punitive operation against what it termed terror infrastructure across the Line of Control.
-
Early May 2025: India launched a multi-day aerial and strike operation — officially labelled Operation Sindoor — against targets inside Pakistani territory associated by New Delhi with the attack. The operation included long-range strikes and coordinated use of air defence assets.
-
May 7–10, 2025 (approx.): Intense aerial exchanges reportedly occurred; both New Delhi and Islamabad have acknowledged combat, but have diverging narratives about losses and successes. India has now publicly identified this episode as the moment in which it claims to have downed the six Pakistani aircraft. Pakistan disputed the scale of the losses India described.
Because the events occurred months ago, the timing of this disclosure appears to be a choice by India’s military leadership to reveal operational results once internal assessments were complete and data consolidated.
Systems named: S-400 and the “big bird”
The Indian statement singled out the S-400 surface-to-air missile system — a high-end, long-range Russian weapon that India has deployed in recent years — as responsible for most of the interceptions. The S-400 family is capable of engaging a variety of airborne targets at extended ranges, and Indian officials suggested the system’s reach and sensors were decisive in neutralising both fighter aircraft and the larger airborne early warning and control (AEW&C) platform India said was downed at long range.
Indian reporting and defence analysts speculated that the “large aircraft” could be an AEW&C platform — a type of plane that acts as a radar-equipped command node in the sky. Such assets, if lost, degrade a force’s ability to detect and coordinate during an air battle, making them high-value targets. Pakistan operates a mix of Chinese and US-origin aircraft and has in service AEW&C platforms; Islamabad has not, in its public statements, confirmed losing such an aircraft.
Independent reporting and technical scrutiny
Several defence analysts have tried to contextualise the announcement. While social media posts and satellite imagery circulated at the time of the May fighting, no single independent source yet offers conclusive visual proof of the exact tally between the two sides.
There has been renewed interest in whether imagery analysts can confirm the loss of an AEW&C, since such a loss would likely produce visible wreckage and operational gaps. However, open-source arms and imagery analysts caution that identifying and verifying specific aircraft losses — especially when both parties restrict access — is often a slow process that requires corroboration from multiple sources.
Why India might reveal the count now
Military and political calculations can both drive public disclosures of battlefield successes. Analysts point to several possible reasons New Delhi chose August to make the tally public:
-
Consolidation of data — After-action assessments that integrate radar tracks, missile engagement logs, electronic intelligence, and other classified sensors often take weeks.
-
Signal of deterrence — Publicising the destruction of an AEW&C and multiple fighters serves as a strong message to adversaries and domestic audiences about India’s capability to detect and strike at range.
-
Domestic politics and morale — Leaders frequently time defence disclosures to shore up public confidence and underscore the government’s handling of security crises.
-
Strategic messaging to third parties — Emphasising the use of the S-400 and the claimed long-range engagement sends a signal to regional and extra-regional powers about the potency of India’s air-defence network.
Islamabad’s perspective and counterclaims
Pakistan’s government has been categorical in rejecting New Delhi’s numbers, calling them “implausible” and urging independent verification. Islamabad has repeatedly said it managed to strike Indian aircraft during the May exchange and that Pakistan’s air force capabilities remain intact. Pakistani officials argue the Indian claims are timed to influence regional sentiment.
International response and risks of escalation
So far there has been no major global power endorsement of either tally; international actors have called for restraint and de-escalation. Defence and diplomatic observers warn that public claims of substantial aircraft losses can ratchet up mutual distrust and complicate behind-the-scenes diplomacy.
Both India and Pakistan are nuclear-armed, and episodes of large-scale conventional exchange raise worries about rapid escalation. Even the disclosure of robust air-defence and strike capabilities is taken seriously because it affects regional security calculations and crisis management planning.
Historical context: why the May clashes mattered
The May actions were among the most intense air engagements between India and Pakistan in recent decades. They were triggered by a violent attack inside Indian Kashmir — an issue that routinely provokes sharp cross-border responses. The scale of the exchanges, the types of platforms reportedly engaged, and the speed of the operations drew international attention and continue to be studied as a case study in modern air operations in constrained, high-risk theatres.
Verification challenges: what independent observers will look for
Neutral verification of claims about aircraft losses typically depends on:
-
Satellite imagery showing wreckage or damaged bases.
-
Imagery analysts correlating timestamps, geolocation, and physical evidence.
-
Signals and electronic intelligence cross-referenced from multiple sources.
-
Eyewitness reporting from areas close to incidents.
Until such corroboration is available, the competing statements will remain in dispute.
What this means for regional security
If the Indian account is confirmed, the loss of an AEW&C and several fighters would alter force posture calculations in South Asia. AEW&C platforms are force multipliers; their loss could temporarily blunt a service’s situational awareness and coordination in air battles. Conversely, if Pakistan’s denial holds, the episode would illustrate the fog of war and the risk of misreporting in high-speed conflicts.
Either way, the disclosure underscores three realities:
-
Improved detection and engagement ranges with modern SAMs and stand-off weapons.
-
Rapid information warfare shaping narratives in real time.
-
Persistent escalation risk in conflicts between nuclear-armed neighbours.
Looking ahead: what to watch for
-
Independent verification through imagery or neutral third-party analysis.
-
Diplomatic activity aimed at reducing tensions.
-
Further military statements with technical details from either side.
Bottom line
On August 9, 2025, India’s air chief claimed that Indian forces shot down five Pakistani fighter jets and one large surveillance aircraft during a May operation called Operation Sindoor — most attributed to the S-400 air-defence system. Pakistan denies the claim and demands independent verification. No conclusive proof has yet been released, and the disagreement highlights both the intensity of the May clashes and the difficulty of verifying aerial combat outcomes in South Asia.
About the Author
