So bro, my prediction about S-400's effect on Pak is coming true(as usual)
Do you still believe that S-400 is waste of money or has your opinion changed?Operation Sindoor: India Strikes Terroist Camps Inside Pakitsan
- Thread starter Defc0n
- Start date
- Status
Do you still believe that S-400 is waste of money or has your opinion changed?
Phalcon likely has an active jammer but that's only for self protection. It was one of the first awacs to fuse radar data with passive esm/elint though.
Yeas it is.So bro, my prediction about S-400's effect on Pak is coming true(as usual)
OMG if Mk1 can do that even for only 15 seconds imagine what Mk1a and eventually Mk2 can do
.What evidence you have for 100 Brahmos? Did even Pakistanis claim that? Because right now there is more evidence that HQ9 failed to defeat only a handful of Brahmos than there is that your father is truly your father (no offence). The impotence of HQ9 was proven more than 3 years ago itself when it failed to even track let alone engage that stray Brahmos which ventured 120 km into Pakistan. If a Pakistani missile had penetrated that deep inside India then I am sure you would have proudly proclaimed how bad Barak and Akash are
. Truly shameless ppl you lot are.
Last edited:
Russians are masters of air defence, their SAMs shot down an American U2 Plane travelling at 60,000 feet in the 1960s, a feat which may be simple now but back in the early 60s was absolutely stunning. To say S400 is weak because a few drones destroyed it is incomplete thinking. Even THAAD or PAC would be defeated if a few small Harop class drones got though. S400/PAC/THAAD were never meant to engage small drones which did not exist as it does in today's scale and sophistication when they were being developed like 15-20 years ago.
You once thought L70 was a waste of money but it actually turned out to be a game changer in engaging small drones.
"Endians caused a few holes in the ground lah will only take a few hours to repair lah" - said the resident chicom. @LX1111 if it takes them more than 3 weeks to repair a hole in the runway during peactime how long will it take for them to do it in a real war when missiles are constantly falling on their *censored*?
.The Russians are saying the most effective weapon of the west is the starlink. @Rajput Lion turns out your theory was right in more than one theatres.
Lot of chatter on X about drones in Bikaner. Let’s see if we get an official confirmation this time.
*EDIT*
And confirmation of “No Drone activity”
*Edit-2*
Probably starlink satellites
*EDIT*
And confirmation of “No Drone activity”
*Edit-2*
Probably starlink satellites
Last edited:
Public Notice
Please try to self moderate.
We do not have dedicated staff to moderate all the active threads every day. We do not make money by running this; there are no advertisements.
I'm tired of cleaning up posts with random one-liners and people calling each other names and making racist remarks. Posting something inappropriate and expecting others to clean up after you is rude behavior. I would rather ban you for adding work for me.
We prioritize quality discussions over growing membership and activity.
If you don't have anything to contribute, please refrain from making unnecessary one-line remarks. Find an appropriate thread to share your funny meme. Stop for a second and evaluate yourself before sharing an obviously fake tweet. Resist yourself from replying and report when someone attacks you personally.
We need everyone's help to keep this platform up and running. So, please self moderate.
PS: @Guynextdoor2 is banned again for lacking basic etiquette.
Please try to self moderate.
We do not have dedicated staff to moderate all the active threads every day. We do not make money by running this; there are no advertisements.
I'm tired of cleaning up posts with random one-liners and people calling each other names and making racist remarks. Posting something inappropriate and expecting others to clean up after you is rude behavior. I would rather ban you for adding work for me.
We prioritize quality discussions over growing membership and activity.
If you don't have anything to contribute, please refrain from making unnecessary one-line remarks. Find an appropriate thread to share your funny meme. Stop for a second and evaluate yourself before sharing an obviously fake tweet. Resist yourself from replying and report when someone attacks you personally.
We need everyone's help to keep this platform up and running. So, please self moderate.
PS: @Guynextdoor2 is banned again for lacking basic etiquette.
Some have done it. P-8 has X band radar in the nose. Israeli CAEWS have S band radars in the nose and tail complementing the primary L band radar.
Netra Mk2 will have an S band radar in the nose that can provide fire control. It's unclear if we can directly integrate the radar with Meteor and S-400's missiles though.
ISEs were just software upgrades, they did not change the core peformance of primary sensors, like what B4 is about.
You are confusing the two requirements. We need something that can penetrate IADS (Rafale) and something that can go into depths areas (Ghatak).
Tejas has not been designed to penetrate IADS.
It's 'cause the jet carries the Alfa-S drones as payload.
Russian IADS is more advanced.
GCAP is just another non-penetrating aircraft. SCAF and NGAD are for going into depth areas, they are being designed for air operations for their own respective time periods. SCAF will be more advanced than NGAD for example.
These jets are being designed for their respective geographies and/or for different objectives. We don't have such requirements yet.
AMCA has to fail for an import to be considered.
Yes. Due to the absolute density of air defenses protecting such islands using the USN's mobile assets surrounding such islands.
To protect a missile battery, you don't need the entire Indo-Gangetic plains, you need to move just 500 meters from the spot you were detected at.
ATHOS works that way. It's integrated with a WLR. If it's under attack in the middle of a firing sequence, it simply stops firing and drives away automatically Tesla FSD style. Clear 100-300 m in a minute and it's safe from CB fire.
By a mile.
No, you said Meteor isn't integrated entirely. And you believed the story that IAF Rafales don't even have Meteors while the others did 'cause of Link 16 and whatnot.
You even said BNET is not integrated, using that as an excuse to explain why Meteor isn't integrated.
Rafale's radar at 300+ km outranges Netra's 250 km. In fact even Erieye outranges Netra by 60% or so.
Netra's been designed for very basic AEWCS functions since it was our first attempt. That's why the IAF is directly operating only 2 out of a dozen they wanted. Netra Mk1A will come with Erieye class range.
Netra's 475 km is in sector scan, which any AESA radar can do.
Btw, obtaining target characteristics are highly dependent on the symmetry of the radar and the frequency it operates in. So the Rafale with X band sees far more detail at 300 km than Netra with L band does at 300 km.
Why would this matter? It's irrelevant. A Rafale on its own will do a better job than Netra.
We need integration of Rafale on upcoming AWACS which actually carry better radars and will actually be useful to the Rafale.
Anyway, the Russians have canceled the A-100 AWACS and the Pentagon is likely to follow suit. So AWACS are on their way out.
Eriey having S band right? So its much advanced than netra & probably Phalcon when comes to queing the missile?
Also someone here stated that Boeing E-7 Wedgetail is using qn X band radar. So whybDRDO still sticks with L band radar which gives mere a scanning capabilities while Pakistan possessing superior aews, both in numbers & capabilities on radar sector.
There were significant hardware additions/changes. The IRST had to be added back, ours were delivered without it. Then they had to integrate a HMD. They had to add new jammers & towed decoys. None of this was operational when we purchased the Rafale in 2016.
And it's not like F-35 lacks a sensor suite right now - the one it has now is probably superior to anything on J-20B.
You penetrate the IADS with unmanned assets first (Ghatak or Warrior), degrade/destroy it, then allow the manned aircraft to come closer.
But in all likelihood, the topmost layer of Chinese IADS (powerful long-wavelength radars, most often fixed sites) will be addressed by MKI flying within Indian airspace by means of Rudram-2/3. This will be the first SEAD/DEAD action. Followed by further action by likes of CATS Hunter (released from within Indian airspace) carrying submunitions/suicide drones. Then standoff strikes by BrahMos/SCALP/Pralay.
Manned aircraft won't be going anywhere near Chinese IADS till after all this is done. Not unless they have a deathwish.
Russians are far behind in the sensor department. They're yet to implement AESA in a large way into systems like S400.
The B-21 or F-47 weren't made to tackle Russia. For them, the existing F-35/F-22/B-2 were sufficient.
We do and we're already building our own VLO to address our requirement.
If Rafale is to continue remaining our most survivable aircraft till the 2040s, that would be because we're unable to procure a foreign VLO as stop-gap, not because we thought VLO is unnecessary.
By then it would be too late. And we'd still end up in the same place wrt China.
Whether you induct a current version of F-35 by <2030, or a finished Block-4 by 2035, you'd still end up with a Block-4 in hand by 2040 that has to go up against J-XX.
Except in the former instance, we'd be much more proficient in operating VLO jets & developing tactics around them cuz we would have diversified our eggs sooner.
You don't wait for TEDBF to fail before ordering Rafale-M.
AD doesn't last forever. China is capable of generating much greater magazine depth in ASM/SSMs than the US can in SAMs.
If these islands (or the ships protecting them) were considered defensible in the long run, they wouldn't have needed F-47 or B-21. Neither would they have to consider forward-basing the B-21 in Australia instead of Guam.
No, I said Meteor may not be fully operational. And that's something I still have ambiguity about.
I never said anything about BNET being integrated or not - but whether the Rafale is yet fully able to decipher & translate the info it gets through BNET, and then feed it to missiles via datalink.
I haven't seen any information that says definitively one way or the other. But IF Rafales indeed found themselves at a shoot-first disadvantage, then this might have been the reason why. Unless we believe that flawed ROE was solely at fault, but then that doesn't explain why we had to use S400 to take out their Erieye the following day instead of Rafale+Meteor.
We wouldn't waste a defensive AD/BMD asset for an offensive A2/AD role if an EBVRAAM was fully functional.
You've gotta be kidding if you think Rafale's relatively tiny FCR can do anything useful for missiles at 300 km.
Or if you think it can outrange Netra generating tracks in an EW environment.
Yeah, now Rafale will replace AEW.
What's next? Rafale in place of Army's FRCV?
Last edited:
It's not about more advanced, it's about the frequency band. Fire control systems for MFSTAR, Barak 8, S-400 etc use S band. So Erieye's S band can act as a fire control system even if the radar is a rectangle versus typically more symmetrical radars that are circular or square.
L band is for volumetric scan and has better anti-stealth detection features.
And it's about the size of the radar too.
Since ground radars are big, they use S band because it's a good balance between volumetric scan (L band) and fire control (C/X band). This type of radar is called a multifunction radar, like MFSTAR. S-400 uses L band and S band radars (multifunction) to get the best out of both worlds.
But fighters have X band since they don't need volumetric scan as much, but need superior fire control. And since fighter radars are small, they cannot use S band as effectively as ground radars due to size constraints.
What it means is if you have a 1 m X band radar, then you need a 2.67 m S band and 8 m L band radar to get the same beamwidth. So a 9 m S band radar like the Erieye is equal to an X band radar that's 3.4 m or a 27 m L band radar. Similarly, the AB class destroyers with 4x4 m S band radars are equal to a Mig-31's 1.4 m X band radar.
So while Netra does a good job of picking up targets and displaying them for a fighter jet to take advantage of, the Erieye sits in between both bands and provides a balance. It's got nothing to do with advanced. Like comparing a spoon to a ladle.
Pretty much all AWACS use L band.
The reason why PAF use S band is for the same reason as the Swedes. Both are facing superior air forces and they have developed capabilities meant to protect their territories with smaller jets like the JF-17, F-16, and Gripen. Since these aircraft have small radars, they use the Erieye's S band to compensate for the difference.
Is it a better system than what others use? No.
But does it work for them? Op Sindoor showed it doesn't work. Maybe the Swedes will do better with Gripen E/F.
Netra Mk1A will do a better job at detecting the J-20/J-35 than the Erieye.
Anyway, using AWACS to cue missiles is just a half-measure used by smaller air forces or when using smaller jets with ordinary siloed radars. We don't need it.
Those are just additions, not serious changes to primary sensors. Like did we change the TRMs? Did we replace MAWS sensors? All we did is plug some leftover holes.
The F-35's sensor suite is very likely to be a generation behind the J-20. The F-35 uses an old analog GaAs radar for example. I doubt the primary sensors on the F-35 are better than even the J-16, never mind the J-20. The Chinese are already using GaN, possibly even GaN-on-diamond on the latest J-20s, in which case the Chinese are at least 2-3 generations ahead in the radar department. The APG-85 is necessary to maintain parity with the Chinese.
Anyway, this is a pointless discussion. F-35 and Su-57 are still vaporware, and will be considered only if AMCA fails. The IAF has openly dismissed both jets too.
And what's funny to me is once people witness the first public flights of Mig-41, NGAD, J-XX etc in the next year or two, you will all forget about the F-35 and Su-57.
You need a combination of manned and unmanned to penetrate IADS, and then unmanned to go into depth areas, where the jet can use its higher altitude to maneuver around second and third line IADS.
The USAF is gonna disagree.
Pretty much any option you bring up as a stopgap requires AMCA to fail.
China's not gonna waste time hitting tactical units with expensive missiles. They will use their own ADS to intercept.
All that's just your misinformed opinion.
There is no such thing as fully operational for a missile, it's either operational or not. It's not a multifunction system like aircraft.
Gotta get educated.
How close to the enemy do you think Rafale can operate versus AWACS?
And ever heard of cooperative tactics? What can 1 Netra do versus a formation of 2-4 Rafales using multistatic capabilities?
Already did. The F-22 and F-35 do not need AWACS either due to said cooperative tactics and closer intercepts. And Rafale's radar outranges the F-35's due to its cooling issues.
Don't tempt the French. Rafale on tracks will be scary.
We've added stuff that nobody else has - and which requires deep integration with Spectra. Like the new rear jammer.
Adding GaN doesn't magically make your radar more powerful - it makes it marginally more efficient. Unless you have next-gen engines to juice it with. Been over this before with you. The max growth potential for generating electricity from 4th gen engines is like the starting point for a 5th gen motor. Unless you want to argue that the French have unobtanium generators that are eons ahead of what the Americans have.
Basically, the only way Rafale can really compete with a 5th gen platform is if it gets re-engined with the motor they're developing for SCAF.
Very unlikely for the Chinese to be significantly ahead in avionics. Again for largely the same reasons. They can't really power an avionics suite that's significantly more powerful.
They needed to put 3 engines on the J-36, a plane that would've only needed 2 if it had Western engine tech.
If AMCA fails, then it isn't stop-gap anymore.
That doesn't explain why F-47 needs a 2,000-km unrefueled combat radius.
The PLARF is an extremely important part of the Chinese OrBat. They have the industrial base & scale which can make missiles considerably cheaper to use & replenish than anyone can imagine.
Been over this before as well in the Taiwan thread.
Meteor is not your average BVRAAM.
The current crop of Ramjet-powered extreme long range AAMs wouldn't be a thing if making use of inputs from offboard assets wasn't an option.
Gotta get educated.
How close to the enemy do you think Rafale can operate versus AWACS?
And ever heard of cooperative tactics? What can 1 Netra do versus a formation of 2-4 Rafales using multistatic capabilities?
Already did. The F-22 and F-35 do not need AWACS either due to said cooperative tactics and closer intercepts.
You cannot take the tactics of a VLO platform & apply it to Rafale. The F-35 & F-22 can rely on cooperative tactics cuz they were meant to penetrate enemy airspace 100s of kilometers without being detected. That's why they also need stealthy datalinks like MADL.
There's a reason the Rafale only uses Link-16 (or in our case, whichever we use) which is omnidirectional transmission. It cannot do cooperative tactics inside enemy airspace and expect not to be seen. Not to mention, it's not a VLO jet to begin with.
That's why France wants to continue buying AEWs.
France Nears Deal for Swedish Saab GlobalEye for AWACS Replacement
France Nears Deal for Swedish Saab GlobalEye for AWACS Replacement
armyrecognition.com
Maybe you should educate them that as they plan on moving to a Rafale-only fighter fleet within a decade, they no longer need an AEW for long-range tracks.
The only way to see a certain target at a certain range is to have a certain number of TRMs outputting a beam of a certain power. The number of TRMs required can vary based on how powerful each of them is & how efficiently they are cooled. But as long as you are operating in the same frequency range (and your signal processing isn't made of unobtanium), the amount of power you need to get a good return doesn't change.
So the reason RBE doesn't have cooling issues is because it doesn't try to do what the APG-81 does.
Not to mention the F-35 doesn't use active radar all that much except in LPI bursts. Which means the cooling issues actually have more to do with supporting the Electronic Attack functions rather than just radar/fire control functions. Rafale doesn't rely on the radar as a primary EA component, so no wonder it doesn't need much cooling.
The RBE-2's AESA array came into being several years after the APG-81. It's not surprising that they packed smaller TRMs.
We've seen ourselves how much the TRM count on our Uttam increased within a few years of development. That's not a big deal, TRMs get smaller all the time, it depends on when you made the call to freeze your design:
What really matters when it comes to being advanced is how much power each TRM is capable of outputting. This is where substrates come into play (GaAs, GaN). F-35 plans to get its GaN radar (APG-85) this year (Lot 17 onwards will have it) whereas RBE-2XG is expected to come online 5 years from now.
So I don't see how they're supposed to be more advanced. They're just doing things much later, taking advantage of newer techs. But then in the next step, the Americans steal a lead again (by going 6G about a decade before France does).
It's a frame of reference thing. Do you want to buy a Core i9 made on a 7nm process node today or a Core i5 made on a 5nm node a few years from now? The 5nm 10-core i5 is technically more advanced, but the 7nm 24-core i9 is still more capable.
It's not like the French (or the Chinese) will obtain new technologies (GaN-on-Diamond or anything else) while the rest of the world stays the same.
Post operation Sindoor DIA analysis:
Indian Prime Minister Narenda Modi’s defense priorities will probably focus on demonstrating global leadership, countering China, and enhancing New Dehli’s military power. India views China as its primary adversary and Pakistan more an ancillary security problem to be managed, despite cross-border attacks in mid-May by both India’s and Pakistan’s militaries.
India will maintain its relationship with Russia through 2025 because it views its ties to Russia as important for achieving its economic and defense objectives and sees value in the relationship as a means to offset deepening Russia-China relations.
Indian Prime Minister Narenda Modi’s defense priorities will probably focus on demonstrating global leadership, countering China, and enhancing New Dehli’s military power. India views China as its primary adversary and Pakistan more an ancillary security problem to be managed, despite cross-border attacks in mid-May by both India’s and Pakistan’s militaries.
India will maintain its relationship with Russia through 2025 because it views its ties to Russia as important for achieving its economic and defense objectives and sees value in the relationship as a means to offset deepening Russia-China relations.
- Status