Summary of "Un Rafale et des rumeurs. La guerre aérienne Inde-Pakistan de 2025"

Episode overview

This episode of The Collimator reviews “Operation Sindor,” Adrien Fontanellas’s open‑source study of the Indo‑Pak air war of 7–10 May 2025, and draws broader lessons about modern air warfare. The reconstruction relies on satellite imagery, radar tracks and other OSINT and highlights both what can be established and the key remaining uncertainties.

Main narrative and evidence

The conflict followed an April 2025 cross‑border attack and a delayed, planned Indian response. India launched a multi‑stage aerial campaign over several days; Pakistan countered with fighter strikes, large night drone swarms and long‑range missile use.
Public narratives from India and Pakistan were deeply contradictory. Open‑source reconstruction used satellite imagery, radar tracks and other OSINT to build a working chronology while acknowledging remaining uncertainties.
Social‑media and press operations shaped perceptions—most notably the high‑visibility claim that an Indian Rafale was shot down. Pakistan’s early, detailed press briefings (radar maps and intercepted communications) were highly effective at framing the episode.

Open reporting and rapid public framing shaped strategic perceptions, but overclaims remain common and require verification through imagery and technical traces.

Forces, capabilities and context

India

Large, modernizing air force (roughly ~650 combat aircraft).
Diverse suppliers and types: Russian Su‑30MKIs, upgraded Mirages, 36 Rafales.
Major investment in long‑range air‑to‑surface missiles (SCALP, BrahMos).
Integrated, multi‑layered air‑defense and C2 systems, including S‑400s and strong national airspace sharing / tactical C2. This integration proved decisive in defense.

Pakistan

Smaller force (~300+ combat aircraft) but increasingly supplied and co‑developed with China (JF‑17, J‑10C, PL‑15 missiles), plus F‑16s.
Extensive use of drones (large swarm/night operations) and Chinese long‑range missiles, demonstrating the maturity of Chinese aerospace tech for export customers.

Precedent

The 2019 Balakot strikes set a template for cross‑border counter‑terror strikes and escalation management; India scaled that approach in 2025.

Key events and tactical points

Initial Indian raids (~60 aircraft, including 14 Rafales) achieved some strikes but also suffered losses. At least one Rafale was confirmed downed; overall Indian losses may have included multiple aircraft (exact totals disputed).
Pakistan employed long‑range missiles (PL‑15) and possible cooperative targeting (mid‑course guidance from other assets). PL‑15 debris found inside India indicate both active use and significant miss rates.
Large nightly Pakistani drone attacks were used to probe and attempt to suppress Indian air‑defense (AD) networks. India employed layered defenses—short, medium and long‑range systems—plus electronic measures, decoys and coordinated C2 to blunt these attacks.
On 8 May India struck Pakistani long‑range surveillance radars and allegedly an AWACS/EW enabler, degrading Pakistani radar coverage and contributing to reduced Pakistani offensive effectiveness.
On 9–10 May India launched long‑range strikes using BrahMos, SCALP and other munitions against Pakistani bases, runways and drone hangars. Imagery visually confirmed some hangar damage and at least one destroyed aircraft; other destruction claims remain unverified.
Satellite imagery later revealed impacts near entrances/vents of underground facilities believed to relate to Pakistan’s nuclear assets, raising political signaling and escalation concerns.

Analytic conclusions and lessons

Multi‑domain integration and C2 are decisive. Good situational awareness and the ability to fuse radar, optical/EO, civil reporting and tactical feeds made India’s defense resilient.
Layered, integrated air defense—many complementary systems rather than reliance on a single “totemic” system—is more robust and cost‑effective against a mix of threats (from cheap drones to high‑end missiles).
Long‑range precision strike and stand‑off munitions shape escalation and enable deep interdiction without necessarily committing large bomber formations.
Weapon performance is contextual: capabilities of platforms like the Rafale, S‑400 or PL‑15 depend on tactics, integration, countermeasures and the battlespace.
Propaganda and rapid public framing matter strategically but cannot fully negate physical losses or long‑term effects; overclaims are longstanding in air combat and must be verified.
China’s aerospace sector has matured to supplying airframes and missiles that can reach parity in many contexts, shifting regional balances and export dynamics.
The episode indicates a loosening of historical escalation restraints between two nuclear‑armed neighbors: deeper strikes and attacks on strategic‑looking sites show erosion of previous taboos and raise concerns about crisis stability.

Methodology caveat

The study uses careful OSINT (satellite imagery, press statements, radar traces) to reconstruct events but notes residual uncertainty where neither side provides transparent, consistent accounts.