Operation Sindoor | How India’s stealth missiles pierced skies as Pakistan’s air defenses crumbled

On Wednesday (May 7), India executed a daring tri-services strike—Operation Sindoor—hitting nine terror camps deep inside Pakistan and Pakistan-administered Kashmir. The mission, a direct response to the Pahalgam massacre that killed 26 civilians on April 22, was carried out with stunning precision. All 24 missile impacts evaded Pakistan’s air defense systems, raising critical questions: How did India’s missiles bypass radar detection? Why did Pakistan’s HQ-9, LY-80, and JF-17 Thunder fighters fail? Here’s a comprehensive breakdown of what really happened in the skies.

HQ-9P/HQ-9BE: Long-range systems (100–200 km), based on Chinese tech, with H-200 radars—effective in theory, but less capable against low-altitude or stealthy threats.

LY-80 (HQ-16): Medium-range (40–70 km) SAMs, vulnerable to high-speed missiles like BrahMos.

FD-2000: An HQ-9 export variant, struggling with low-level, fast-flying threats.

JF-17 Thunder: The backbone of Pakistan’s air force, only ~50 equipped with AESA radars (Block III). Most variants lack capability to detect terrain-hugging or stealth missiles.

Despite being spread across key regions like Rawalpindi, Karachi, and Bahawalpur, these systems showed critical gaps—especially against modern, precision-guided munitions.

India’s Missile Arsenal: Built to Evade, Strike, and Vanish

Type: Subsonic, stealthy, terrain-hugging

Range: ~560 km

Specialty: Flies just 30–50 meters above ground, avoiding radar by skimming the terrain.

Usage: Fired from Rafales, targeting Muzaffarabad, Bahawalpur, and Muridke. Launched from Indian airspace, it dodged HQ-9 radars with ease.

Type: Smart glide bomb

Guidance: GPS/INS-based

Advantage: Small size, low radar profile; released from high altitudes and glides silently to targets like JeM headquarters.

Speed: Mach 2.8–3.0

Flight Path: Sea-skimming-like, altitude as low as 10–15 meters

Impact: Too fast for LY-80 or HQ-9 to react. Even 100 km is covered in under 30 seconds.

4. Loitering Munitions (Speculative)

Function: Drone-like systems for pinpoint strikes

Strength: Extremely stealthy and radar-evading due to slow, low-altitude flight

Tactics That Beat the Radar

SCALP and BrahMos fly below radar detection thresholds—hugging terrain or using Earth’s curvature to remain unseen. Mountains near Muzaffarabad and Kotli amplified these blind spots.

SCALP’s stealth design and BrahMos’s blistering velocity overwhelmed Pakistan’s tracking systems. The small size of HAMMER bombs further helped evade detection.

Rafales never entered Pakistani airspace. They launched missiles from bases like Ambala or Jammu, staying beyond the reach of HQ-9 or LY-80 interceptors.

Strikes began at 1:44 a.m.—a time when radar operators and patrols like JF-17s were likely inactive. This minimized early warning and reaction.

India’s Rafales carry SPECTRA electronic warfare suites capable of jamming or spoofing enemy radars. This may have disrupted Pakistan’s air defense coordination.

Pakistan’s JF-17s, especially Blocks I and II, lack AESA radars and advanced infrared tracking systems:

Detection Issue: Couldn’t detect SCALP or HAMMER flying low and slow.

Interception Limits: Not equipped with suitable missiles to shoot down cruise missiles.

Response Time: No real-time air patrols at night; fighters scrambled after the damage was done.

Dubious Claims: Pakistan’s claim of downing five Indian jets remains unverified. No pilot was captured, and any crashes were likely due to mechanical failure or SAMs.

Compared to India’s S-400 or Barak-8, Pakistan’s HQ-9 and LY-80 systems are outdated and struggle with stealth/supersonic threats.

Many targets (e.g., Bahawalpur, Kotli, Muzaffarabad) lay in radar shadows or lightly guarded civilian zones.

Strikes were timed to exploit low alertness, and terrain aided low-flying missiles in remaining undetected.

Pakistan’s integrated air defense network (IADS) showed signs of poor real-time coordination and response lag.

India’s Operation Sindoor was a masterclass in strategic planning and modern warfare. Using stealth, standoff, and surprise, India outsmarted Pakistan’s air defence grid. The success of 24 missile strikes—without a single interception—exposes not only technological gaps in Pakistan’s systems but also doctrinal weaknesses in detecting and responding to asymmetric aerial threats. While Pakistan retaliated with JF-17-led strikes, the real story lies in what wasn’t intercepted—and what that says about the future of air warfare in South Asia.