‘India Showed The World What Self-Reliance In Warfare Looks Like’: John Spencer On Op Sindoor

Last Updated:May 29, 2025, 13:45 IST

US defence expert Spencer said Op Sindoor validated India’s defence self-reliance, exposed Pakistan’s proxy dependency, and dealt a credibility blow to China’s weapons export model

Spencer concluded that India not only retaliated, but delivered a strategic message—to adversaries and partners alike. (File pic/PTI)

India has arrived as a self-reliant military power—and Operation Sindoor proved it. That is the verdict of John Spencer, one of the world’s foremost experts on modern warfare and Chair of Urban Warfare Studies at West Point’s Modern War Institute.

In his detailed analysis titled India’s Operation Sindoor: A Battlefield Verdict on Chinese Weapons—And India’s Victory, Spencer on Thursday described India’s military response to the 22 April terror attack in Pahalgam as not merely retaliatory, but as a strategic stress test of India’s defence ecosystem—and a moment of reckoning for Chinese military exports.

Far from a limited tactical operation, Spencer argued, Operation Sindoor marked India’s emergence as a sovereign military power capable of fielding, operating, and succeeding with an indigenous arsenal under full-spectrum combat pressure.

“India fought as a sovereign power—wielding precision tools it designed, built, and deployed with unmatched battlefield control," he wrote. “Pakistan fought as a proxy force, dependent on Chinese hardware that was built for export, not for excellence."

INDIA’S ARSENAL: DESIGNED AT HOME, PROVEN UNDER FIRE

According to Spencer, the defining feature of India’s success in Operation Sindoor was not just military precision—it was total control over the tools of war. A decade of strategic investment under Make in India and Atmanirbhar Bharat had, he wrote, materialised into a self-sufficient, combat-ready arsenal.

Among the standout systems:

• BrahMos Supersonic Cruise Missile: Co-developed with Russia but largely built in India, the BrahMos struck radar sites and hardened bunkers at high speed and with near-zero intercept risk.
• Rudram-1: India’s first anti-radiation missile, used to neutralise enemy radar networks—crucial for enabling safe deep-strike air missions.
• Akash SAM with Akashteer C2: A mobile, all-weather air defence system integrated with AI-powered battlefield control, enabling real-time coordination against multiple airborne threats.
• Netra AEW&C: DRDO’s airborne surveillance system played a decisive role in orchestrating Indian strikes and blinding the adversary—reportedly contributing to the destruction of Pakistan’s Saab 2000 AEW&C aircraft.
• Loitering Munitions (Harop, SkyStriker): Precision kamikaze drones assembled through Israeli joint ventures, used to eliminate radar installations and mobile targets with minimal collateral damage.
• D4S Counter-UAV System: India’s multi-layered anti-drone suite, which neutralised dozens of Chinese-made UAVs—signalling a major leap in domestic electronic warfare capabilities.

This arsenal, Spencer wrote, reflected a complete and operational indigenous military ecosystem—one that fused technology, autonomy, and battlefield effectiveness.

PAKISTAN’S COLLAPSE: A PROXY WAR, NOT A PEER FIGHT

Spencer was sharply critical of Pakistan’s performance, describing it as a textbook case of strategic overdependence on foreign systems—particularly those manufactured by China for export, not endurance.

“When challenged, these systems failed—exposing the strategic hollowness behind Islamabad’s defence posture," he observed.

The JF-17 Thunder, designed in China and assembled in Pakistan, was unable to compete with Indian air dominance. Its limited radar and payload capabilities were insufficient against India’s electronic warfare systems and layered defences.

Pakistan’s air defence network—based almost entirely on Chinese systems—also collapsed under pressure:

• HQ-9 and HQ-16 SAMs, Chinese imitations of Russian S-300 and Buk platforms, failed to intercept incoming missiles or loitering drones.
• LY-80 and FM-90 short-range and medium-range systems were unable to detect or engage India’s low-flying strikes.
• The CH-4 drones, widely used by Pakistan, were either jammed or destroyed.

Spencer noted that Turkish drone operators were reportedly brought in, exposing Pakistan’s reliance not only on foreign hardware, but also on overseas expertise to operate it.

Even the F-16s, Pakistan’s most capable aircraft, were absent from the battlefield due to US-imposed end-user restrictions prohibiting their use against India. Spencer argued this underscored the strategic fragility of nations reliant on conditional imports.

The final blow, he wrote, came with the destruction of Pakistan’s Saab 2000 AEW&C aircraft, which crippled its aerial command and control. Spencer described it as a “strategic blinding", adding that Pakistan lost not just equipment, but situational awareness itself.

“By the end of the campaign," he wrote, “Pakistan had lost key radar stations, its premier AEW&C aircraft, dozens of drones, and its ability to contest Indian airspace."

A STRATEGIC SIGNAL—AND A MARKET REACTION

Spencer emphasised that Operation Sindoor was more than retaliation—it was a blueprint for 21st-century sovereign warfare. It showed what a country can achieve when it owns, operates, and refines its own systems across the full spectrum of warfare—from radar to response, missiles to ISR.

“India showed the world what self-reliance in modern warfare looks like—and proved that ‘Atmanirbhar Bharat’ works under fire," he wrote.

The strategic signal had tangible consequences. Indian defence stocks surged:

• Paras Defence & Space rose 49 per cent in May.
• MTAR Technologies and Data Patterns also posted strong gains.

In contrast, Chinese defence giants AVIC, NORINCO, and CETC saw dips in investor confidence, as the battlefield performance of their systems dented export credibility.

THE STRATEGIC TAKEAWAY: INDIA HAS ARRIVED

Spencer concluded that India not only retaliated, but delivered a strategic message—to adversaries and partners alike.

“This wasn’t just retaliation," he wrote. “It was India’s proof-of-concept. A war waged and won on its own terms—with tools of its own making."

For India, Operation Sindoor was not just a military success—it was a sovereign assertion of capability, credibility, and control. It proved that India’s defence transformation is no longer aspirational. It is operational. Combat-tested. Real.

Location :

First Published:

News india ‘India Showed The World What Self-Reliance In Warfare Looks Like’: John Spencer On Op Sindoor