IAF Chief’s Claim of S-400s Downing Pak Planes Sets Stage for Putin Visit, Raises US-India Stakes

Chandigarh: By one of those coincidences that may not be entirely accidental, Air Chief Marshal A.P. Singh’s surprise disclosure that the Indian Air Force used Russian made S-400 missiles to down at least five Pakistan Air Force fighters as well as an airborne early warning and control aircraft during Operation Sindoor, comes just a day after confirmation of Russian President Vladimir Putin’s impending visit to New Delhi.

Speaking at the ACM LM Katre Memorial Lecture in Bengaluru on Saturday, Singh credited Russia’s ‘Triumf’ S-400 air-defence system with these six PAF kills at ranges of some 300km inside Pakistani territory, during the four-day long hostilities that erupted in the early hours of May 7.

“We have at least five fighters confirmed kills and one large aircraft, which could either be an Electronic Intelligence (ELINT) or an AEW&C aircraft”, ACM Singh said, adding that this was the largest such recorded surface-to-air downing.

The IAF chief’s belated claim of downing five Pakistani fighter jets and a sixth ‘large’ plane mathematically mirrors the Pakistani claim of shooting down 5 or 6 Indian jets made within 24 hours of the air battle. So far, however, unlike the Pakistani claim which was buttressed by Indian aircraft debris in at least two locations in Punjab and Jammu Kashmir, no footage or evidence of any wreckage on the Pakistani side – where the downed Pakistani jets are supposed to have fallen – has emerged. In July, the French air force chief told the Associated Press that he had seen evidence pointing to the loss of three Indian fighter aircraft, including a Rafale.

"We don’t have the wreckage as their [PAF] planes were prevented from entering our airspace,” Air Marshal A.K. Bharti, IAF director general of air operations, had told reporters soon after the May 10 ceasefire when the claim that India had “downed a few planes” on the Pakistani side was first made.

Unlike India, which has contested the Pakistani claim of having lost five IAF jets but not denied some losses, Pakistan has so far insisted officially that it did not lose any planes in the air battle.

In his lecture, ACM Singh sought to refute the Indian defence attache to Indonesia’s controversial charge that ‘political constraints’ had tied the hands of the Indian military but tellingly made no mention of India’s own losses. This, despite the fact that Chief of Defence Staff General Anil Chauhan had admitted on June 1 that the country had lost jets in the air battle on the first day of Op. Sindoor. And adding to the somewhat confused messaging, the IAF chief’s sensational claim of India having downed as many as six Pakistani aircraft was omitted from the government’s official press release of his lecture.

“I can say that it was more of a hi-tech war which was fought. In 80-90 hours of fighting we were able to achieve so much damage to the Pakistan air system that it was clear to them that if they continued, they were going to pay for it more and more,” ACM Singh said in his lecture.

"We were able to get at least two command and control centres, like Murid and Chaklala. At least six radars, some of them big, some of them small,” he said. “We have an indication of at least one AEW&C in that AEW&C hangar and a few F-16s, which were under maintenance there."

Singh’s claims come even as India is reeling from punitive 50% tariffs on Indian exports to the US, and analysts and security officials believe their timing could not have been more ‘politically charged’. They said the air chief’s speech was likely aimed at replacing the image of India as a country vulnerable to trade pressure with one of uncompromising military dominance against a nuclear adversary.

By touting military ascendency, and providing an IAF kill count out of the blue some three months after the end of the four-day war, the air chief’s message has emerged as an unexpected politico-strategic counter-narrative to Trump’s tariff offensive.

More importantly for the government, it has helped shift news headlines from economic vulnerability and the opposition’s charge of voter fraud to one of military strength.

Senior security officials said Singh’s remarks also show the scale and severity of air combat engagements that went unpublicised at the time and provide an insight into the escalatory dangers that Washington—and Trump personally—have spoken of repeatedly since.

At the same time, Singh’s claims are likely to raise awkward questions about the strategic credibility of the US and Trump – who has referred to the downing of “five aircraft” in one of his recent press statements, presumably in relation to Pakistan’s claim. For, if US officials knew of the Pakistani losses that ACM Singh has now spoken of but downplayed or concealed them at the time, it suggests deliberate ‘narrative management’ on Washington’s part to avoid embarrassing or humiliating Islamabad. On the other hand, if Washington was unaware of the full operational picture, it raises questions about the effectiveness of US intelligence gathering in a crisis zone where both nuclear-capable sides were flying advanced fighters and exchanging precision strikes.

Either scenario undercuts the image of omniscience and control that Trump has been reiterating for over three months and also impinges adversely on Trump’s self-proclaimed status as a ‘dealmaker’ and peace-broker.

Singh’s claims also imply that decisive events were unfolding in the air during Op Sindoor, beyond the reach of US presidential persuasion, and that India’s military calculus—not Washington’s urging—was the key determinant in shaping the outcome. The fact that India maintained secrecy over this aspect until now, suggests a calculated side-lining of the US in managing the optics of the conflict, security officials said.

Against such a charged backdrop, the prospect of India buying additional S-500 air-defence systems during Putin’s proposed visit gains fresh strategic credibility.

With its extended range against ballistic missiles, hypersonic threats, and stealth aircraft, the S-500 would fit neatly into India’s multi-layered air defence architecture alongside the five S-400s batteries previously acquired – of which three had been delivered and deployed near Jammu, Punjab and Gujarat during Op Sindoor.

In political terms, such a purchase would signal that rather than bending to US pressure on buying Russian materiel, India could leverage the air chief’s statement to justify sticking with suppliers whose equipment had proven itself in battle.

This would be an especially potent argument in the run-up to Putin’s visit, said a senior two-star IAF veteran. It would also signal Delhi’s refusal to be cowed by US threats over Russian arms purchases, he stated, declining to be named for commenting on such a sensitive matter.

Operationally, the S-500 would also extend India’s strategic deterrence envelope well beyond Pakistan, offering coverage deep into western China. In the current climate, where US-India ties are strained over tariffs and trade disputes, a move toward the S-500 would underline that India’s defence equipment procurement policies were autonomous and adequately insulated operationally.

For Moscow, an S-500 deal with India would be a vital reaffirmation of its materiel market relevance in Asia amid US and Western attempts to isolate it geopolitically and economically. Securing such a high-profile deal with the IAF would not only provide Russia with much-needed revenue, but also endorse the operational efficacy of its advanced weapon systems. In essence, an India S-500 acquisition now would be more than an arms deal – it would be a geopolitical signal, and one with consequences well beyond the battlefield.

Yet, the timing for this is fraught.

And, with US tariffs already straining economic ties between Delhi and Washington, a high-profile Russian arms purchase would severely jeopardise bilateral political and security initiatives between Delhi and Washington, like the Quad and other military commerce under negotiations involving aero engines, maritime reconnaissance aircraft and infantry combat vehicles.

India, of course, remains acutely aware that over-reliance on Russia would expose it to technological and supply-chain vulnerabilities, considering Moscow’s growing strategic dependence on Beijing. It also recognises that modernising its armed forces requires access to Western, particularly US, technology – which, in turn, entail political strings, interoperability demands and export controls.

However, if ties with the US sour drastically, India would be left with little choice but to lean back on  Russia, even if at the cost of limiting its own technological horizons in the medium-term.

The Wire is now on WhatsApp. Follow our channel for sharp analysis and opinions on the latest developments.