What's wrong with it? Looks better than the Indian papers you're posting, which make claims based on hopes and conjecture rather than evidence or facts...
To admit I'm surprised that You post this comment in mind of what links and reports you post and other members complain about the ones you rate valuable!??
OK let this forum go to s.. T if you are too busy to moderate.
The pak paper falsely claims that the software changes led to the targets being missed, and not being fired, misquoting "iaf" sources.To admit I'm surprised that You post this comment in mind of what links and reports you post and other members complain about the ones you rate valuable!??
Could you please explain what is faked or why you think it is "Totally manipulated and fake"?
I must admit that as in all wars India and Pakistan clearly prove again that the first victim of war is always truth. I'm no longer able nor in the mood to read what both sides claim and accuse the other one ...
Except this theory has an ungodly number of holes according to the facts known so far.But the MKI down is possibly true because India did not invite Russia to confirm, while the F-16 down is not possible because the US has already confirmed all F-16s accounted for.
That wasn't a serious assertion that an MKI was downed. I have said many times that it is my belief to follow only evidence, which says that India lost 1 MiG-21 and 1 Mi-17 and Pakistan lost nothing (except maybe an AMRAAM and another missile used to kill the MiG-21). I'm asking this question to Maint because he keeps asserting that the IAF hit their mark on day 1 because otherwise, why wouldn't Pakistan just show the strike zone to the world? I'm telling him that you can't substitute actual evidence with questions and assumptions, so the question, "If the IAF didn't lose an MKI, then why don't they ask Russia for a count?" is the example I'm using to show him how the logic that he uses is unacceptable to him on the flip side.Except this theory has an ungodly number of holes according to the facts known so far.
Remote as the possibility of an actual loss no doubt is given the recent US inventory of Pakistan's fleet, the AMRAAM wreckage recovered by India at least proves one or more F-16s were in the area that day - no such confirmation has come to light regarding participation by Flankers. Sure, some Indian media reports claimed so, but they also claimed a lot of other nonsense, so why arbitrarily believe them on the presence of Su-30s while dismissing the rest (no cherry picking: either they're credible or they aren't)? And while we're at it, why no pictures of a Flanker crash site or information on the fate of its crew released by Pakistan? They weren't exactly shy to do just that with the MiG-21 and if the aircraft was shot down in the same general area as the MiG (suggested by the fact that it was supposed to have been watched by the same witnesses), it stands to reason that both would likewise have come down on Pakistani territory.
Assuming for argument's sake that those eye witness reports were accurate (which you'll note I doubted immediately...), a twin-seat F-16 - as actually claimed by Indian sources early on - is in fact a lot more plausible. MiG-21 locks onto F-16D which fires an AMRAAM (misses and falls on territory controlled by India, to be found later), turns tail and lures the Indian pilot into Pakistani airspace where he successfully downs his target (thus accounting for reports of a twin seater) but is knocked out of the sky in turn by JF-17s. F-16 wreckage is not accessible to India and Pakistan seizes the opportunity to cover up the loss. Not that "a lot more plausible" amounts to a worthwhile probability in this case (all the missiles carried by the MiG-21 are accounted for...).
To whit, the scenario which fits the observed evidence even better is that the MiG-21 was the only aircraft (other than the Mi-17 fratricide) lost that day and eye witness accounts of two or three chutes were simply BS/misinterpretation of ambiguous clues (ejection seat drogue, brake parachute ejected by missile impact, whatever). Q.e.d.