I don't get it then, if the IAF has been so insistent on not losing any rafales, to the point of emphasising it over and over within the last YEAR, surely they can just share a photo of a single jet that they assure that pakistan has been bullshitting about? Like this has been a common pattern, people insisting over and over and over and over that Pakistan is totally lying and then refuse to provide any evidence when questioned????
Indian Military News, Reports, Data, etc.
- Thread starter bd popeye
- Start date
The simplest way to put all speculation to rest would be to assemble all 36 Rafales at a single base and release a clear group photograph.
Alternatively, independent observers could be invited to verify the inventory. Pakistan has publicly stated its willingness to allow similar verification, which could help bring greater transparency to the discussion.
No professional air force in the world is expected to line up its entire fighter fleet just to satisfy claims made by another country or social media users. Doing so would unnecessarily reveal operational information and Gathering every aircraft at one location solely for a photo opportunity would itself be an unusual exercise.
If the Indian Air Force had actually lost four Rafales, it would not be issuing a maintenance tender covering all 36 Rafale aircraft currently in service. That official tender is a far more credible piece of evidence than demands for a staged photo opportunity.
can you point to a single example where the U.S. Air Force, the Israeli Air Force, the Royal Air Force, or any other major air force lined up its entire fleet simply to prove an adversary wrong? Such a precedent does not exist because professional militaries do not conduct operations or public relations based on online narratives. They rely on official records, operational activity, and government documentation, not publicity stunts.
such a demand is not a normal standard of military proof. Air forces around the world do not conduct fleet-wide photo displays to refute foreign claims, because doing so can create operational and security concerns while setting a precedent of responding to every information campaign.
It's understandable. But then the world will simply go by ample evidence in the form of debris, which guarantees the aircraft didn't reach home base.
And, tbh, only an incredible amount of pointless denial makes it somehow notable. The fact that 4th-generation fighter aircraft are vulnerable doesn't require special proof for decades. The entire next generation was born to rectify specifically that.
Last edited:
You're missing the point. Nobody is saying the IAF must conduct a fleet-wide photoshoot. The issue is that you're making an absolute claim: that not a single Rafale was lost.
When someone makes a categorical claim, the burden is on them to substantiate it. A maintenance tender for 36 aircraft is not conclusive proof that all 36 airframes remain intact and operational. It simply shows the fleet is being supported as a fleet of 36.
You keep arguing why the IAF doesn't need to line up all its aircraft, but that doesn't actually prove your claim. The question remains the same: what independently verifiable evidence do you have that all 36 Rafales are accounted for?
I don’t understand why you insist on using this tender figure as evidence of your claim. Tender figures is nothing more than a guide figure.
Use other procurement tenders as examples, rafale’s originally procurement tender, which was for 126 aircraft, did that tender figure mean India now has 126 rafales, no, right?
The same applies here, they say 36 but the actual number of aircraft that is actually supported could be lower. The tender figure is just a number, that’s all it is.
It explicitly covers support for a fleet of 36 Rafales. The company awarded the contract will be paid to maintain 36 aircraft, and it will have access to the fleet it is contracted to support. Governments do not award multi-million-dollar maintenance contracts or authorize payments for aircraft that do not exist.
If the fleet had actually been reduced, issuing a maintenance contract and making payments based on 36 aircraft would create serious contractual, financial, and audit issues. Government procurement documents are subject to scrutiny and are not drafted for propaganda purposes.