Hi guys, im working on my next video which debunks India's claim of destroying PAF jets in Hangers.
Here is the argument that I prepared with AI.
Please let me know what you think.
This video focuses only on Indian Air Force strikes against Pakistan air bases Hangers. One in Bholari air base And the other in Shahbaz air base … It does not cover the entire May 2025 conflict.
IAF's air strikes have become a case study in imagination-driven victory claims. They hit two hangars at PAF’s air bases and immediately launched a propaganda campaign claiming they destroyed 10–12 fighter jets parked inside. No intelligence backing it. No post-strike verification. No satellite imagery. Just pure imagination.
India claims that a damaged hangar in Shahbaz air base shows the outline of a destroyed F-16.
A direct hit by a cruise missile weighing 100s of kilograms would completely obliterate a fighter jet—shredding the airframe, igniting fuel, and scattering debris. It would not leave an intact structure or a fighter jet -shaped outline visible from satellite imagery.
Real weapon test footage proves this. A GBU-39 struck aircraft test target, the result is total destruction, not preserved shapes or recognizable silhouettes.
What India is doing is misrepresenting roof collapse patterns, shadows, and debris as a “jet outline.” That’s classic pareidolia—seeing shapes because you want to see them.
Bottom line: cruise missiles don’t leave behind clean outlines. They leave destruction. The rest is propaganda and imaginary fiction.
Here’s the part India desperately wants you to ignore:
During wartime, fighter jets are the primary assets of an air base, not hangars. Any competent air force moves its fighters into Hardened Aircraft Shelters (HAS) as soon as hostilities are expected. It doesn’t matter if the jet is fully airworthy, undergoing maintenance, or missing a component — if it can be towed, it goes into a hardened shelter.
At PAF bases (like any professional air force):
There are aircraft towing tractors / tow bars assigned to squadrons and dispersal areas
These vehicles are on standby during heightened alert
They’re designed to move fighters with dead engines, partial systems, or ongoing maintenance
So if a jet:
Has an engine issue
Is undergoing inspections
Isn’t flight-ready at that exact moment
…it can still be pulled into a Hardened Aircraft Shelter quickly. No drama, no excuses.
This is why the argument that “jets couldn’t be moved because they weren’t airworthy” doesn’t hold water. If it rolls on its landing gear, it can be protected.
So the idea that 10–12 fighters were casually left sitting inside soft hangars during an active conflict is not analysis — it’s fantasy.
Even more embarrassing is the leap from “we hit a couple of hangars” to “we destroyed the entire air base.”
And context matters — a lot.
India didn’t choose these long-range, stand-off strikes because they were feeling confident. They chose them because they had already suffered embarrassing losses in the air. Despite fielding fighter jets like Rafales armed with Meteor long-range missiles as evident from one of its debris found in Bathinda India, they were simply outmaneuvered by Pakistan air force which has Superior tactics, better coordination, and smarter air combat planning that turned IAF's supposed technological edge into dead weight.
Having advanced missiles means nothing if your doctrine, training, and execution collapse the moment real air combat begins. And then the hilarious excuse that IAF was restrained due to strict Rules of engagement ROE because IAF was only tasked to take out terror targets inside Pakistan. Well if ROE was in place then it does not make any sense to get 70 plus of your front line fighter jets airborne which carried advanced air to air missiles such as R-77, MICA, and crown jewel Meteor.
After losing fighter jets and failing to establish air superiority, IAF backed off from contested airspace and launched face-saving strikes from maximum safe distance. No dogfights. No air dominance. Just stand-off weapons — followed by an aggressive propaganda push to inflate limited physical damage into a decisive victory.
No credible evidence supports claims of 10–12 jets destroyed on ground.
Two damaged hangars do not equal a destroyed air base
The strikes were about optics, not battlefield dominance.
IAF didn’t destroy an air base.
They didn’t wipe out a fighter fleet.
They lost fighters in the air, retreated to stand-off attacks, and then tried to rewrite the outcome through imagination.
