SOURCE: AFI
In a recent interview with a Pakistani news channel, Air Commodore Nouman Ali Khan, a decorated Pakistan Air Force (PAF) pilot credited with downing an Indian MiG-21 Bison in the 2019 aerial clash, provided a rare glimpse into the Rules of Engagement (ROE) governing that high-stakes encounter. Khan, famed for his role in Operation Swift Retort on February 27, 2019, stated that PAF’s ROE permitted the downing of Indian aircraft only if they attempted to cross the Line of Control (LoC) from Indian-controlled territory into Pakistan-occupied Kashmir (PoK).
He confirmed the shootdown of a MiG-21 that crossed into PoK airspace and claimed a second Indian jet, a Su-30 MKI, was also downed—albeit on the Indian side of the LoC after it approached the boundary. This admission raises questions about whether the PAF breached its own ROE, potentially handing India a strategic advantage in future air skirmishes by justifying a broader IAF response.
The February 27, 2019, aerial engagement followed India’s Balakot airstrike on February 26, targeting a Jaish-e-Mohammed (JeM) camp in Pakistan’s Khyber Pakhtunkhwa province in retaliation for the Pulwama attack that killed 40 CRPF personnel. Pakistan responded with Operation Swift Retort, deploying F-16s, JF-17s, and Mirage jets to strike Indian military targets near the LoC. In the ensuing dogfight, Khan, then a Wing Commander leading the No. 29 ‘Aggressor’ Squadron, shot down a MiG-21 Bison piloted by Wing Commander Abhinandan Varthaman using an AIM-120C AMRAAM missile. Varthaman ejected over PoK, was captured, and released two days later.
Pakistan has long claimed a second kill—an Su-30 MKI—asserting it fell on the Indian side of the LoC. India denies this, maintaining that only the MiG-21 was lost, while crediting Varthaman with downing a PAF F-16 before his ejection—a claim Pakistan disputes. The lack of wreckage or radar evidence from either side has fueled a war of narratives, but Khan’s interview offers a fresh perspective, albeit one that complicates Pakistan’s stance.
Khan’s interview clarified that PAF’s ROE were narrowly defined: “Only aircraft trying to cross into PoK from the Indian side were cleared to be shot down.” The MiG-21’s fate aligns with this—radar tracks and wreckage confirm it entered PoK airspace near Nowshera before being hit. However, his assertion that an Su-30 MKI was shot down on the Indian side of the LoC after “approaching” it introduces ambiguity. Khan suggested the jet’s proximity signaled intent to cross, justifying the strike, but this admission implies PAF aircraft may have engaged a target not yet in Pakistani airspace—potentially violating the stated ROE.
The Su-30 MKI claim remains contentious. Pakistan’s Inter-Services Public Relations (ISPR) in 2019 alleged two IAF jets were downed, with debris of the second falling in Indian territory. No photographic evidence or tail number has substantiated this, and India’s IAF has showcased Su-30 MKIs in flypasts (e.g., Air Force Day 2019) to debunk the loss. Khan’s assertion hinges on an F-16 from his formation firing a second AMRAAM, possibly from PoK airspace, striking the Su-30 over Indian-controlled Jammu & Kashmir. If true, this suggests PAF jets either crossed the LoC—unlikely given India’s air defense network—or fired beyond visual range (BVR) into Indian airspace, a move that stretches the ROE’s defensive intent.
Khan’s phrasing—“approaching the LoC”—implies a preemptive strike, a tactic that blurs the line between defense and aggression. ROE in such conflicts typically restrict engagement to airspace violations to avoid escalation, a principle both nations tacitly followed post-1971. By targeting an Su-30 still in Indian airspace, PAF may have acted outside its declared parameters, a move Khan justified as a response to perceived threat. This raises critical questions:
- Intent vs. Action: Did the Su-30’s approach—possibly tracked by PAF’s Saab 2000 Erieye AWACS—signal an imminent crossing, or was it maneuvering defensively? Without telemetry data, intent remains speculative.
- BVR Dynamics: The AIM-120C’s 100+ km range allows strikes across the LoC without PAF jets entering Indian airspace, but firing into sovereign territory risks breaching international norms, even if within missile range.
- Evidence Gap: India’s denial, backed by operational Su-30s and no crash reports, contrasts with Pakistan’s claim, reliant on Khan’s testimony and unverified ISPR statements. The absence of wreckage in PoK undermines the narrative unless the jet indeed fell deep in Indian territory, unnoticed—a logistical stretch.
If PAF did break ROE, it suggests a tactical gamble: neutralize a potent threat before it could act, prioritizing mission success over strict adherence to protocol. Khan’s candidness may reflect confidence in PAF’s 2019 dominance or an attempt to reshape the narrative amid India’s growing air power.
Khan’s admission could embolden the IAF in future encounters. If Pakistan justifies striking aircraft “approaching” the LoC, India could adopt a reciprocal stance, targeting PAF jets nearing the boundary even without a crossing. The IAF, with 272 Su-30 MKIs, Rafales, and an expanding Tejas fleet, might argue this precedent frees its hand to engage preemptively, especially near the LoC’s volatile Rajouri-Poonch sector. Indian analysts seizing this: “If PAF broke ROE in ‘19, IAF has carte blanche to hit anything close to the LoC next time—no questions asked.”
India’s air defense—bolstered by S-400 systems since 2021—already complicates PAF incursions. A “free hand” ROE could see IAF jets like the Rafale (with Meteor missiles) or Su-30s with Astra-Mk III engaging PAF formations at standoff ranges, regardless of intent. Pakistan’s J-10C and F-16s, while advanced, lack stealth, making them vulnerable to such a shift. This could escalate skirmishes dangerously, as both sides mirror each other’s loosened ROE, risking a wider aerial conflict.
Khan’s interview, while a morale booster for Pakistan, exposes a tactical paradox. Claiming the Su-30 kill bolsters PAF’s reputation but undercuts its disciplined image if ROE were indeed breached. India, meanwhile, gains a rhetorical edge—why didn’t its AWACS or ground radars report the loss?—yet faces pressure to substantiate its counterclaims (e.g., the F-16 kill). The lack of independent verification—radar logs, satellite imagery, or wreckage—leaves both narratives inconclusive, a fog Khan’s words only thickens.
NOTE: AFI is a proud outsourced content creator partner of IDRW.ORG. All content created by AFI is the sole property of AFI and is protected by copyright. AFI takes copyright infringement seriously and will pursue all legal options available to protect its content.