A year after the four-day aerial conflict between India and Pakistan in May 2025, an authoritative and independent assessment has emerged from Europe. The Centre d’Histoire et de Prospective Militaires (CHPM), a Swiss institution known for rigorous military-historical analysis, has published an exploratory study titled Operation Sindoor: The India-Pakistan Air War (7–10 May 2025).

Authored by military historian Adrien Fontanellaz, the report offers one of the most detailed reconstructions yet of the conflict. Beyond claims and counter-claims, it situates Operation Sindoor as a watershed moment in modern air warfare between two nuclear-armed states, revealing how technology, doctrine, and escalation control shaped the outcome.

From Terror Attack to Air War

The crisis was triggered by the Pahalgam terror attack of 22 April 2025, in which 26 civilians were killed. Indian intelligence attributed the attack to Pakistan-based terror groups Jaish-e-Mohammed (JeM) and Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT). According to CHPM, India’s political leadership authorised a response that was deliberately broader and more forceful than previous limited strikes, while granting the armed forces operational autonomy to manage escalation.

On the night of 7 May 2025, Indian forces launched coordinated strikes against terror infrastructure in Bahawalpur and Muridke. This marked the opening of Operation Sindoor, which rapidly escalated into one of the most intense air confrontations in South Asia since 1971.

The Night of 7 May: A Tactical Setback

The Swiss report does not shy away from uncomfortable facts. It assesses that during the first night of operations, the Indian Air Force (IAF) suffered a serious tactical setback.

Based on open-source intelligence, wreckage imagery, and missile debris analysis, CHPM confirms:

●      The loss of at least one Rafale fighter jet

●      The likely loss of one Mirage 2000

●      A probable additional loss involving either a MiG-29UPG or Su-30MKI

●      Several “mission kills”, where Indian aircraft were forced to abort missions after long-range missile engagements

Pakistan’s use of PL-15 long-range air-to-air missiles, cooperative targeting through AEW&C platforms, and integrated data links surprised Indian planners. The report notes that Indian pilots may have underestimated the effective range and engagement envelope of these systems.

However, the CHPM analysis is clear: this tactical success did not translate into operational or strategic advantage for Pakistan.

Akashteer, S-400, and the Defence That Held

One of the most significant findings of the Swiss study concerns India’s air-defence architecture. Pakistan attempted a saturation strategy involving drones and missile attacks aimed at overwhelming Indian defences and degrading command-and-control.

Here, India’s indigenous Akashteer, integrated with the S-400 Sudarshan Chakra, proved decisive.

The report highlights:

●      No confirmed damage to S-400 batteries, despite Pakistani claims

●      Successful interception or neutralisation of hundreds of drones

●      Effective sensor fusion that allowed Indian units to remain electronically silent until engagement

Satellite imagery examined by CHPM showed no penetration of Indian airbases or collapse of defensive coverage. Instead, Pakistan’s aircraft were forced to operate at extended ranges, reducing strike effectiveness by an estimated 60–70%.

The 88-Hour Turnaround

Following the initial setback, the conflict entered a decisive phase. Between 8 and 10 May, the IAF leveraged its network-centric warfare backbone, particularly the Integrated Air Command and Control System (IACCCS), supported by Netra and Phalcon AWACS platforms.

Indian aircraft employed SCALP-EG, BrahMos, and Rampage stand-off munitions to strike:

●      Nur Khan

●      Murid

●      Rahim Yar Khan airbases

According to CHPM, these strikes degraded Pakistan’s air-defence network, cratered runways, and grounded large portions of the Pakistan Air Force’s operational fleet.

By the morning of 10 May, Pakistan faced the prospect of losing effective control of its airspace. The Swiss report notes that by 5 pm, Pakistan’s DGMO requested a ceasefire.

Escalation Dominance, Not Total War

Perhaps the most consequential insight of the CHPM study is its articulation of “escalation dominance.” India demonstrated the ability to:

●      Inflict escalating conventional costs

●      Maintain the conflict below the nuclear threshold

●      Offer a credible off-ramp to de-escalation

This directly challenges long-held assumptions that Pakistan’s nuclear posture would deter deep Indian conventional action. Operation Sindoor, the report argues, broke the paradigm of nuclear blackmail without triggering catastrophic escalation.

A Strategic Inflexion Point

The Swiss authors conclude that Operation Sindoor represents:

●      A shift in India’s counter-terrorism doctrine

●      The maturation of indigenous defence technologies

●      A new model for limited, high-intensity conflict between nuclear-armed states

India’s losses, while real, were absorbed without loss of initiative or strategic control. The decisive factor was not the absence of setbacks, but the speed, resilience, and integration with which India recovered and prevailed.

Operation Sindoor was not a flawless victory, but it was a decisive one.

As the CHPM report makes clear, modern warfare rewards systems, networks, and escalation management more than isolated tactical wins. In that equation, India emerged with a strengthened deterrence posture and a clear message: future terror attacks will be met not only with resolve, but with calibrated, technologically superior force.