Air Engagement of Operation Sindoor : Analysis

[Spitfire6]

Perhaps an omnirole aircraft is a multirole aircraft able to do ASF mission?

That has been my point all along...
its also been a point of confusion for both RandomRadio and all of RandomRadio's various personalities.
The Rafale was never "designed as an ASF" -- thats a lie easily debunked. after that he threw a fit and declared all the arguments over and people who can read a webpage as dumb
oh well, thanks for responding.

You're basically saying you don't have arguments left.

I have plenty of arguments left mate-- would you like to continue? stop putting words in everyone's mouths! I think you ran out of arguments the second I contradicted your obvious lie with the Dassault website, you suddenly stopped the constant drumbeat of lies. Since you are very confused I will reiterate. Air Superiority is a MISSION not a specific platform. Meaning that the Rafale can do Air Superiority, just like the F-35 can. and other multi-role or Omnirole aircraft can do this mission to. they will perform this mission with various advantages and disadvantages but the hard and fast rule of "can or cannot" is not only untrue, but you have proven that the criteria is every changing and arbitrary and based on personal opinion as to be utterly meaningless.
you fell into your own trap. You told everyone that an aircraft must be designed with certain characteristics to be ASF, and then when you realized the RAFALE didn't even fit YOUR OWN INVENTED CRITERIA, rather than change your mind you tried to change history!!

 

[Optimist]

Yup...
I think anything that can sustain 1.2mach+ is good enough.
As below 1.2mach is not sustainable.

Have I got some good news for you.

The F-35’s Race Against Time

The F-35, while not technically a "supercruising" aircraft, can maintain Mach 1.2 for a dash of 150 miles without using fuel-gulping afterburners.

"Mach 1.2 is a good speed for you, according to the pilots," O’Bryan said.

 

[randomradio]

Yup...
I think anything that can sustain 1.2mach+ is good enough.
As below 1.2mach is not sustainable.

Politics. Do anything to stand out.

 

[randomradio]

That has been my point all along...
its also been a point of confusion for both RandomRadio and all of RandomRadio's various personalities.
The Rafale was never "designed as an ASF" -- thats a lie easily debunked. after that he threw a fit and declared all the arguments over and people who can read a webpage as dumb
oh well, thanks for responding.

I have plenty of arguments left mate-- would you like to continue? stop putting words in everyone's mouths! I think you ran out of arguments the second I contradicted your obvious lie with the Dassault website, you suddenly stopped the constant drumbeat of lies. Since you are very confused I will reiterate. Air Superiority is a MISSION not a specific platform. Meaning that the Rafale can do Air Superiority, just like the F-35 can. and other multi-role or Omnirole aircraft can do this mission to. they will perform this mission with various advantages and disadvantages but the hard and fast rule of "can or cannot" is not only untrue, but you have proven that the criteria is every changing and arbitrary and based on personal opinion as to be utterly meaningless.
you fell into your own trap. You told everyone that an aircraft must be designed with certain characteristics to be ASF, and then when you realized the RAFALE didn't even fit YOUR OWN INVENTED CRITERIA, rather than change your mind you tried to change history!!

Oof. The Rafale has been designed with those characteristics.

In America, Russia, and China, an ASF is a jet that has only air-to-air capabilities. Most other countries want their ASFs to do other things too.

So the French designed the Rafale as an ASF, ie, the airframe. And then added other features to it in order to make it multirole.

Many "multirole" jets are based on a primary role and a secondary role. So the Su-30MKI and Rafale are primarily ASF designs with a secondary strike role. That's why they are considered multirole. But the F-35 is the opposite, it's primarily a strike fighter, with a secondary ASF role, so it can dogfight a bit.

So what you're talking about is a "dedicated ASF" like the F-15C with not a pound for air to ground. The Su-27 is the same. And so is the Typhoon, even the M2000. "Multirole" jets have some minor design changes that allow it to operate adequately at lower altitudes too, like the MKI and Rafale with close-coupled canards. But the basic design of these jets can still allow categorizaton as ASFs because that's what they really are.

Another example is the Mig-21. It's an ASF, but we put LGBs on it and turned it multirole. But it inherently is still an ASF. The LCA is the same.

And because the F-35 has been designed the other way, ie, a strike fighter designed to dogfight, it's been categorized as an F-35 instead of an A-35. If it couldn't dogfight, it would be called A-35.

 

[Spitfire6]

As per USAF, Supercruise is attaining & sustaining Mach 1.5 or more speed on Mil power without involving the burners. No operational plane till date(not even current Su-57 or J-20) matches F-22's supercruising ability. So Rafale, Typhoon, Gripen, Su-35S etc. are not true supercruisers within this parameter(as given by USAF).

The link which @randomradio posted, proved how much supersonic persistence Su-30 has got, but even it's no F-22 Raptor in that regard.

yes. And this is precisely my point! Thank you.
The USAF has an extremely strict definition of Super Cruise.
the kind of "mach 1.2+" that is described as "super cruise" by imitators is not new. If so the USAF could claim all the teen fighters did that already in the 1970s. most all mach capable fighters can do this kind of "Super cruise" but it is not what the USAF was trying to create with the Advanced Tacitical Fighter Program that lead to the F-22. the ATF program wanted a kind of practical and serious sustainable Supercruise and not the kind of "if conditions are right!" gimmick.
its not to take away from Flankers or others, but we are talking about 2 different definitions that have been deliberately mixed up by marketing the world over

Rafale, Flanker, F-35, F-16, F-15, F-18, EF-2000, Gripen: We can all "supercruise" like the F-22!!
USAF: NOPE!!
as far as the USAF is concerned theyre all poor imitiations, even though people here see no distinction. it will be interesting when people have to explain that the USAF says that the F-35 is not air superiority by its definitions and critieria, but they will stop referencing the USAF when the USAF that their baby is also not air superiority because it can't actually super cruise either...
remember that super cruise in an F-22 is more fuel efficient than having to use the afterburner; however it is not the most optimal fuel consumption method which is still to be subsonic for optimal range. one of the compromises for the F-22 was the reduction of the fuel requirement from the original ATF. with this in mind the F-22 suffering when it comes to range. This is why, and Rajput I am not trying to change your mind but one of the reasons why the F-35 in terms of endurance has some advantages in the air to air role. F-22 is a sprinter, F-35 is a marathon runner. the race is approached differently, but they are still racers. its not as clear cut as many want to make it, and if they go with the USAF definition only the F-22 counts anyway so I assume the hybrid area would be more embraced

 

[RedCannon]

Have I got some good news for you.

The F-35’s Race Against Time

The F-35, while not technically a "supercruising" aircraft, can maintain Mach 1.2 for a dash of 150 miles without using fuel-gulping afterburners.

"Mach 1.2 is a good speed for you, according to the pilots," O’Bryan said.

yup exactly F35 can do it over a dash (6-8mins) but not all the time.
While technically it may not be supercuising but thats good enough I think.

Personally I think F35s have a bigger problem
1. They are not Steath first fighter but are Stealth Only fighter. What I mean is stealth played such a big role in design that it undermined many other things. And that huge bet may actually not work out as well as envisioned in the long term because radars and tracking is evolving fast. SAM are evolving and are very cost effective.
2. We wont be able to integrate them in our Weapons envelope. They would run as entity which would undermine a lot of their capabilities.
Plus no indian weapons.
3. US is unreliable parner.
4. Cost.


Honestly I can only see Su57 coming our way at this point.

 

[randomradio]

Have I got some good news for you.

The F-35’s Race Against Time

The F-35, while not technically a "supercruising" aircraft, can maintain Mach 1.2 for a dash of 150 miles without using fuel-gulping afterburners.

"Mach 1.2 is a good speed for you, according to the pilots," O’Bryan said.

The way it does that. Turn on afterburner, cross the transonic regime, shut down AB, the jet stays at mach 1.2 for 150 miles 'cause of high lift. That's not supercruise.

 

[Spitfire6]

Politics. Do anything to stand out.

false, but it fits well with your desire to define all things that don't fit your narrative as "marketing"

Oof. The Rafale has been designed with those characteristics.

no, LOL

In America, Russia, and China, an ASF is a jet that has only air-to-air capabilities. Most other countries want their ASFs to do other things too.

So the French designed the Rafale as an ASF, ie, the airframe. And then added other features to it in order to make it multirole.

Stage of Grief: denial

So what you're talking about is a "dedicated ASF" like the F-15C with not a pound for air to ground. The Su-27 is the same. And so is the Typhoon, even the M2000. "Multirole" jets have some minor design changes that allow it to operate adequately at lower altitudes too, like the MKI and Rafale with close-coupled canards. But the basic design of these jets can still allow categorizaton as ASFs because that's what they really are.

the Rafale was designed as ASF = nope!

Omnirole is just marketing...= Nope!

but the Rafale was designed first and foremost for ASF and then..= Nope!

Rafale is ASF it just does other things too= nope!

Well the basic design of these jets can still allow categorization as ASFs because...= nope!!

well even if it wasn't designed to, could we retroactively say...

Stage of Grief: Bargaining

 

[Spitfire6]

The way it does that. Turn on afterburner, cross the transonic regime, shut down AB, the jet stays at mach 1.2 for 150 miles 'cause of high lift. That's not supercruise.

its not supercruise, but the bad news is that is how most aircraft claim to be supercruisers: that is how most aircraft that are not F-22s define supercruise. You are also confused about the use of Afterburner so allow me to explain:

when punching through the soundbarrier even in an F-22 it is more Fuel efficient to use the afterburner to get through and then to throttle back to military power and "cruise"
the notion that no aferburner is used, is for people that have no idea how this is done, or how Super cruise is defined. or how the F-22 defines supercruise
most of the super cruise imitators do the same procedures the Super Cruising test Gripen of 2008. minimum weapons optimized for less drag (wingtip AAMs, no pylons), fly very high where the air is thinner. Afterburner, cut back, coast. press release claiming super cruise. its that easy!
nevermind that one of the big limiters for Supercruise beyond fuel is the engines and their design and there are serious problems with overheating. this something that like afterburner use is not something most people understand.

The F414 used by the Gripen was not at all designed for supercruise the way the F119 was. If theses engines that are not designed for supercruise are routinely used to do this, they will begin to have severe issues, not least of which is even without the afterburner, running engines at full throttle as a matter of routine is simply not viable as a standard operation it will wreck the engines. and shorten the TBO.

The F-35, while not technically a “supercruising” aircraft, can maintain Mach 1.2 for a dash of 150 miles without using fuel-gulping afterburners.

“Mach 1.2 is a good speed for you, according to the pilots,” O’Bryan said.

Supercruise like the F-22 and its engines had to be backed into the design from the start especially when we start talking about the heat and sustainment questions. Most aircraft don't "accidently" supercruise. The MiG-31 was designed in a highly specific way to get its performance.
O'Bryan even admits the F-35 is not a supercruising aircraft technically which makes him more honest than most of the pretenders. which is perfectly fair. if one is going to say the F-22 is "true supercruise" then the F-35 aint it. however that means nothing else is F-22 either.

again the Rafale is not a designed super cruiser like the F-22 and its not a designed ASF either. its designed to be a omnirole, and its not at all designed to be a constant supercruise device. M88s are not designed for sustained supercruise and the M88 upgrade was designed to extend the life of the engines. Supercruising on the regular will undo that very quickly

 

[Spitfire6]

yup exactly F35 can do it over a dash (6-8mins) but not all the time.
While technically it may not be supercuising but thats good enough I think.

Personally I think F35s have a bigger problem
1. They are not Steath first fighter but are Stealth Only fighter. What I mean is stealth played such a big role in design that it undermined many other things. And that huge bet may actually not work out as well as envisioned in the long term because radars and tracking is evolving fast. SAM are evolving and are very cost effective.
2. We wont be able to integrate them in our Weapons envelope. They would run as entity which would undermine a lot of their capabilities.
Plus no indian weapons.
3. US is unreliable parner.
4. Cost.

I am not arguing that F-35 is the best option for India, arguing that I think the F-35 being too easily dismissed in a possible air to air only role and that the reasons for doing so were extremely convoluted

Honestly I can only see Su57 coming our way at this point.

I think this is the best option, but its not an easy option. Very few of them are being produced and there are many question marks around them even for Russia. There is no European F-35 or F-22 option.

 

[screambowl]

From the classic radar formula, it can be obtained that there is a difference between the radar wave reflected by the Rafale fighter and the radar wave received by the J-10 fighter, and the Rafale fighter's active stealth cannot bridge this difference,

It is not about bridging the difference, this is not possible, it is about making a radar inaccurate.

You wrote a lot to prove that the Rafale was not shot down


Aren't we talking about Rafale's active stealth? You are describing how small the Rafale's RCS value is. What does this have to do with active stealth? The first formula I wrote is the formula for the reflected echo of the Rafale fighter after being illuminated by the radar. σ is the RCS value of the Rafale fighter. The second formula I wrote is the target reflected echo received by the J10 radar. We assume that the radar antenna area is A, then you can clearly see that there is a difference between the two formulas, which is what I said about point 3

The RCS changes when the aircraft maneuvers. Because then the received energy density also changes due to change in reflecter (target) area.

 

[randomradio]

false, but it fits well with your desire to define all things that don't fit your narrative as "marketing"



no, LOL


Stage of Grief: denial



the Rafale was designed as ASF = nope!

Omnirole is just marketing...= Nope!

but the Rafale was designed first and foremost for ASF and then..= Nope!

Rafale is ASF it just does other things too= nope!

Well the basic design of these jets can still allow categorization as ASFs because...= nope!!

well even if it wasn't designed to, could we retroactively say...

Stage of Grief: Bargaining

With nothing to hang on to, now you're just reaching for anything to hold on to, while the US is sidelining the F-35 for the F-55.

 

[randomradio]

its not supercruise, but the bad news is that is how most aircraft claim to be supercruisers: that is how most aircraft that are not F-22s define supercruise. You are also confused about the use of Afterburner so allow me to explain:

when punching through the soundbarrier even in an F-22 it is more Fuel efficient to use the afterburner to get through and then to throttle back to military power and "cruise"
the notion that no aferburner is used, is for people that have no idea how this is done, or how Super cruise is defined. or how the F-22 defines supercruise
most of the super cruise imitators do the same procedures the Super Cruising test Gripen of 2008. minimum weapons optimized for less drag (wingtip AAMs, no pylons), fly very high where the air is thinner. Afterburner, cut back, coast. press release claiming super cruise. its that easy!
nevermind that one of the big limiters for Supercruise beyond fuel is the engines and their design and there are serious problems with overheating. this something that like afterburner use is not something most people understand.

The F414 used by the Gripen was not at all designed for supercruise the way the F119 was. If theses engines that are not designed for supercruise are routinely used to do this, they will begin to have severe issues, not least of which is even without the afterburner, running engines at full throttle as a matter of routine is simply not viable as a standard operation it will wreck the engines. and shorten the TBO.

The F-35, while not technically a “supercruising” aircraft, can maintain Mach 1.2 for a dash of 150 miles without using fuel-gulping afterburners.

“Mach 1.2 is a good speed for you, according to the pilots,” O’Bryan said.

Supercruise like the F-22 and its engines had to be backed into the design from the start especially when we start talking about the heat and sustainment questions. Most aircraft don't "accidently" supercruise. The MiG-31 was designed in a highly specific way to get its performance.
O'Bryan even admits the F-35 is not a supercruising aircraft technically which makes him more honest than most of the pretenders. which is perfectly fair. if one is going to say the F-22 is "true supercruise" then the F-35 aint it. however that means nothing else is F-22 either.

again the Rafale is not a designed super cruiser like the F-22 and its not a designed ASF either. its designed to be a omnirole, and its not at all designed to be a constant supercruise device. M88s are not designed for sustained supercruise and the M88 upgrade was designed to extend the life of the engines. Supercruising on the regular will undo that very quickly

When you supercruise, you don't use the afterburner at all, in any phase of flight from subsonic cruise to supersonic cruise. The idea behind a supercruising engine is to breach the transonic regime without AB and without increasing your IR signature or fuel burn.

 

[Hydra]

Oof. The Rafale has been designed with those characteristics.

In America, Russia, and China, an ASF is a jet that has only air-to-air capabilities. Most other countries want their ASFs to do other things too.

So the French designed the Rafale as an ASF, ie, the airframe. And then added other features to it in order to make it multirole.

Many "multirole" jets are based on a primary role and a secondary role. So the Su-30MKI and Rafale are primarily ASF designs with a secondary strike role. That's why they are considered multirole. But the F-35 is the opposite, it's primarily a strike fighter, with a secondary ASF role, so it can dogfight a bit.

So what you're talking about is a "dedicated ASF" like the F-15C with not a pound for air to ground. The Su-27 is the same. And so is the Typhoon, even the M2000. "Multirole" jets have some minor design changes that allow it to operate adequately at lower altitudes too, like the MKI and Rafale with close-coupled canards. But the basic design of these jets can still allow categorizaton as ASFs because that's what they really are.

Another example is the Mig-21. It's an ASF, but we put LGBs on it and turned it multirole. But it inherently is still an ASF. The LCA is the same.

And because the F-35 has been designed the other way, ie, a strike fighter designed to dogfight, it's been categorized as an F-35 instead of an A-35. If it couldn't dogfight, it would be called A-35.

I do have respect on most of your posts,but why you are calling an aircraft an air superiority fighter when in reality it is not. An air superiority fighter,AFAIK is a relatively large fighter jet w.r.t the existing jets arund the world with higher capacity,higher flight ceiling, higher rate of climb,higher search & lock on range and higher g tolerance, higher range with decent weapon load. Rafale /EFT may satisfy few of theese characteristics ,but not all of them. As of now only three such air superiority fighter aircrafts existing in service ,ie F22,F15 & though i categories as mediocre the su27 and its variants barring su34. Indian need an air superiority figher along with Multi-Role inventory today, and will tomorrow too.

 

[randomradio]

I do have respect on most of your posts,but why you are calling an aircraft an air superiority fighter when in reality it is not. An air superiority fighter,AFAIK is a relatively large fighter jet w.r.t the existing jets arund the world with higher capacity,higher flight ceiling, higher rate of climb,higher search & lock on range and higher g tolerance, higher range with decent weapon load. Rafale /EFT may satisfy few of theese characteristics ,but not all of them. As of now only three such air superiority fighter aircrafts existing in service ,ie F22,F15 & though i categories as mediocre the su27 and its variants barring su34. Indian need an air superiority figher along with Multi-Role inventory today, and will tomorrow too.

The Rafale can accelerate faster than the F-15, can turn faster, can climb faster, can travel as far, can carry as many missiles... It can even supercruise. So what does not make it an ASF?

If you are going by Spitfire's posts, then I gotta clue you in on his ignorance. He has no idea what he's talking about.

To get an ASF, you need an airframe that's specifically been designed for supersonic operations and high G performance. Rafale can fly at mach 2, can supercruise at mach 1.3-1.4, and has 11G performance when subsonic. And it can carry a lot of missiles. It's a textbook definition of an ASF. With the exception of top speed, it exceeds both the F-15A/C and Su-27, and AB top speed is not necessary anymore for an ASF. And at 50% fuel, Rafale has the same TWR as both jets too, 1.2:1. The F-15C and Rafale have very similar fuel fraction, 0.32.

IAF requirements are also for ASFs with secondary strike capabilities. MKI, Mig-29, M2000, Rafale, LCA, and Mig-21 are all ASFs with secondary strike. AMCA as well.

Rafale's airframe has been designed as an ASF, but due to advancements in aerodynamic designs, it can even perform low-altitude strike missions and is an excellent dogfighter. So it's better than the F-15C and Su-27 at this as well.

Rafale has high ceiling as well. There was even a program to launch satellites using Rafale.

 

[Innominate]

The Rafale can accelerate faster than the F-15, can turn faster, can climb faster, can travel as far, can carry as many missiles... It can even supercruise. So what does not make it an ASF?

If you are going by Spitfire's posts, then I gotta clue you in on his ignorance. He has no idea what he's talking about.

To get an ASF, you need an airframe that's specifically been designed for supersonic operations and high G performance. Rafale can fly at mach 2, can supercruise at mach 1.3-1.4, and has 11G performance when subsonic. And it can carry a lot of missiles. It's a textbook definition of an ASF. With the exception of top speed, it exceeds both the F-15A/C and Su-27, and AB top speed is not necessary anymore for an ASF. And at 50% fuel, Rafale has the same TWR as both jets too, 1.2:1. The F-15C and Rafale have very similar fuel fraction, 0.32.

IAF requirements are also for ASFs with secondary strike capabilities. MKI, Mig-29, M2000, Rafale, LCA, and Mig-21 are all ASFs with secondary strike. AMCA as well.

Rafale's airframe has been designed as an ASF, but due to advancements in aerodynamic designs, it can even perform low-altitude strike missions and is an excellent dogfighter. So it's better than the F-15C and Su-27 at this as well.

Rafale has high ceiling as well. There was even a program to launch satellites using Rafale.

And with all that the Rafale is 0-3 in air combat... Well 0-3 claim but a confirm 0-1.

 

[randomradio]

And with all that the Rafale is 0-3 in air combat... Well 0-3 claim but a confirm 0-1.

We are not even sure about the "confirmed" one. No wreckage. We are approaching the 10th day too.

 

[_Anonymous_]

And with all that the Rafale is 0-3 in air combat... Well 0-3 claim but a confirm 0-1.

0-1 confirmed eh ? I'm looking at reports those 2 SH you lost at the Gulf of Aden ostensibly coz one wasn't properly secured & the other wasn't properly trapped by arresting wire is a lot of bull crap.

The fact of the matter is the camel humpers shot both of them down , USN panicked & Dolund wound up operations there declaring a victory over the camel humpers just like you won in Afghanistan & Eye Raq.

"Cut & run ," sweetie . Ja ?

 

[Innominate]

We are not even sure about the "confirmed" one. No wreckage. We are approaching the 10th day too.

Yeah that M88 engine just fell out all by its lonesome self it just got tired of being part of the aircraft.

 

[FenicromovCW]

And with all that the Rafale is 0-3 in air combat... Well 0-3 claim but a confirm 0-1.

With your line of argument I have to accept that Houthis have better system than US.