Pakistan Claims 32 IAF Bases Hit in AI Video on Operation Sindoor, Faces Online Mockery

Pakistan has sparked fresh controversy after the Pakistan Air Force released a dramatic video making sweeping claims about Operation Sindoor, including alleged strikes on 32 Indian Air Force bases, two S-400 air defence systems and several major Indian facilities.

The video, released as Pakistan marked Air Force Day, relies heavily on animated and AI-generated visuals to portray Pakistan's version of events during the May 2025 hostilities between India and Pakistan.

Titled Fizaon ke Pasban, the video depicts a series of alleged military operations and claims that Pakistan carried out extensive attacks against Indian military and strategic infrastructure.

Among its most striking assertions is a graphic claiming that 32 Indian Air Force bases were hit. The video also claims that Pakistan destroyed four Rafale aircraft, one Sukhoi-30MKI, one MiG-29, one Mirage 2000 and a Heron drone.

It further portrays alleged strikes on two S-400 air defence systems and depicts attacks on locations including Parliament, Kandla Port and INS Vikrant.

However, the claims have drawn criticism because the video does not provide independently verifiable photographs, satellite images or real footage showing the alleged destruction.

Despite the scale of the claims, Pakistan has not released before-and-after satellite imagery or other publicly verifiable evidence showing significant damage to the 32 Indian Air Force bases mentioned in the video.

The latest production has therefore triggered questions about the difference between animated battlefield depictions and independently confirmed evidence.

The video also presents Pakistan as carrying out a range of major operations, including allegedly disrupting satellites, fuel supplies and the national power grid.

The claims have been questioned in India, particularly because several of Pakistan's assertions about Operation Sindoor have been disputed previously.

The alleged destruction of India's S-400 air defence systems remains one of the most prominent claims repeated in Pakistani narratives surrounding the conflict.

Prime Minister Narendra Modi visited Adampur Air Force Station shortly after the hostilities, where he addressed personnel in front of an S-400 system, which India cited as evidence against claims that the air defence platform had been destroyed.

India, meanwhile, released official visuals and briefings following Operation Sindoor, detailing strikes against targets in Pakistan.

Indian authorities also released footage and information concerning strikes on Pakistani military infrastructure.

Open-source intelligence assessments and satellite imagery published after the conflict examined damage at several Pakistani air bases, including facilities at Bholari, Sargodha and Nur Khan.

The contrast between Pakistan's latest AI-generated production and the visual evidence released following the conflict has become a major focus of the debate.

The Pakistan Air Force video was also widely discussed and mocked on social media, with critics questioning why extensive claims of military damage were not supported by photographs, satellite imagery or independently verifiable footage.

Several social media users highlighted the absence of real visuals showing the alleged destruction of Indian military facilities.

Pakistan has repeatedly made claims about major damage inflicted on Indian military assets since Operation Sindoor, while India has disputed several of those assertions.

The latest video has brought those competing narratives back into focus.

With its dramatic explosions, animated sequences and extensive claims, the Pakistan Air Force production has generated significant attention online. However, the lack of publicly available and independently verifiable evidence supporting several of its biggest assertions has remained at the centre of the criticism.

The debate over Operation Sindoor continues to reflect the broader information battle surrounding the conflict, with official claims, satellite imagery, open-source analysis and social media narratives all shaping competing versions of what happened during the military confrontation.