Dassault Rafale - Updates and Discussion

[randomradio]

So Basically you are saying that , Even 10 Years from NOW , India's Indigenous Technologies will NOT be EQUAL to Rafale F 5

In that case where will AMCA MK 1 fit in

Rafale F5's avionics will be half a generation ahead of MKI MLU and LCA Mk2 due to the use to new materials and their already existing superiority in terms of software.

AMCA Mk1 will be a mix of equal and superior to the Rafale F5 'cause its objectives are a step further. We could catch up in terms of materials used and software maturity as well. Our EW suite could also come with many of the same features, like ACT, which will be further enhanced by the stealth airframe. It will eventually be better networked than what's possible via Rafale F5 due to its foreign origins.

My questions about MRFA are the long list of TERMS and CONDITIONS that we seem to be heading for


I mean source codes ,.indigenous weapons
Cost of Upgrades etc

Gotta pay big bucks for the capabilities necessary. MKI MLU and LCA Mk2 are contemporary 4th gen fighters and cannot operate against PLAAF with the presence of a survivable fighter like the Rafale F5 or AMCA. Rafale will hopefully come by 2030-35 and bridge the gap between Rafale F3R (2020-25) and AMCA Mk2 (2040-45).

MRFA will come with enough source codes for integration of weapons, it's something all FOEMs have to agree in writing before they can participate. MMRCA had the same. No one is expecting source codes for core avionics. Unlike M2000, it's likely that upgrades will be done inhouse using more Indian tech when MLU happens. Plus, while not a hard and fast rule for the Make in India procedure, there will be opportunity to Indianise software over time if the MoD decide it's affordable and necessary. The contract must be large enough to justify that level of information exchange, 'cause with large numbers ensuring robust infosec will be in our interest too. With just 62 Rafales any serious breach will not impact India as much as the French.

 

[randomradio]

What frequencies do you think the internal SPJs (Preatorian and/or Spectra) cover?

The answer to that, combined with the fact that Typhoon needs a podded HBJ, shows you where the capability gap is.

So you have no idea!!!

I asked you the question. You answer. The fact that you can't tells me everything you know about this subject.

Unless they tell us what it is that they know, nobody can say.

Both say no Rafales were lost.

A Rafale can get much closer to a threat than an MKI, an F-35 in turn can get much closer than Rafale.

Nope.

A CCA can get even closer than F-35.

Nope. Not even close. CCAs are designed to be more observable than the F-35, that's the basis of the design.

That's physically not possible. VLO will get less effective over time if sensors improve, but it can never become equivalent to non-VLO in terms of survivability. That's hogwash.

That's 'cause you don't realize that the standards of VLO changes over time. Given your lack of understanding of the subject, it's obvious.

I bet you don't know what a complex body is.

The US wants to do MUMT in such a way where the manned craft is less observable than the unmanned ones.

Do you realize this statement contradicts with your earlier statement:
A CCA can get even closer than F-35.

So how is the CCA getting closer to the target than the F-35 while it's more observable?

Heh, so you had to resort to a non-existent wingman-based HBJ in order to fill the gap that I was talking about.

Thing is, you can fill that gap much sooner & for much cheaper if you just go for a podded solution like I said.

Why don't you first explain what LBJ, MBJ, and HBJ really are?

If you want to leave the IAF without a real VLO fighter till 2040, there's nothing left to talk about. I simply don't think that's a good idea, that's all I have to say.

The IAF is the ones saying they are fine without a VLO fighter until 2040.

You, Mr. All Knowing One, are the one who can't explain the difference between different bands are trying to argue against the IAF.

The IAF is fine without a stealth jet 'cause they would rather dodge missiles than buy junk that doesn't work. Plus they have their own VLO, no, ELO project.

If so, we'd have gone for something like ORCA instead of complicating matters by incorporating airframe stealth.

No. SPECTRA works better on a stealth airframe.

Someone somewhere is working on ACT for AMCA in India.

Plus there are aerodynamic and operational benefits to performance and weapons with internal bays. For example, you do not need to jettison payload when challenged, or you can sustainably fly at supersonic speeds and achieve 9G performance at subsonic speeds when carrying weapons. Rafale and ORCA cannot do any of these.

Nope, totally different logic. They are geopolitically & geographically in a much more permissive environment than us. Their primary foe (Russia) is unable to field VLOs in the required numbers within required timeframes, and even if they do, there's no concievable way they'd be fighting Russia without several hundred European F-35s also by their side...and that's if the US doesn't even honour its NATO commitment.

In short, they can afford to skip 5th gen, we can't.

I told ya this long ago, they are in a much worse situation.

We can beat Pakistan with all our limbs tied, and we are not the center of attention for China. In fact, France will probably fight China before we do 'cause of problems in the South Pacific. And Russia is a far bigger threat than China in Europe, never mind Pak.

For China, AUKUS/Japan are the number 1 threats, followed by France in the Pacific. Macron's been sh!tting bricks about it since the last few years, ever since the Chinese started surrounding and operating around French islands and trying to build bases right next door to them.

China expands military might as far as French borders with Solomon Islands pact

China has signed a security agreement with the Solomon Islands, a tiny state in the Pacific Ocean. The US and Australia are furious and worry that Beijing might want to expand its naval operations. The…

www.rfi.fr

France is expected to eventually relent and join QUAD's maritime exercises as and when China's navy continues expanding. But this will elevate them to the same level of threat as the US/UK alliance.

The next big threat for China is Russia, not India.

India is not expected to come into China's crosshairs either until the late 2040s or if they achieve a decisive victory against AUKUS. So we are like a future threat. Both US and China are leaving us for either the 2040s or 2050s.

The benefits of affordability will outweigh any marginal technological edge an imported solution might have. We don't need the best of the best, we just need what meets the requirements.

The technological edge is not marginal. The upcoming Rafale radar is absolutely incomparable to Uttam and Virupaksha. Like Blu-ray vs CD.

Our new radars are merely fighter radars while the Rafale F5's will practically be a BMD radar, the level of technology necessary to defeat 6th gen jets.

We can worry about the future later, let's address the present first. The Chinese already have SAMs against which Rafale cannot do standoff DEAD.

We already did.

Against likes of HQ-9B, only Rudram-II can achieve standoff effects. Against S-400, only the Rudram-III carried by MKI can achieve standoff effects.

SCALP too.

Asking a Rafale to do this job would require us to commit a lot more assets & take on a lot more risk by way of penetration to achieve the same results that an MKI potentially can without ever leaving Indian airspace.

The IAF is positive their opinions are of greater value than yours.

Anyway, I'd at least like you to get through the LBJ, MBJ, and HBJ question first. It's useless if you do not know A, B, Cs of this subject.

 

[randomradio]

Not with current specifications. It requires more China centric modification in data fusion and reaction system with additional EW for AESA Radars on stealth aircrafts. Airborne radars will be a part of air defence along with ground based enemy radars and air defence systems.

With the F3R? It can. It has had all that already, since 2007.

Airborne radars have been around since the 1970s. Even India used a borrowed one in 1971. So all that's been taken into account.

 

[randomradio]

Rafale F5 is the sole surviving MRFA contender.

Don't discount the Typhoon or the more important Su-57.

Typhoon also comes with advanced radar tech. And Sweden is also really good when it comes to EW. Maybe not as good as France, but more than enough to qualify.

And, as long as the Russians participate, the Su-57M1 will be an excellent contender too. The Russians have a habit of springing surprises when it's least expected. And any public flight of the Mig-41 will give the Russians a massive popularity boost in India.

Rafale F5 being better than the competition is only based on our current level of info available publicly. We don't know what's actually going to be shown off to the IAF in reality during classified briefings. That's why the MRFA tender is important, there won't be any attempt to buy a new jet outside the tender no matter how hard Trump, Macron, and Putin try. Such tactics didn't work during MMRCA, and won't work now either.

 

[Parthu]

So you have no idea!!!

I asked you the question. You answer. The fact that you can't tells me everything you know about this subject.

High-Band typically implies 6-18 GHz range. That covers most X-band FCRs (8-12Ghz) and Ku-band Seekers (12-18GHz). That's also typically the frequency range in which most internal SPJs operate.

Typhoon already has an internal SPJ which operates in this range, this SPJ is equivalent to Spectra's high band capabilities. But now Typhoon will be getting an additional, podded HBJ to operate in this range as the internal solution won't be enough, most likely due to power constraints.

But Rafale will remain stuck with just what the internal system can manage, this is the capability gap.

Both say no Rafales were lost.

And I'm not gonna interfere in our own IW. However, there has to be a space for realistic discussion based on available evidence.

Nope.

Of course, I forgot about Rafale's magic stealth generator. Somehow, all discussion regarding the Rafale eventually boils down to ACT with you.

Nope. Not even close. CCAs are designed to be more observable than the F-35, that's the basis of the design.

Observability is not the only factor. But it's understable that you think it is because you always look at things one-dimensionally.

That's 'cause you don't realize that the standards of VLO changes over time. Given your lack of understanding of the subject, it's obvious.

I bet you don't know what a complex body is.

They don't change, just better standards become accesible as planes move toward broadband stealth. VLO planes never had broadband stealth to begin with, so that's not something they lose over time. They were never designed for that in the first place.

The USAF concepts of Stealth, Stealth+ and Stealth++ are a useful tool to serve as indication. I prefer to use the term ULO to describe what they call Stealth++.

Do you realize this statement contradicts with your earlier statement:
A CCA can get even closer than F-35.

There's no contradiction. You just think that cuz you don't know how these platforms are supposed to work while complementing each other...another example of one-dimensional thinking.

So how is the CCA getting closer to the target than the F-35 while it's more observable?

Cuz the CCA is more expendable than the F-35, which allows it to take on more risk in terms of penetrating flight profiles. In case you forgot, that's the whole point of a CCA.

The IAF is the ones saying they are fine without a VLO fighter until 2040.

You, Mr. All Knowing One, are the one who can't explain the difference between different bands are trying to argue against the IAF.

The IAF is fine without a stealth jet 'cause they would rather dodge missiles than buy junk that doesn't work. Plus they have their own VLO, no, ELO project.

Explained multiple times before. There are political realities which the IAF cannot ignore. They cannot make statements publicly that put the GOI/MoD on the spot & weaken our negotiating position with potential vendors.

The fact is, IAF has already authorized investment in a platform (AMCA) that delivers similar level of low observability as the F-35. When that is the case, it's obvious that you'd rather have that capability sooner than later.

If it's politically inconvienient for us to obtain it, of course we have alternative plans in place as well. Have told you before what they are.

No. SPECTRA works better on a stealth airframe.

Someone somewhere is working on ACT for AMCA in India.

Plus there are aerodynamic and operational benefits to performance and weapons with internal bays. For example, you do not need to jettison payload when challenged, or you can sustainably fly at supersonic speeds and achieve 9G performance at subsonic speeds when carrying weapons. Rafale and ORCA cannot do any of these.

Lol, totally & completely wrong.

A stealth airframe is much more difficult & complicated to maintain and operate. For the kind of numbers we're gonna induct, they'll be much more expensive as well.

The only viable factor that works out in their advantage is the incredible increase in survivability compared to non-stealth airframes - which trumps all these apparent costs in a modern war, especially for a frontline jet.

I told ya this long ago, they are in a much worse situation.

If you think France is in a much more precarious place than we are, I think that's my cue for finally acknowledging that I'm replying to an insane person.

We just had nuclear-capable ballistic missiles shot toward our national capital last month for f@ck's sake.

Get a grip on reality buddy. What world are you living in?

We can beat Pakistan with all our limbs tied, and we are not the center of attention for China. In fact, France will probably fight China before we do 'cause of problems in the South Pacific. And Russia is a far bigger threat than China in Europe, never mind Pak.

For China, AUKUS/Japan are the number 1 threats, followed by France in the Pacific. Macron's been sh!tting bricks about it since the last few years, ever since the Chinese started surrounding and operating around French islands and trying to build bases right next door to them.

China expands military might as far as French borders with Solomon Islands pact

China has signed a security agreement with the Solomon Islands, a tiny state in the Pacific Ocean. The US and Australia are furious and worry that Beijing might want to expand its naval operations. The…

www.rfi.fr

France is expected to eventually relent and join QUAD's maritime exercises as and when China's navy continues expanding. But this will elevate them to the same level of threat as the US/UK alliance.

The next big threat for China is Russia, not India.

India is not expected to come into China's crosshairs either until the late 2040s or if they achieve a decisive victory against AUKUS. So we are like a future threat. Both US and China are leaving us for either the 2040s or 2050s.

Oh yeah, I'd love to see France take on China in the Pacific, with their ~10 modern surface combatants, 5 fleet subs & a single carrier that's in dock for half the year...while also simultaneously managing the Russian threat.

Hilarious.

The only Western power with the ability to take on PRC head to head in the Pacific is the US. Any role that France can/would play would be similar to what the UK can - which is basically providing some additional padding for US forces & taking on ancillary duties...and even that is IF the NATO v/s Russia theatre doesn't go hot at the same time.

If it does, neither France nor UK will have any bandwidth left for the Pacific.

The technological edge is not marginal. The upcoming Rafale radar is absolutely incomparable to Uttam and Virupaksha. Like Blu-ray vs CD.

Our new radars are merely fighter radars while the Rafale F5's will practically be a BMD radar, the level of technology necessary to defeat 6th gen jets.

SCALP too.

There's no ARM variant with passive homing head. Even if there was, it woudn't work in this role.

Even against a relatively poor IADS like Pakistan's, SCALP suffered too much attrition. It's just too slow. An enemy radar would turn off & relocate to the next pincode by the time a subsonic turbojet gets there. You need something that flies much, much faster in order to quickly & reliably take out the enemy's active emitters to degrade their IADS before releasing cruise missiles like SCALP or Nirbhay.

That means ideally you need a Ramjet/Scramjet-based solution, and if that's not yet available then you need a solid rocket-based solution like the Rudram-II/III or AARGM-ER. The Rudram-III can cover its 550-km envelope in just around 5-6 minutes while a SCALP would take around half an hour.

That's no good for an ARM role where time is of the essense.

 

[Shan]

Even against a relatively poor IADS like Pakistan's, SCALP suffered too much attrition

Do we have a percentage? It would be good to have a source in order to better assess the kind of interception rate the PAF has against subsonic cruise missiles.

 

[randomradio]

High-Band typically implies 6-18 GHz range. That covers most X-band FCRs (8-12Ghz) and Ku-band Seekers (12-18GHz). That's also typically the frequency range in which most internal SPJs operate.

Typhoon already has an internal SPJ which operates in this range, this SPJ is equivalent to Spectra's high band capabilities. But now Typhoon will be getting an additional, podded HBJ to operate in this range as the internal solution won't be enough, most likely due to power constraints.

But Rafale will remain stuck with just what the internal system can manage, this is the capability gap.

Okay, so it appears you cannot answer my question. Yeah, as expected.

And oh, wait. So the Typhoon has an internal EW suite, just like Rafale. And the Typhoon will carry 2 Arexis pods too, like the Rafale's ESJ. But Rafale has the capability gap? You mean to say the bigger jammer like ESJ cannot do the job? I'm curious. How did you come to that conclusion?

And why does a stealth jet like the F-35 require the support of the Typhoon EK? I thought stealth was enough.

And I'm not gonna interfere in our own IW. However, there has to be a space for realistic discussion based on available evidence.

Evidence? Meaning, you prefer the Pakistani story from social media over actual stakeholders?

Of course, I forgot about Rafale's magic stealth generator. Somehow, all discussion regarding the Rafale eventually boils down to ACT with you.

Er, yes. That's how it can get close to the target to fire a 10 km range Hammer. The F-35 does not have an equivalent weapon, it uses StormBreaker for the same, 100+ km range.

Observability is not the only factor. But it's understable that you think it is because you always look at things one-dimensionally.

Why don't you explain? It's funny how none of your posts actually have explanations, just random blanket statements that don't make sense.

How does the CCA without sufficient stealth manage to get closer to targets than the F-35? I'm sure you can educate everybody.

They don't change, just better standards become accesible as planes move toward broadband stealth. VLO planes never had broadband stealth to begin with, so that's not something they lose over time. They were never designed for that in the first place.

The USAF concepts of Stealth, Stealth+ and Stealth++ are a useful tool to serve as indication. I prefer to use the term ULO to describe what they call Stealth++.

How so? What are these better standards? Can you provide the relationship between radar and stealth? You talked about radar equation, maybe you can use that.

There's no contradiction. You just think that cuz you don't know how these platforms are supposed to work while complementing each other...another example of one-dimensional thinking.

So why don't you provide details on how it works?

You see, whenever I make a point, I also provide an explanation, even pictures and links. Why don't you tell me what the answer is so I can broaden my horizons?

Cuz the CCA is more expendable than the F-35, which allows it to take on more risk in terms of penetrating flight profiles. In case you forgot, that's the whole point of a CCA.

I believe the USAF says CCAs are not expendable.

Here's a link:

CCA fighter wingmen drones won't be ‘attritable,’ despite 'common misconception': General - Breaking Defense

The drones will provide an "affordable mass" to augment the lethality of fighters. Air Force Secretary Frank Kendall says they need to be a “fraction” of the cost of the F-35.

breakingdefense.com

The push for affordability “doesn’t mean… that this is an attritable type of platform,” Jobe, Director of Plans, Programs, and Requirements at Air Combat Command, said during a panel at the Air and Space Force Association’s Air Warfare Symposium. “That’s a common misconception.”

Apparently it's a "common misconception" as per the the guy who's running the CCA program.

A bit of his history:
As the Director of Plans, Programs, and Requirements at Air Combat Command, Maj. Gen. Jobe is responsible for shaping the vision, strategy, and requirements for the CCA program.

Maybe you think you know otherwise, perhaps you can provide answers to eduate the USAF as well. Obviously you think the guy running the CCA program is a moron, of course. I mean, what does he know.

Explained multiple times before. There are political realities which the IAF cannot ignore. They cannot make statements publicly that put the GOI/MoD on the spot & weaken our negotiating position with potential vendors.

The fact is, IAF has already authorized investment in a platform (AMCA) that delivers similar level of low observability as the F-35. When that is the case, it's obvious that you'd rather have that capability sooner than later.

If it's politically inconvienient for us to obtain it, of course we have alternative plans in place as well. Have told you before what they are.

What are these political realities? Why are successive IAF Chiefs so adamant about MRFA instead of buying F-35s or Su-57s then? Raha, Bhadauria, and Singh? What is it that you know that the IAF Chiefs do not?

Lol, totally & completely wrong.

A stealth airframe is much more difficult & complicated to maintain and operate. For the kind of numbers we're gonna induct, they'll be much more expensive as well.

The only viable factor that works out in their advantage is the incredible increase in survivability compared to non-stealth airframes - which trumps all these apparent costs in a modern war, especially for a frontline jet.

Ah, so you're saying the only reason we are not going for a stealth jet is 'cause we can't afford it?

And how does cost come into the picture of what I said concerning performance and weapons? Even ACT?

Apparently, ADA claims AMCA Mk2 will cost below $70M, around half the price of a non-stealth Rafale. Can you explain why that is so?

Blanket statements aren't enough, you will have to explain in detail so I can learn.

If you think France is in a much more precarious place than we are, I think that's my cue for finally acknowledging that I'm replying to an insane person.

We just had nuclear-capable ballistic missiles shot toward our national capital last month for f@ck's sake.

Get a grip on reality buddy. What world are you living in?

As I already said, we can take Pakistan out easily, it was even demonstrated. The ballistic missile fired at Delhi was intercepted, so we have demonstrated that we can deal with it. Otoh, NATO has admitted that there are missile systems in Russian possession that Europe cannot intercept. And we even saw Israel's failure to intercept Iranian missiles in many cases.

So France does not have defenses today against Russian and Chinese missiles while we have defenses against Pakistani missiles. And China doesn't consider us a threat yet, at least relative to bigger threats like the US. Plus the Chinese do not want to antagonize India while they are dealing with the Pacific threat because they believe in solving problems one at a time, and this perfectly suits India. France is part of the Pacific threat, India is not, although the US is wishing we would become one.

France's number 1 enemy is Russia and their number 2 enemy is China.

Our number 1 enemy wishes to bury the hatchet until they believe our time's come and our number 2 enemy is actually number 2. So no, we aren't in such a big hurry to modernize, and we can see that.

But you're gonna have to explain, without using Pakistan as an example, why China is a bigger threat to India than it is to France.

Oh yeah, I'd love to see France take on China in the Pacific, with their ~10 modern surface combatants, 5 fleet subs & a single carrier that's in dock for half the year...while also simultaneously managing the Russian threat.

Hilarious.

The only Western power with the ability to take on PRC head to head in the Pacific is the US. Any role that France can/would play would be similar to what the UK can - which is basically providing some additional padding for US forces & taking on ancillary duties...and even that is IF the NATO v/s Russia theatre doesn't go hot at the same time.

If it does, neither France nor UK will have any bandwidth left for the Pacific.

Even more hilarious when you realize France's navy is stronger India's due to SSNs and a nuclear carrier carrying Rafales.

When it comes to nuclear propulsion, quality trumps quantity.

You will have to explain why you are so happy. What do you know about Rafale's new radar relative to Uttam and Virupaksha that I do not? I obviously need a technical answer, not the usual bluster.

There's no ARM variant with passive homing head. Even if there was, it woudn't work in this role.

You mean like the ones F-35s are going to be equipped with in a hurry?

Lockheed Martin selected to integrate HARM missiles on global F-35s

Legacy HARM missiles will be integrated to all F-35A/B/Cs, ensuring future compatibility with the fifth-generation aircraft.

www.naval-technology.com

Can you explain why the supposedly stealthy F-35 is going to carry externally legacy HARMs that do not have an MMW seeker for SEAD?

Since you know everything, I'm sure you have the answer here. Why do you think something that you think won't work is being pushed by the Pentagon on the F-35?

Even against a relatively poor IADS like Pakistan's, SCALP suffered too much attrition.

Oh! And did Pakistan tell you that? Pray tell me the source for this important piece of information.

What about the alleged interception of Brahmos too? Did it all happen at the same time as those 3 Rafales?

An enemy radar would turn off & relocate to the next pincode by the time a subsonic turbojet gets there. You need something that flies much, much faster in order to quickly & reliably take out the enemy's active emitters to degrade their IADS before releasing cruise missiles like SCALP or Nirbhay.

So SCALP is too slow, but you were very happy about the even slower AASF being the SmartGlider?

The F-22 and F-35 conduct SEAD using SDB.

Do you know India conducted SEAD successfully against Pakistan using the even more slow Harops?

That means ideally you need a Ramjet/Scramjet-based solution, and if that's not yet available then you need a solid rocket-based solution like the Rudram-II/III or AARGM-ER. The Rudram-III can cover its 550-km envelope in just around 5-6 minutes while a SCALP would take around half an hour.

So the USAF, AAE, and IAF are wrong and they need to listen to you?

That's no good for an ARM role where time is of the essense.

So you're saying all those loitering drones, smart munitions, and missiles in use today for SEAD are all set to be failures?

Lots of questions, maybe some are rhetorical, but I'm hoping at least one or two of those technical questions are answered.

 

[screambowl]

Airborne radars have been around since the 1970s.

I am talking about AESA radars on J35 and F35 which can function as AWACS.

With the F3R? It can.

F3R will not be sufficient if you are talking about China centric specifications. May work if it is Pakistan centric.

Rafale's smaller size along with twin-engined set-up gives a kinematic advantage in low flying conditions over the plains or in the mountains.

But it is easier for a heat seeker to detect an aircraft flying low in colder regions like high mountains because of the huge variation between engine exhaust and ambient temperature.

Just hope we order Okhotnik-Bs along with Su-57s that we're about to procure. Su-57 with S-70B will be able to penetrate deep inside China and Su-57's airframe is an order of magnitude more stealthy than Rafale(with external tanks and weapons). MUM-T will work better with a stealth jet as the mother/controller ship.

With Su57 you can buy time for a decade or two until you get your own. But only if Russians are able to do it timely without exceeding the cost.

 

[Parthu]

Okay, so it appears you cannot answer my question. Yeah, as expected.

I answered the relevant part that shows you where the capability gap lies. Unfortunately you cannot comprehend it.

And oh, wait. So the Typhoon has an internal EW suite, just like Rafale. And the Typhoon will carry 2 Arexis pods too, like the Rafale's ESJ. But Rafale has the capability gap? You mean to say the bigger jammer like ESJ cannot do the job? I'm curious. How did you come to that conclusion?

The pods that EK will carry are NOT like Rafale's ESJ. Have shown you that with links & quotes from SAAB's own rep. Typhoon will carry podded HBJ (and perhaps MBJ) on top of internal HBJ while LBJ will be on offboard platform. Rafale will carry a podded LBJ (which also perhaps contains MBJ) while remaining stuck with internal solution for HBJ. It is you who has failed to prove that EK will be carrying mid & low-band jammers like you claimed it will. I'm yet to see proof of that. And no, proof doesn't constitute a random unrelated photograph of a totally different Arexis pod with different antennas. What you did is like showing a NGJ-MB pod whereas NGJ-HB is what is going on the plane in reality.

In short, in Rafale's case the Low-Band jamming will be reliant on a much less powerful & very likely insufficient solution. Low-Band being the frequency range that's supposed to save you from the last leg of the enemy's kill-chain. So as long as no FCR or missile manages to find them, both Rafale & Typhoon will be fine. But once an FCR manages to get a lock & fires a missile toward them, Rafale will have a significantly lower chance of survival than Typhoon.

That's the capability gap. I cannot make it any simpler.

And why does a stealth jet like the F-35 require the support of the Typhoon EK? I thought stealth was enough.

Where did I say that stealth was enough? I was always the one who was saying you need a multi-domain approach while you were the one promoting Active Cancellation as the end-all be-all solution for everything.

Evidence? Meaning, you prefer the Pakistani story from social media over actual stakeholders?

The video of M88 at the Bathinda site is damning considering it doesn't seem fake (I'm not counting the image of tailfin cuz I think that's CGI). So the 'no losses' standpoint doesn't have much merit. If they want to say no COMBAT losses, that's a different story. But if it was a crash due to technical problems or friendly fire, there's no reason why we wouldn't announce it to be as such. That would readily discredit the Pakistanis and by staying quiet we're only helping them.

We never shied away from admitting friendly fire incidents either. Back in 2019 we were straightforward with what happened to that Mi-17. Not sure why we would start withholding info regarding blue-on-blue now.

In short, I admit that there is merit in wanting to create ambiguity in the information space regarding the losses in an unofficial capacity, but statements that the authorities (IAF/MoD) are not willing to put their signature on don't carry much weight.

I'm operating off the official statement from CDS that said we had losses due to deficient tactics that we employed, and that we subsequently rectified those tactics & flew again without taking any further losses.

What are you operating off of? Random forum posts & tweets? Forgive me for not giving them the same weight.

Er, yes. That's how it can get close to the target to fire a 10 km range Hammer. The F-35 does not have an equivalent weapon, it uses StormBreaker for the same, 100+ km range.

Yeah continue to believe that.

Only someone with a twisted mind would think having the option of a longer-range weapon is a disadvantage. Or someone who just wants to shill for Dassault/MBDA.

Why don't you explain? It's funny how none of your posts actually have explanations, just random blanket statements that don't make sense.

Hey, if you're not capable of making sense of something, that's not my fault. Apparently they make sense for all the people reading the posts except you. That seems like a you problem.

So why don't you provide details on how it works?

You see, whenever I make a point, I also provide an explanation, even pictures and links. Why don't you tell me what the answer is so I can broaden my horizons?

The fact that you write a reply to ask for an explanation when I just gave you one in the same post just a few lines down confirms that it's indeed a you problem.

I believe the USAF says CCAs are not expendable.

Here's a link:

CCA fighter wingmen drones won't be ‘attritable,’ despite 'common misconception': General - Breaking Defense

The drones will provide an "affordable mass" to augment the lethality of fighters. Air Force Secretary Frank Kendall says they need to be a “fraction” of the cost of the F-35.

breakingdefense.com

The push for affordability “doesn’t mean… that this is an attritable type of platform,” Jobe, Director of Plans, Programs, and Requirements at Air Combat Command, said during a panel at the Air and Space Force Association’s Air Warfare Symposium. “That’s a common misconception.”

Apparently it's a "common misconception" as per the the guy who's running the CCA program.

A bit of his history:
As the Director of Plans, Programs, and Requirements at Air Combat Command, Maj. Gen. Jobe is responsible for shaping the vision, strategy, and requirements for the CCA program.

Maybe you think you know otherwise, perhaps you can provide answers to eduate the USAF as well. Obviously you think the guy running the CCA program is a moron, of course. I mean, what does he know.

Of course you don't know the difference between expendable & attritable.

Let me make it easy for you: A Shahed-136 is attritable. An MQ-9 is expendable.

An unmanned platform is always going to be more expendable than a manned platform. In a peer conflict, nobody is gonna come off clean. Every single strike package WILL suffer some attrition. Losses will be unavoidable. The idea is to make sure that at least 9 out of 10 times, that loss will be the cheaper unmanned wingman instead of the costlier manned fighter carrying an invaluable pilot.

There is no conceivable scenario where an F-35 will go closer to the target when a CCA is available. Of course you'd know this if you weren't limited to thinking one-dimensionally and simply reading quotes from people instead of actually comprehending what they're saying & how it relates to what we're talking about.

What are these political realities? Why are successive IAF Chiefs so adamant about MRFA instead of buying F-35s or Su-57s then? Raha, Bhadauria, and Singh? What is it that you know that the IAF Chiefs do not?

Lol, so now you want to put words in my mouth in order to win arguments.

I never said they don't know, I said they are limited in saying things publicly. Have told you before multiple times and I'm not gonna waste time again. Here are links to previous comments from other threads where I explained what the political realities are:

"The requirements are privately conveyed to the Govt, because there is a possibility that no 5th gen import is possible due to geopolitical realities. When that is the case, the forces cannot make their requirement public until & unless there is a viable deal on hand. Cuz otherwise they'll be putting the Govt in a spot.

We cannot be sending the message that IAF requires 5G ASAP but Govt is holding up the negotiations and thereby compromising national security...when in fact it would be the Govt that's trying to ensure both security & sovereignty by ensuring we don't get into the wrong kind of deal.

But this cannot be conveyed in the public unless we divulge too many geopolitical, strategic, tactical & systems-level details. It's an entirely avoidable headache."

ADA AMCA - Advanced Medium Combat Aircraft

ACM Singh said that? I think he wants Make in India MRFA. Nope. He specifically answered regarding the question of importing 5th gen counter to PAF's future acquisition of J-35. @17:14 mark onwards: Some AMs are willing to import Su-57, but the govt's not gonna buy it with a war going on...

www.strategicfront.org

Regarding the MRFA carrot:

"...What the leadership believes internally, we don't know.

All we can see is their actions. AMCA funds have been greenlit, Mk-1A is ordered, follow-on Mk-1A is also close to order, Mk-2 is going ahead, just waiting on the engine. IUSAV is funded & in testing (SWiFT).

But for over 8 years, there's not a peep about additional Rafales.

And any question as to why there's not a peep has been deflected by saying "we want it through the tender". So the MRFA is like a carrot tied to the stick that's perpetually in front no matter how much the donkey walks. And it's very useful for IAF in that role.



Because as long as the MRFA carrot is present, nobody can question either IAF or MoD if at all Rafale capabilities (or the attached strings) didn't turn out the way they expected. After this many years, you have to consider the possibility that this may indeed be the case.

If we follow the MKI pattern of procurement, the deal for Rafale through the 114-jet RFI (issued in 2018) should have gone through by 2020 as we came out of the election cycle, but there was COVID so I'll give you a 1 or 2 year moratorium, so by 2022. But here we are entering 2025 and procurement hasn't moved an inch. Still no AoN, so officially MRFA didn't even start yet.

If you ask me, something happened in 2022 that changed IAF's entire internal calculus as to what kind of platform they actually need. The emergence of J-20B that year might well be one of the factors. F-35 showing up at AeroIndia the following year might've been another.

But until AMCA Mk-1 prototype emerges (should happen by 2027-28), IAF will continue to need the MRFA carrot to deflect unnecessary criticism..."

MMRCA 2.0 - Updates and Discussions

We can get the f-35 provided we either buy the f-16's or we sell our sovereignty. The f-35 is a very tricky purchase which will give Americans a lot of access to our operating methods. Sell sovereignty, it didn't brought back the kashmir we lost to Pakistan, didn't prevent Chinese from...

www.strategicfront.org

Ah, so you're saying the only reason we are not going for a stealth jet is 'cause we can't afford it?

And how does cost come into the picture of what I said concerning performance and weapons? Even ACT?

Apparently, ADA claims AMCA Mk2 will cost below $70M, around half the price of a non-stealth Rafale. Can you explain why that is so?

Blanket statements aren't enough, you will have to explain in detail so I can learn.

Rafale will always be more expensive cuz that's an import. I was talking in terms of our own development. ORCA would've been cheaper than AMCA.

But it wouldn't be survivable. That's why we wanted AMCA instead.

As I already said, we can take Pakistan out easily, it was even demonstrated. The ballistic missile fired at Delhi was intercepted, so we have demonstrated that we can deal with it. Otoh, NATO has admitted that there are missile systems in Russian possession that Europe cannot intercept. And we even saw Israel's failure to intercept Iranian missiles in many cases.

The point is that Russia isn't insane enough to launch nuclear-capable missiles on NATO capitals. Pakistan is insane enough to launch on Delhi in such a way that would easily lead to nuclear miscalculations.

If you're unable to see the difference in security situation that creates as opposed to NATO-Russia theatre, you're just as insane.

No defence system is 100% unbreachable. We were lucky that they did not launch too many & did not actually carry nukes.

So France does not have defenses today against Russian and Chinese missiles while we have defenses against Pakistani missiles. And China doesn't consider us a threat yet, at least relative to bigger threats like the US. Plus the Chinese do not want to antagonize India while they are dealing with the Pacific threat because they believe in solving problems one at a time, and this perfectly suits India. France is part of the Pacific threat, India is not, although the US is wishing we would become one.

France's number 1 enemy is Russia and their number 2 enemy is China.

Our number 1 enemy wishes to bury the hatchet until they believe our time's come and our number 2 enemy is actually number 2. So no, we aren't in such a big hurry to modernize, and we can see that.

But you're gonna have to explain, without using Pakistan as an example, why China is a bigger threat to India than it is to France.

Ah, so you buy into the Chinese propaganda. Excellent, you're the perfect Indian from a Chinese PoV.

Isn't it interesting how they want you to believe they've buried the hatchet right before they stab you in the back? Did you forget all the Modi-Xi bonhomie before they did Doklam?

Geez, I'm arguing with a truly gullible one. You're crazy if you think China doesn't see us as a threat. Neither Taiwan nor Japan are capable of challenging China's aim of a unipolar Asia. Only India has that potential.

Even more hilarious when you realize France's navy is stronger India's due to SSNs and a nuclear carrier carrying Rafales.

When it comes to nuclear propulsion, quality trumps quantity.

I never said we were better, we're nowhere in comparison in the subsurface department. But then again, we have geography on our side. We don't need to go across half the globe to fight the PLAN. We just need to hold on to chokepoints and prevent them from gaining a foothold in the IOR. We have means of doing that.

And it's hilarious if you think France's 5 SSNs are enough to fight China. Hint: Look at how many SSNs the US has dedicated for the Pacific alone, their build rate & how they think even that is insufficient.

But of course, delusion & reality do not dine at the same table. So yeah, go on continuing to believe what you will.

You will have to explain why you are so happy. What do you know about Rafale's new radar relative to Uttam and Virupaksha that I do not? I obviously need a technical answer, not the usual bluster.

I just find it funny that you're so impressed by something the French plan to do by 2030 which the F-35 is getting this year itself.

It's also funny that you think Rafale, even with upgraded 4th gen motors, can actually make full use of next-gen avionics with GaN-on Diamond which both India & US have decided need next-gen engines to power.

But of course Dassault won't tell you this cuz they just need an excuse to jack up the price of F5.

It's like how a Ferrari may have a rear spoiler to prevent lift & gain as much traction as possible. A gullible person may be willing to spend 50k to put a rear spoiler on a Hyundai i10. Does the i10 actually travel at speeds where this effect might come into play? A gullible person neither knows nor cares. The vendor is of course willing to indulge him as he wants that 50k. Nuff said.

You mean like the ones F-35s are going to be equipped with in a hurry?

Lockheed Martin selected to integrate HARM missiles on global F-35s

Legacy HARM missiles will be integrated to all F-35A/B/Cs, ensuring future compatibility with the fifth-generation aircraft.

www.naval-technology.com

Can you explain why the supposedly stealthy F-35 is going to carry externally legacy HARMs that do not have an MMW seeker for SEAD?

Since you know everything, I'm sure you have the answer here. Why do you think something that you think won't work is being pushed by the Pentagon on the F-35?

Already answered before as well. That's just a stop-gap till the internally-carried AARGM-ER is ready. Why do they need a stop-gap? Cuz they actually plan on fighting China unlike France.

And even legacy HARM is still a high-speed capable missile (~Mach 3) with a PHH & Home-on-Jam features. That's still a way better option than a SCALP (or SmartGlider) if you're going after active emitters.

Oh! And did Pakistan tell you that? Pray tell me the source for this important piece of information.

Answered below to @Shan.

What about the alleged interception of Brahmos too? Did it all happen at the same time as those 3 Rafales?

I don't care what they allege. I care about what evidence I've seen.

There's no evidence of any BrahMos being intercepted, or of 3 Rafales being downed.

There is however evidence of SCALPs being intercepted, and of 1 Rafale wreckage which as per CDS was a loss attributable to deficient tactics.

So SCALP is too slow, but you were very happy about the even slower AASF being the SmartGlider?

Eh? I wasn't happy, I was just vindicated cuz you thought SmartGlider wasn't AASF.

I have expressed displeasure at it being a glider, not happiness if you recall.

The F-22 and F-35 conduct SEAD using SDB.

Not every radar requires a Rudram-II/III or AARGM-ER to address. You need cheaper solutions to address less capable radar systems as well, once the bigger threats are taken care of by standoff strikes.

I've said as much:

"...The AASF can be a nice inexpensive option against poorly-defended targets or for mopping up stragglers like SPAAG radars etc. But a more capable standoff ARM has to be available before the FMAN/FMC comes..."

Dassault Rafale - Updates and Discussion

So Why US Navy purchased SH18 Growler when they have F35 ? The drone is used as another bomb truck, potentially a air to air missile truck, another airborne radar for multistatism, for fuel supply, etc.... Gee I dunno..... maybe because USN has more squadrons on carriers than F-35C's? :rolleyes:

www.strategicfront.org

Do you know India conducted SEAD successfully against Pakistan using the even more slow Harops?

Great, I'll go tell IAF that they're wasting money on the Rudram series then. Harop is apparently all we need.

So the USAF, AAE, and IAF are wrong and they need to listen to you?

They're all doing exactly what I said that they are.

AARGM-ER, RJ10 & Rudram series respectively. There's just a problem with the French solution cuz it's coming way too late, hence Rudram integration is required for our timeframe.

Only a Dassault/MBDA shill would say otherwise.

Do we have a percentage? It would be good to have a source in order to better assess the kind of interception rate the PAF has against subsonic cruise missiles.

That much data isn't available. But we have imagery of destroyed SCALPs with intact warheads. Multiple.

However, there's no evidence of any intercepted BrahMos despite there being over a dozen launches. So we extrapolate from there.

 

[Lolwa]

Rafale F5's avionics will be half a generation ahead of MKI MLU and LCA Mk2 due to the use to new materials and their already existing superiority in terms of software.

AMCA Mk1 will be a mix of equal and superior to the Rafale F5 'cause its objectives are a step further. We could catch up in terms of materials used and software maturity as well. Our EW suite could also come with many of the same features, like ACT, which will be further enhanced by the stealth airframe. It will eventually be better networked than what's possible via Rafale F5 due to its foreign origins.



Gotta pay big bucks for the capabilities necessary. MKI MLU and LCA Mk2 are contemporary 4th gen fighters and cannot operate against PLAAF with the presence of a survivable fighter like the Rafale F5 or AMCA. Rafale will hopefully come by 2030-35 and bridge the gap between Rafale F3R (2020-25) and AMCA Mk2 (2040-45).

MRFA will come with enough source codes for integration of weapons, it's something all FOEMs have to agree in writing before they can participate. MMRCA had the same. No one is expecting source codes for core avionics. Unlike M2000, it's likely that upgrades will be done inhouse using more Indian tech when MLU happens. Plus, while not a hard and fast rule for the Make in India procedure, there will be opportunity to Indianise software over time if the MoD decide it's affordable and necessary. The contract must be large enough to justify that level of information exchange, 'cause with large numbers ensuring robust infosec will be in our interest too. With just 62 Rafales any serious breach will not impact India as much as the French.

The Virupaksha will only be challenged by the J-16's radar and j-20's radar. The j-36,j-50 and F-47 will be far more advanced and capable.

 

[Shan]

That much data isn't available. But we have imagery of destroyed SCALPs with intact warheads. Multiple.

However, there's no evidence of any intercepted BrahMos despite there being over a dozen launches. So we extrapolate from there.

Noted. It would be good to know op details to determine rates after such a long period of time. As per OSINT data, a SCALP cost 3 to 3.5 times less as compared to a Brahmos missile. So if there is a tolerance limit that the forces have for interceptions and the SCALP lies within such a limit, I would continue to use the missile from a cost perspective.

At one point the Russians claimed made a laughable claimed interception rate of 90 percent for western subsonic cruise missiles (including SCALP). If the interception rate is beyond the expected yield, then I would definitely ponder about things. 3 SCALPS vs 1 Brahmos....that's something to think about when conducting air to ground operations. Also, no DEAD was conducted, this also needs to be factored in. Brahmos did well with lack of DEAD and SCALP apparently did less well, whether significantly or not remains to be seen.

 

[Parthu]

Noted. It would be good to know op details to determine rates after such a long period of time.

Yeah, too bad we're not forthcoming with such data.

As per OSINT data, a SCALP cost 3 to 3.5 times less as compared to a Brahmos missile.

I doubt it. There are also reports saying Storm Shadow (British version of SCALP) costs around $2.5 mil which is close to BrahMos ($~3 mil).

It's definitely gonna be less expensive than BrahMos, but I really doubt it's only 1/3rd the cost. By it's nature, a turbojet-powered missile like SCALP can be made much cheaper (e.g. JASSM only costs <$1 mil) but you have to build it in enough numbers for economies of scale. Otherwise each missile will be more expensive that it needs to be.

France for example holds only ~500 SCALP while the US is buying 7,000+ JASSMs.

A similar problem effects Germany's Taurus as well. Lack of scale translates into higher per-unit cost.

"According to Der Spiegel, 600 Taurus Neo missiles would cost German taxpayers 2.1 billion euros, translating to about 3.5 million euros per missile. However, it's important to note that this per-unit cost likely includes industry support, including training and maintenance. The actual cost of the missile is probably closer to 1.75-2 million euros."

Germany May Get a New Cruise Missile: The Taurus Neo

Some speculation about technical details and capabilities.

missilematters.substack.com

 

[Shan]

Yeah, too bad we're not forthcoming with such data.



I doubt it. There are also reports saying Storm Shadow (British version of SCALP) costs around $2.5 mil which is close to BrahMos ($~3 mil).

It's definitely gonna be less expensive than BrahMos, but I really doubt it's only 1/3rd the cost. By it's nature, a turbojet-powered missile like SCALP can be made much cheaper (e.g. JASSM only costs <$1 mil) but you have to build it in enough numbers for economies of scale. Otherwise each missile will be more expensive that it needs to be.

France for example holds only ~500 SCALP while the US is buying 7,000+ JASSMs.

A similar problem effects Germany's Taurus as well. Lack of scale translates into higher per-unit cost.

"According to Der Spiegel, 600 Taurus Neo missiles would cost German taxpayers 2.1 billion euros, translating to about 3.5 million euros per missile. However, it's important to note that this per-unit cost likely includes industry support, including training and maintenance. The actual cost of the missile is probably closer to 1.75-2 million euros."

Germany May Get a New Cruise Missile: The Taurus Neo

Some speculation about technical details and capabilities.

missilematters.substack.com

Scalp Missile Blitz, Terror Camps Obliterated; Indian Air Force’s ‘Operation Sindoor’ Unleashed – Know The Missile’s Price

The Indian Air Force, under Operation Sindoor, launched a precise airstrike on terrorist camps in Pakistan using Scalp missiles. Fired from Rafale jets, these missiles can hit targets in densely populated areas with extreme accuracy and cost Rs 8.46 crore each.

www.freepressjournal.in

Scalp Missile (Storm Shadow): Check its Cost, Range, Specifications and Characteristics

Learn what the SCALP missile (Storm Shadow) is, who developed it, and how it works. Explore its range, specifications, cost, and global users in this detailed guide.

www.jagranjosh.com

Both of these indicate that the price of the SCALP when bought with Rafale were quoted to be 1 million $. However, as always they could be using tainted sources themselves.

Cost of the extended-range BrahMos cruise missile remains under $5 million each

www.ajaishukla.com

Ajai Shukla calculated the cost of Brahmos ALCM to be closer to 5 Million $. The IAF is believed to have used this version during the Ops. Even if we take 1.5 to 2 Million $ bracket for SCALP. It still works out to be closer to 2.5 times its cost. If we take the cost of ALCM as 5.5 Million and the highest acceptable cost of the SCALP at 2.5 Million it is still 2 times as costly.

"While the BrahMos ALCM is the lightest and the shortest, it is not the cheapest.In October 2012, the Indian cabinet allocated $ 1.1 billion to the IAF for acquiring 200 BrahMos ALCMs. That puts the unit cost of the BrahMos ALCM at $5.5 million."

I agree with your point that the individual cost depends on the lot size ordered as per RFP. The cost will definitely fluctuate depending on the lot and the year of purchase.

 

[Bon Plan]

Safran has launched development of the M88 T-REX, the future engine of the Rafale F5​

June 18_opex360

Given that it will be equipped with numerous new features, will have computing power that is unmatched by its current capabilities, and will have to carry a heavier payload (including, in particular, the ASN4G hypervelocity nuclear-capable missile), the Rafale upgraded to the F5 standard will require new engines, as the current M-88s are likely to be insufficient. Hence the T-REX program, led by Safran Electronics & Defense.

However, the latter was not taken into account in the Military Programming Law [LPM] 2024-30, which instead focused on the development of the Future Combat Air System [FCAS], whose future is not entirely assured. During a parliamentary hearing last November, Safran Electronics & Defense CEO Franck Saudo expressed concern about this.

"The imperative for both Safran and the country is to maintain our expertise as a full-fledged engine manufacturer. This is a major sovereignty issue. […] In this regard, the fact that the FCAS program is delayed creates a gap that jeopardizes the maintenance of our skills. And therefore, it is absolutely imperative, without waiting for the FCAS, to flex our muscles, in the professional sense of the term, on such technologies," explained Mr. Saudo, before calling for a rapid launch of the T-REX program.

In reality, the question of a new Rafale engine has been on the table since the 2010s. At the time, Mr. Saudo's predecessor, Philippe Petitcolin, had indeed discussed a new version of the M-88 with between 80 and 90 kN of thrust. However, this option was not considered by the Ministry of the Armed Forces, as Safran was asked to conduct the Turenne study, the aim of which was to develop an "innovative" high-pressure turbine concept using more efficient materials.

Since then, the situation has changed. With the "Rafale F5" program having been launched, funding remained to be found to develop the T-REX [at least €600 million]. Has the Ministry of the Armed Forces found a solution? In the absence of official communication, we can only assume so.

Indeed, on June 17, Safran announced that it had launched risk-removal studies prior to the development of an "evolution of the M88 engine" which, "named the M88 T-REX, […] will capitalize on the proven reliability and performance of the M88 while pushing its limits with increased thrust of 9 tons with afterburner."

To this end, Safran explained that "significant localized improvements" will be made to the current M88. Thus, "the evolution of the low-pressure compressor will allow for a higher airflow [which will likely require redesigning the Rafale's air intakes], the high-pressure turbine will incorporate new materials and next-generation cooling circuits, and the nozzle will benefit from optimized aerodynamics."

These improvements will provide a 20% increase in thrust. "The M88 T-REX will retain the same strengths as the current M88 in terms of size, modularity, fuel consumption, and cost of ownership," Safran stated.

"We are proud to launch this project to develop an engine that will push the limits of the M88 to meet the evolving needs of our armed forces customers in an unstable geopolitical context," commented Christophe Bruneau, Senior Vice President of the Military Engines Division at Safran Aircraft Engines. "The development of the M88 T-REX will also allow us to complete our technology portfolio, benefiting our entire product range and strengthening our sovereignty," he added.

According to Safran, the qualification of the M88 T-REX should be aligned with the Rafale F5's entry-into-service schedule./deepl

But no funds allowed. At least so far.

So Rafales can't penetrate into heavily defended area.

So Pakistan is not heavily defended. Interesting.

 

[Rajput Lion]

Don't discount the Typhoon or the more important Su-57.

Typhoon also comes with advanced radar tech. And Sweden is also really good when it comes to EW. Maybe not as good as France, but more than enough to qualify.

And, as long as the Russians participate, the Su-57M1 will be an excellent contender too. The Russians have a habit of springing surprises when it's least expected. And any public flight of the Mig-41 will give the Russians a massive popularity boost in India.

Rafale F5 being better than the competition is only based on our current level of info available publicly. We don't know what's actually going to be shown off to the IAF in reality during classified briefings. That's why the MRFA tender is important, there won't be any attempt to buy a new jet outside the tender no matter how hard Trump, Macron, and Putin try. Such tactics didn't work during MMRCA, and won't work now either.

We are reviving FGFA. Just wait for few months and the details will come out. It's a lock now. Plus we will order 2 more squadrons of S-400s along with maybe 54 Rafales F4s. Then Rafale F5 will emerge as sole MRFA survivour and we will order it in the next decade.

PS: The above is more than just conjecture, in fact much more

 

[Picdelamirand-oil]

In February, the Chief of Staff of the Air and Space Force [CEMAAE], General Jérôme Bellanger, indicated that the Rafale upgraded to the F5 standard would have SEAD capability with an anti-radar version of the RJ10 cruise missile, developed by MBDA. This will be complemented by an imposing combat drone [with an empty weight of 10 tonnes and a wingspan of 15 metres], derived from the nEUROn demonstrator, developed in the 2000s under the leadership of Dassault Aviation.

However, at the last Paris Air Show in Le Bourget, the French Defence Procurement Agency (DGA) indicated that the SEAD capability of the Rafale F5 would also be based on MBDA's Smart Cruiser missile.

As explained by the Chief Armament Engineer [ICA] responsible for the ‘air-to-air and air-to-ground weapons’ segment within the ‘air combat’ management unit, the objective is to enable a Rafale F5 to saturate enemy ground-to-air defences, or even destroy them, by firing a large number of Smart Cruiser missiles, which have the ability to fly in swarms and disperse as they approach their designated targets.

To achieve this, the Rafale F5 will be equipped with three ‘hexalauncher’ systems, each capable of carrying six Smart Cruisers. This means a total of eighteen missiles, which will remain in contact with the aircraft – either to provide information to the crew or to receive new instructions based on tactical developments – until they reach their final target.

‘As part of the Future Air-to-Ground Weaponry Programme [AASF], the Smart Cruiser missile will help give the Rafale F5 the ability to suppress enemy air defences and thus strengthen its ability to be the first to engage,’ summarised the DGA.

Le Rafale F5 pourra emporter 18 missiles Smart Cruiser pour saturer les défenses aériennes ennemies - Zone Militaire

L'une des priorités de l'armée de l'Air & de l'Espace est de retrouver, au plus tôt, la capacité de neutraliser les défenses aériennes adverses . Capacité

www.opex360.com

 

[Parthu]

In February, the Chief of Staff of the Air and Space Force [CEMAAE], General Jérôme Bellanger, indicated that the Rafale upgraded to the F5 standard would have SEAD capability with an anti-radar version of the RJ10 cruise missile, developed by MBDA. This will be complemented by an imposing combat drone [with an empty weight of 10 tonnes and a wingspan of 15 metres], derived from the nEUROn demonstrator, developed in the 2000s under the leadership of Dassault Aviation.

However, at the last Paris Air Show in Le Bourget, the French Defence Procurement Agency (DGA) indicated that the SEAD capability of the Rafale F5 would also be based on MBDA's Smart Cruiser missile.

As explained by the Chief Armament Engineer [ICA] responsible for the ‘air-to-air and air-to-ground weapons’ segment within the ‘air combat’ management unit, the objective is to enable a Rafale F5 to saturate enemy ground-to-air defences, or even destroy them, by firing a large number of Smart Cruiser missiles, which have the ability to fly in swarms and disperse as they approach their designated targets.

To achieve this, the Rafale F5 will be equipped with three ‘hexalauncher’ systems, each capable of carrying six Smart Cruisers. This means a total of eighteen missiles, which will remain in contact with the aircraft – either to provide information to the crew or to receive new instructions based on tactical developments – until they reach their final target.

‘As part of the Future Air-to-Ground Weaponry Programme [AASF], the Smart Cruiser missile will help give the Rafale F5 the ability to suppress enemy air defences and thus strengthen its ability to be the first to engage,’ summarised the DGA.

Le Rafale F5 pourra emporter 18 missiles Smart Cruiser pour saturer les défenses aériennes ennemies - Zone Militaire

L'une des priorités de l'armée de l'Air & de l'Espace est de retrouver, au plus tôt, la capacité de neutraliser les défenses aériennes adverses . Capacité

www.opex360.com

That's better.

I'm assuming SmartCruiser will have a similar range as the SPEAR 3 (around ~150km max) and this range will be less altitude-dependent than the Glider.

Speed is still a problem though - but RJ10 will solve this problem by 2030s.

 

[GuardianRED]

 

[Shan]

View attachment 44794

Disappointed that the Tejas was listed but the poor fellow has been left out of the picture. Why is it that our boy did not make the cool shot cut? MBDA must answer. Poor chap.

 

[Lolwa]

Disappointed that the Tejas was listed but the poor fellow has been left out of the picture. Why is it that our boy did not make the cool shot cut? MBDA must answer. Poor chap.

Tejas is just not a good looking plane.