A Spark in Pahalgam, Tensions Across Borders

The April 22 terror attack in Pahalgam, which claimed the lives of several Indian security personnel, has reignited simmering tensions between India and Pakistan. In the aftermath, the Line of Control (LoC) witnessed ten consecutive nights of small arms fire and military posturing. These events, set against a backdrop of an already strained bilateral relationship, have raised fears of a broader military confrontation between two nuclear-armed adversaries.

While a full-scale war remains speculative, both nations have begun recalibrating their strategic doctrines. India, in particular, has been focused on modernising its air defence architecture—a critical component of national security. As threats evolve and adversaries like Pakistan and China grow bolder, India is shifting from reactive systems to proactive, layered defence mechanisms. At the heart of this transformation lies an important pivot: embracing indigenous innovation over imported reliance.

The Iron Dome Debate: Admiration and Abandonment

India’s early interest in Israel’s Iron Dome air defence system began as far back as 2010. Designed to intercept short-range projectiles like rockets and artillery shells, the Iron Dome drew global acclaim for its performance during the early years of the Gaza conflict. However, the tide of opinion began to shift after October 7, 2023, when Hamas launched a blitz of around 5,000 rockets in just 20 minutes. The Iron Dome was overwhelmed, exposing a crucial vulnerability—its performance declined drastically when saturated beyond a certain threshold.

India’s Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO), already working on its Prithvi Air Defence (PAD) and Advanced Air Defence (AAD) systems, took note. According to SIPRI’s Pieter Wezeman, India never pursued a purchase. Instead, the country opted to develop technologies attuned to its specific geographic, economic, and threat-related contexts.

Air Marshal (Retd) Anil Chopra, Director General of the Centre for Air Power Studies, summed it up aptly: while an Iron Dome-like system once made sense, it no longer fits India’s strategic ambitions, especially with the induction of advanced platforms like Russia’s S-400 and consideration of the US-made NASAMS-II.

India’s Multi-Layered Defence Doctrine: Building a Home-Grown Shield

India’s air defence strategy today is a layered one—an intricate mesh of altitude-based interception capabilities meant to neutralise everything from unmanned drones to hypersonic missiles. The three-tiered approach spans:

• High-Altitude Interception: The Prithvi Air Defence (PAD) system focuses on exo-atmospheric threats, providing interception capability at altitudes of 50–80 km.
• Low-to-Medium Altitude Protection: The AAD system intercepts threats within the endo-atmospheric envelope, while Akash SAM systems target aircraft and cruise missiles at 25–30 km ranges.
• Strategic Imports: The Russian-made S-400 Triumf, capable of tracking threats 600 km away and engaging up to 80 targets simultaneously, covers both ballistic and aerial threats up to 400 km. Despite pressure from the United States under CAATSA regulations, India pushed forward with the $5.5 billion deal, seeing the system as essential for national defence.
• Potential Additions: India is also evaluating NASAMS-II, a joint US-Norwegian system suitable for protecting high-value urban targets like New Delhi.

This architecture allows India to respond to both conventional and emerging threats—be they from Pakistan’s missile stockpile or from PLA Air Force activities near the Indo-Tibetan border.

Project Kusha: India’s Strategic Leap Forward

At the forefront of India’s future air defence is Project Kusha, the DRDO’s ambitious plan to develop a long-range interception system rivaling, and in key respects exceeding, the Iron Dome. Sanctioned with a budget of ₹21,700 crore, Project Kusha aims to integrate multiple interceptor missiles capable of engaging targets at 150 km, 250 km, and 350 km ranges.

Designed to counter stealth aircraft, cruise missiles, high-speed drones, and precision-guided munitions, the system will rely on sophisticated radar arrays and fire control systems. With projected kill probabilities of 80% in single launches and 90% in salvo mode, Project Kusha is more than just a defensive asset—it’s a statement of intent.

Unlike Israel’s Iron Dome, optimised for asymmetrical warfare over a limited geographical area, Kusha is envisioned as a scalable and modular platform suited for India's vast airspace and multiple conflict zones. Crucially, it reflects India’s "Aatmanirbhar Bharat" vision—emphasising self-reliance in defence production.

The Pakistan Comparison: Chinese Teeth, Indian Brain

Pakistan, too, has been modernising its air defences, but its approach remains largely dependent on Chinese imports. The HQ-9P and HQ-9BE systems form the backbone of Pakistan’s high-altitude interception, offering ranges between 100–200 km and speed capabilities up to Mach 14. These are primarily deployed around strategic locations like Karachi and Rawalpindi, protected by HT-233 phased-array radars.

For medium-range coverage, Pakistan uses the LY-80 and LY-80E platforms with interception ranges between 40 and 70 km. These systems, while adequate for traditional aerial threats, struggle against modern supersonic missiles like India’s BrahMos, which travels at over Mach 3.

Unlike India’s multi-origin, layered and increasingly indigenous strategy, Pakistan’s air defence is structurally dependent on a single supplier—China. While this ensures rapid deployment and compatibility, it risks technological stagnation, lower adaptability, and strategic overreliance on Beijing.

Learning from Israel: Lessons Beyond the Iron Dome

Despite its flaws, the Iron Dome has demonstrated operational effectiveness under conventional threat volumes. It reportedly maintains a 90% success rate in intercepting short-range threats under normal circumstances. However, its cost-efficiency dilemma—destroying a crude rocket with a $20,000 interceptor—has sparked debates globally, especially in larger countries with more complex threat environments.

India has internalised these lessons. By avoiding one-size-fits-all solutions and investing in interceptors of varied cost, speed, and range, DRDO aims for a model that is not just functional, but sustainable in prolonged combat scenarios.

Moreover, India’s approach to integrating radar systems, sensor fusion, and command-control units reflects an understanding that successful air defence is not just about firepower, but about seamless coordination.

Towards a Strategic, Sustainable Air Defence Future

The Pahalgam attack served as both a tragedy and a wake-up call. As regional fault lines deepen, India’s need for a versatile, self-reliant air defence system becomes more urgent. By pivoting away from foreign dependency and toward domestic innovation, India is crafting a military shield tailored not just for today's threats, but for tomorrow's unpredictabilities.

Pakistan’s Chinese-assisted defences may serve short-term needs, but India's layered, forward-thinking architecture offers a more strategic model—one that combines indigenous science, international collaboration, and strategic vision.

The path ahead must focus on continued R&D funding, faster deployment cycles, and doctrinal flexibility. Only then can India ensure that its airspace remains not just guarded, but intelligently and indigenously secured.

(With inputs from agencies)