It is too bad that the present statements of the Dassault Aviation CEO, Eric Trappier, about the downing of the Indian Rafale fighter jets in light of the Pakistan claims of shooting down the Indian Rafales are completely different than the ground reality. The fact that Trappier refuted Pakistan’s claim that its troops had brought down three Rafales not only casts doubt over Dassault Aviation’s standpoint but also casts a dark cloud over the entire narrative pushed by Indian defense sources. The claims provided by Dassault Aviation must be thoroughly analyzed and considered in light of the absence of outside verification and the current military situation in South Asia.

Pakistan has made available technical evidence, wreckage, radar tracking, and communications intercepts.

To start with, one cannot ignore the gap in Trappier’s belief when he comments that the Indians were never officially informed about any losses. And the reality is that India has never been open to the information regarding its fighting capability. No independent, impartial source has been permitted to verify or confirm claims by India, and neither has India been able to provide any solid evidence that its Operation Sindoor was successful. It is not without significance that Pakistan has made available technical evidence, wreckage, radar tracking, and communications intercepts of what has happened, but India has not come forward with any such evidence to support its claims. Such a conspicuous absence casts doubt on India’s narrative, which has otherwise remained unproven with traceable evidence.

Pakistan, on the other hand, has been open about its discoveries. It has presented the world with physical wreckages of the crashed Rafales and other physical evidence to back its arguments. Moreover, several of the Pakistani defense and intelligence officials confirmed in a press conference that a minimum one Rafale was really shot down by the operation. Technical evidence has been used to support such statements, bearing in mind that recovered wreckage of the crashed aircraft was also used. Meanwhile, India has not opened its mouth, and no formal statement or revelation has been put forward, considering its claims of undamaged Rafales. The fact that India could not present any solid evidence to support their view to prove them right at all merely adds to the doubt cast in the scenario given their version of the events.

One should also pay attention to the interest that Dassault Aviation has in the reputation of its greatest production fighter jet. The outrageous refutation by Trappier is understandable since the Rafale project has now become a lifeline in French defense exports and the economy of France. As one of the largest buyers of Rafale, any dent on its image would have far-reaching consequences on the future sales and the image of the aircraft of being better. It becomes only logical that Ravale is one of the subsidiaries of Dassault, and the latter is likely to do everything in its power in a bid to undermine any allegations that pot Rayfale was losing. In that sense, the remarks of Trappier can be regarded as a calculated act with an intention to downplay the incident and safeguard the salability of the company in the long term.

India has not come forward with any such evidence to support its claims.

Nevertheless, there is no denying that distancing Dassault Aviation might involve changing this situation on the ground. Besides offering visual and technical evidence, Pakistan has also offered extensive information through third-party sources that support the allegation of at least one crash Rafale. The debris that Pakistan shows allows no doubt in the fact that a high-tech plane was destroyed. These materials have been examined by military analysts, and the authenticity of the debris has been verified which adds even more strength to the Pakistan side of the story. On the contrary, India and Dassault Aviation have had no such substantive response supported by independent verification.

The comment made by Trappier, where he did not want the loss of equipment to determine the success or failure of the operation, does not deal with the actual problem, that Rafales were brought down to the ground. Although it is fair to say that military activities are meant to be measured in terms of the strategic aims, the missing aircraft, or rather their absence, are significant in calculating the actual result of a combat operation. To lose even a single Rafale in Operation Sindoor is a big hit to air superiority that India has so far been claiming and is detrimental to the Indian version of perfection. Pakistan has also produced credible evidence of such losses; this, of course, is a good indication that claims of invincibility are, by the Indian side, grossly overstated.

Furthermore, Trappier tries to seamlessly end the situation with a historic analogy of World War II, when the Allies did not lose the war due to casualties of the troops, which is misleading and attached to the context of this situation as well. Even the contemporary battlefield is a completely different environment, especially in the air. The Rafale and other types of high-tech fighters are pricey in that the loss of the item has dire effects on the operational ability of the air force and its strategic standing. Writing off such losses as irrelevant is to undermine the relevance of technological superiority in modern-day war. In that of Operation Sindoor, the crashing of Rafales, particularly, considering the high technology it is equipped with, is a big failure of the operation on the part of India, and it just cannot be ignored by making past analogies that do not apply in the present context.

Trappier’s refutation appears as a calculated act to protect Dassault’s commercial and strategic interests.

It is rather important to point out that the assertions by Pakistan have been probed and proven, showing the wreckage and some other technical evidence. The fictional account presented by these pieces of evidence makes a clear and convincing case about the losses that India incurred in the operation. The facts presented quite contrast with the hollow rhetoric and false words spoken by India and Dassault Aviation. Therefore, the invincibility of Rafale is also indicated; the story of the Operation Sindoor should revert to this context.

Finally, although Dassault Aviation can embark on many levels to save face for the Rafale and the liking of its defense contract, the facts on the deck point to something different. Pakistan has been very transparent in providing evidence about the shot-down Rafales, whereas India has not been able to come forward with any verifiable evidence that it has been operating faultlessly.

The authenticity of the debris has been verified by military analysts.

The fact that Dassault Aviation has been continuing to deny these facts is only indicative of the weak stand that they are taking. The fact is that the facts are on the side of the claims by Pakistan, and no form of denial or historical parallelism could ever make a difference. The result of Sindoor is not only a thing of narrative but it is a thing of facts, and facts favor the Pakistan side in all aspects.

Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in this article are solely those of the author. They do not represent the views, beliefs, or policies of the Stratheia.