British Defence Journal Questions India’s Claims of Air Superiority
India has not officially responded to the specific claims outlined in the report.
LONDON: A research report published by a British defence journal has challenged India’s long standing claims of military superiority, putting forward disputed assertions about losses allegedly suffered by the Indian Air Force during an aerial confrontation with Pakistan.
According to a report aired by 24NewsHD TV channel, Key Aero Magazine claimed that a 52 minute air engagement between Pakistan and India resulted in the destruction of four Indian Rafale fighter jets. The aircraft were identified by the serial numbers BS001, BS021, BS022 and BS027. The report stated that India has not released any verifiable images to confirm the status of these jets.
The journal further alleged that Pakistan carried out coordinated multi domain operations, combining air power with cyber warfare, which reportedly rendered Indian pilots and air defence systems ineffective. It claimed that Pakistani cyber units disrupted nearly 96 percent of India’s social networks and digital infrastructure during the confrontation.
In addition to the Rafale jets, the report listed further alleged Indian losses, including MiG 29 and Su 30 fighter aircraft, as well as a Heron drone. It also claimed that on May 10, a Pakistani JF 17C Block III fighter disabled an Indian S 400 air defence system in the Udhampur area, while another strike reportedly damaged an Indian command and control facility in Barnala.
The publication described the incident as the first alleged example of an air force integrating cyber and conventional military operations on such a large scale.
Read more: Pak Army Soldier Martyred, Seven Indian-Sponsored Terrorists Killed in DI Khan Operation
The report also referred to a previous interview given by India’s Chief of Defence Staff, General Anil Chauhan, to Bloomberg, in which he acknowledged aircraft losses, though without providing detailed confirmation.
India has not officially responded to the specific claims outlined in the report. Defence analysts say many of the assertions remain contested and would require independent verification.
Comments are closed, but trackbacks and pingbacks are open.