Spencer, chair of urban warfare studies at West Point, called the operation a “strategic debut” for India’s indigenously developed arsenal—products of the Modi government’s “Make in India” and “Atmanirbhar Bharat” defense policies.
He listed India’s weaponry in detail: the BrahMos supersonic cruise missile, which he noted is “among the fastest and most accurate in the world”; the Akash SAMs, paired with the AI-powered Akashteer command system for air defense; and the Rudram-1 anti-radiation missile, “a game-changing tool that neutralized Pakistani radar networks.”
India’s Netra AEW&C aircraft, Spencer said, “functioned as the eye in the sky—tracking enemy aircraft and vectoring Indian strike missions with real-time accuracy.” He described the loitering munitions, SkyStriker and Harop, as “cost-effective, kamikaze drones that delivered pinpoint strikes with minimal collateral damage.”
On the other side of the border, Spencer argued, Pakistan fielded a force “built on Chinese exports—platforms made for global sale, not battlefield dominance.” He said the JF-17 fighter jet was “unable to establish air superiority,” while Chinese-made HQ-9 and HQ-16 air defense systems “failed to detect or intercept Indian missiles under jamming pressure.”
Spencer noted that Pakistan’s Swedish Saab 2000 AEW&C aircraft was destroyed early in the campaign, “crippling its command and control functions.” He also pointed to reports that Turkey had to send drone operators to keep Pakistan’s CH-4 UAVs in the air—“a clear sign of both equipment and personnel dependency.”
“This wasn’t just retaliation,” he wrote. “It was a referendum on technological sovereignty. India passed. Pakistan failed.”
Markets responded accordingly. Spencer highlighted that Paras Defence & Space jumped 49% in May, while Chinese defense giants like AVIC and NORINCO saw steep drops.
“India didn’t just fight,” Spencer concluded. “It proved Atmanirbhar Bharat works—in war.”