After India’s Chief of Defence Staff (CDS) General Anil Chauhan's statement over Operation Sindoor, a former Indian Army officer has defended Chauhan's remark about 'tactical mistakes', calling the losses of jets part of any war and not a result of an error.
Losses linked to strategy
Colonel (Retired) Ajay K Raina said the Indian Air Force pilots undertook missions that involved greater risks due to a strategic decision made at the highest level. “The usual and the best way of fighting air battle is by starting with SEAD or DEAD operations, aimed at suppression or destruction, respectively, of the enemy Air defence assets,” Raina wrote on social media platform X.
He added, “When SEAD and preferably DEAD has been achieved locally or across the board, the enemy gets blinded and the efficacy of his airforce gets deteriorated to a large extent. Once the enemy's head is down and his posterior is exposed, you go and take potshots on those targets. In other words, it is then that you go for the kill.”
Direct strike on terror targets raised risk
In the case of Operation Sindoor, Raina said India skipped the initial steps and targeted terrorist locations directly. “Here, since a decision had been taken to go for the kill (terrorist assets) without taking on Pakistan's military assets (AD and airforce), our pilots went for high-risk missions. Fortunately, they all came back safe,” he wrote.
Raina emphasised that these were not tactical mistakes. “Losses, as we all know, are part of any war but whatever little hit we took, was more because of a strategic decision taken at the top level rather than any tactical mistake that, in colloquial terms, may hint at professional mistakes by our air warriors.”
He said the pilots acted with courage. “We all must be proud of the fact that our ace pilots walked the path of high risk just to honour a decision that had created not-the-best scenario for them. Let's appreciate the spirit; believe me, it is not easy, neither for the top brass nor the daredevil taking off against odds.”
Calls to avoid over-analysis of losses
Colonel Raina urged people to focus on the bravery shown. “Let us salute to brave mothers who have given such gallant souls to Bharat.”
Meanwhile, CDS General Chauhan acknowledged on Saturday that some Indian aircraft were lost during Operation Sindoor. “What is important is not the jet being downed but why they were being downed,” he said in an interview in Singapore. He added that tactical adjustments followed the early losses, leading to a successful long-range offensive.
Messaging questioned by experts
However, foreign policy expert Sushant Sareen said the aircraft losses should not overshadow the operation’s success. “Op Sindoor had two objectives...both were achieved,” Sareen said, pointing to the destruction of nine terrorist bases and strategic escalation. “The loss of a couple of aircraft is not the metric on basis of which Op Sindoor is to be judged...what followed was the grounding of the PAF, decimation of Turkish drones, and destruction of Chinese junk tech in air defences and radars.”
Losses not unusual in modern air wars
Losses of fighter jets are a part of modern warfare. The United States is estimated to have lost around 68 fighter jets in Iraq and Afghanistan despite having air superiority. Russia has reportedly lost over 100 jets in its war with Ukraine. Neither country has fully acknowledged these losses officially.
Historical conflicts also saw significant losses. During World War II, the Allies lost over 91,000 aircraft, while the Axis powers lost more than 70,000. In the 1973 Yom Kippur war, Israel lost 102 aircraft but was still considered victorious, having regained lost territory and surrounded enemy forces.
Losses linked to strategy
Colonel (Retired) Ajay K Raina said the Indian Air Force pilots undertook missions that involved greater risks due to a strategic decision made at the highest level. “The usual and the best way of fighting air battle is by starting with SEAD or DEAD operations, aimed at suppression or destruction, respectively, of the enemy Air defence assets,” Raina wrote on social media platform X.
Before this 'Loss of Face' expert runs away with a cockeyed interpretation of the alleged 'tactical mistakes', let me explain the meaning of this:
— Col AJ🇮🇳 (@ajaykraina) May 31, 2025
-The usual and the best way of fighting air battle is by starting with SEAD or DEAD operations, aimed at suppression or destruction,… https://t.co/8noKTuAfV9
He added, “When SEAD and preferably DEAD has been achieved locally or across the board, the enemy gets blinded and the efficacy of his airforce gets deteriorated to a large extent. Once the enemy's head is down and his posterior is exposed, you go and take potshots on those targets. In other words, it is then that you go for the kill.”
Direct strike on terror targets raised risk
In the case of Operation Sindoor, Raina said India skipped the initial steps and targeted terrorist locations directly. “Here, since a decision had been taken to go for the kill (terrorist assets) without taking on Pakistan's military assets (AD and airforce), our pilots went for high-risk missions. Fortunately, they all came back safe,” he wrote.
Raina emphasised that these were not tactical mistakes. “Losses, as we all know, are part of any war but whatever little hit we took, was more because of a strategic decision taken at the top level rather than any tactical mistake that, in colloquial terms, may hint at professional mistakes by our air warriors.”
He said the pilots acted with courage. “We all must be proud of the fact that our ace pilots walked the path of high risk just to honour a decision that had created not-the-best scenario for them. Let's appreciate the spirit; believe me, it is not easy, neither for the top brass nor the daredevil taking off against odds.”
Calls to avoid over-analysis of losses
Colonel Raina urged people to focus on the bravery shown. “Let us salute to brave mothers who have given such gallant souls to Bharat.”
Meanwhile, CDS General Chauhan acknowledged on Saturday that some Indian aircraft were lost during Operation Sindoor. “What is important is not the jet being downed but why they were being downed,” he said in an interview in Singapore. He added that tactical adjustments followed the early losses, leading to a successful long-range offensive.
Messaging questioned by experts
However, foreign policy expert Sushant Sareen said the aircraft losses should not overshadow the operation’s success. “Op Sindoor had two objectives...both were achieved,” Sareen said, pointing to the destruction of nine terrorist bases and strategic escalation. “The loss of a couple of aircraft is not the metric on basis of which Op Sindoor is to be judged...what followed was the grounding of the PAF, decimation of Turkish drones, and destruction of Chinese junk tech in air defences and radars.”
Losses not unusual in modern air wars
Losses of fighter jets are a part of modern warfare. The United States is estimated to have lost around 68 fighter jets in Iraq and Afghanistan despite having air superiority. Russia has reportedly lost over 100 jets in its war with Ukraine. Neither country has fully acknowledged these losses officially.
Historical conflicts also saw significant losses. During World War II, the Allies lost over 91,000 aircraft, while the Axis powers lost more than 70,000. In the 1973 Yom Kippur war, Israel lost 102 aircraft but was still considered victorious, having regained lost territory and surrounded enemy forces.
You may also like
Manhunt for father accused of killing three young daughters during planned visit in Central Washington
Marrying into a Bengaluru family made ex-UK Rishi Sunak master Kannada to propose to Narayana Murthy's daughter Akshata
UK boost as TUI launches new flights from tiny airport to European hotspot
Europe's 'most overcrowded' tourist attraction is slammed as a 'circus'
Princess Lilibet celebrates fourth birthday today and here's her 9 best moments
