Dassault Rafale - Updates and Discussion
- Thread starter Domobran7
- Start date
How can u write this long reply? I just skipped many of the content.Then how do you know or sure your opinions are right?
What I asked you is the basic of basics. The most simplest detail when it comes to this subject is the diffrence in band designations.
I'm literally asking you what VIBGYOR means; Violet to Red. And instead of the visible spectrum, I'm asking for the microwave spectrum. My question is at such an elementary level.
If you do not have the absolute most basic amount of knowledge in this subject, then how do you actually have opinions about it.
I find it funny that you think being ignorant is funny.
Even he never said anything about Rafales being shot down.
ARM has a very different purpose. The reason why the F-35 has to carry an external ARM is 'cause the jet is still a WIP, that's all.
You are pissing on the SCALP, but the Americans use Tomahawk for SEAD. Another fact you didn't know.
MQ-9 is not attritable or expendable.
No, nothing is relative. Expendable and attritable mean the same things. Looks like even Defensenews failed to educate you.
It's not "more expendable." The basic design is "non-expendable."
The difference between expendable and non-expendable is with expendable, the air force is trying to successfully get rid of it.
CCA is cheaper, not "more expendable." The F-35 is not more expendable than the B-2 either.
You're an idiot if you think the forces can publicly lie about their requirements.
That basically means AMCA will be cheaper due to its larger scale. Still defeats your argument.
Lol. Those are not ancillary advantages. Those are actually bragged about as core features.
Pakistan is a far more rational actor than the US, never mind Russia or China. That's what's helped them survive all these years. Dude, you have no idea what you're talking about.
France's requirement is to be able to fight their enemies alone. This is what CdG had decided in the 50s, and this is what France still pursues as a doctrine.
It's also why Rafale has been designed the way it has been.
Nah, it's over for them. Even they realize that.
As Tom Cooper said, if India could attack their core nuclear facilities and C&C without blowback, then it's pointless to discuss further.
We took out their C&C in 3 places and their access tunnel at Kirana. What it means is we can not just prevent them from using nukes, but we can even launch our own nukes at them without expecting a retaliation.
The Chinese backed out. They are not gonna bother us until they deal with the US first. They decided that last year, after the US elections.
What's that go to do with SSNs? France uses theirs to protect their own coasts, as do the Russians and Chinese.
China can operate freely in the South Pacific due to their proximity to the SCS. China cannot operate freely in the IOR.
You keep repeating this, but India is a lot safer than France. It's a credit to our policy, something France and many other countries have failed to achieve.
Explain.
Are you seriously taking this as a template for the F5 in 2025?
Oh, yeah? Then kindly explain. How much power would the radars require and how much electricity can the engines generate?
Oh, really? Kindly explain.
Beast mode is giving up on stealth. That's the whole point of it.
Can you explain why the Americans used Tomahawks for SEAD and DEAD?
That's actually what I'm asking you. What gives you the impression that a Rafale was lost to enemy fire based on what the CDS said?
He said 6 jets shot down was a lie. So we know it's much lower than 6. Then why can't it be the Mig-29 or MKI or M2000 or Jaguar or even the Mig-21? Why did you jump straight to Rafale?
The IAF has not revealed any operational details yet.
What you said:
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.
Oh, really? So in your esteemed knowledge, you believe that HARMs are actually usable against mobile units? Are you being serious right now?
And how would you use a HARM against a target that's been deliberately designed to seek out and destroy HARMs? When HARM is used, they try and not fly anywhere close to a SPAAG. Did you know that?
What sort of upside world do you live in? Soldiers use rifles against tanks and ATGMs against soldiers in your world too?
What on earth are you talking about? First of all Rudram doesn't exist, and once it shows up it will end up on Rafale. And we were never discussing this in the first place.
You were the one who started talking about slow speed against radars and I brought up the use cases of such slow speed, SCALR, Hammer, SmartGlider, Harop etc. Rudram was never in the discussion, you brought it up for no reason. Hell, you even distanced yourself from your own argument in this very post.
That's called a strawman argument. You brought it up and then you dismissed it. Congratulations.
You are countering your own post there. You are literally dismissing the SmartGlider as an effective SEAD/DEAD weapon even in 1035.
Dude, do you even comprehend your own words?
Reality: Rudram, SCALP, and SmartGlider will be used against S-400.
You will have to find that post where I said that.
Suffice to say your knowledge about SEAD/DEAD is pretty much the same as your knowledge about the radio spectrum.
Okay, you are a very disingenuous poster. So we can continue this discussion after you have explained the Typhoon EK relative to the Rafale's ESJ. Everything else is meaningless, you have no knowledge about these things at all.
XG is meant to F5 version or F4 version? Is there any chance that we can replace existing RBE with XG?
There is nothing like over burdened. They can hire and expand however they want.
They already have JV local production of turboshaft engines with safran and recently entered partnership for LEAP engines. Interesting choice to go alone for the M88.
Considering the Indian military posture at the LaC right now, how probable is it China can inflict a quick and humiliating defeat on us, read quick capture of Arunachal and other disputed territories, possibly even an assault on chickens neck?Nah, this is too funny. I'm gonna keep making you ask.
You see, it took up all of my mental capacity to show you what HBJ meant. Showing you MBJ & LBJ is obviously beyond my capabilities. You're gonna have to do it yourself.
Cuz the differences matter. This is like saying what's the point of stealth if you're not totally invisible to X-band but only hard to detect at a certain range?
It takes nuance to understand what advantage that brings, and why everyone is doing it.
So Gen. Chauhan is a Pakistani? Thanks for letting me know.
Rafale doesn't currently have any real anti-radar solution. SmartGlider/Cruiser whatever it is would only come by 2030 on the F5.
F-35 can at least carry HARM, or rely on 4th gens to launch it/AARGM from further back. By the time Rafale gets its first AASF, F-35 would be having an internally-carried AARGM-ER with 2-3x the range & over 3x the speed of the SmartGlider/Cruiser.
Hammer?So if you're gonna just drop anything that goes boom on a radar and call it an ARM, at that point even a dumb bomb is an ARM. What a joke.
Again, SCALP is not an ARM either. It's just a subsonic cruise missile. If you're gonna use subsonic CMs as ARMs (stupid solution, but that's what you've resorted to cuz you can't bring yourself to admit that the French made a mistake*** in not developing a real ARM earlier), the F-35 too can use internally-carried JSM for the same range as SCALP, or JASSM-ER in beast mode to get twice the range of SCALP.
But that would be stupid. Which is why the intended solution for anti-radar role is the AARGM-ER that has the ability to transit rapidly, passively locate emitters & hit them at high terminal speeds. Missiles like SCALP, JSM or JASSM cannot do any of those jobs.
***A mistake which they themselves admit they did:
France to develop anti-radiation munition for Rafale from 2025, finally!
Following the withdrawal of the last Jaguars equipped with the AS37 Martel anti-radiation munition at the end of the 90s, the French air force no longer hasmeta-defense.fr
"...It is precisely the development of this ammunition, called AASF, which has just been announced by the same Ministry of the Armed Forces which judged this need unnecessary, just three years ago, to arm the future Rafale F5, and its Loyal Wingmen combat drone...."
"....At that time, France believed that the Rafale, its SPECTRA self-protection system, and its laser-guided and then GPS-guided precision munitions, will be sufficient to neutralize the few threats of this type that could emerge, while the country was firmly anchored in the period of the benefits of peace, and the reduction in defense credits that it entailed."
Knowing the difference requires military context, because expendable is a general term while attritable is most often only applicable in a military context...which I already provided with the example of a Shahed & an MQ-9 but obviously you're too dense to understand that.
Hint: Think about why they're comfortable letting MQ-9s, RQ-170s or even RQ-4s overfly regions like Iran/Yemen which have repeatedly proven that they can be shot down? Do you think they'd have done that if their only option was U-2 and it was leading to a Gary Powers-like situation every other week?
You've answered yourself by quoting the prices. Unfortunately you didn't take it to conclusion. You forgot to add the F-35 or other manned fighters that cost ~$100M or more. Everything is relative.
Now if you're in a high risk penetrative mission with a $100M fighter and a $20M wingman, which of the two is more expendable in a situation where a loss is inevitable?
If you think a cheaper, unmanned drone is just as non-expendable as a costlier manned fighter carrying a pilot you spent 10 years training, you obviously don't understand why the concept of CCAs was even created in the first place. The CCA can be asked to sacrifice itself to save the fighter if it comes down to it. But one pilot cannot be asked to sacrifice himself to save his wingman.
That's why the CCA is more expendable.
The benefit is for everyone - including Govt. If the forces come out & say we need 5th gen ASAP, that makes the Govt's negotiating position weaker when dealing with US or Russia for an off-the-shelf F-35 or Su-57.
If we didn't need 5G before 2040, we wouldn't have got into the FGFA program back in 2010.
The requirement was always there. What we were lacking was a viable plane that actually does the job we require a 5G to do. The Felon couldn't match up to our requirements back then, while geopolitical equations kept us away from F-35.
Of course nobody in IAF is gonna say this out loud without getting in trouble with MEA/MOD/GOI for complicating matters.
The magic which knows that they haven't actually gone through with any of those 'procurement decisions'. Still waiting for MRFA AoN nearly a decade after we signed on for 36 Rafales.
The magic that also knows that if it was something they actually desperately needed, GOI/MoD would even be willing to go G2G for. Like they did for the S400s.
F-15EX & Rafale are more expensive because they aren't being produced in large enough numbers. But that's not the whole story, cuz unlike foreign imports we have to spend on development cost as well when we're going for domestic solutions. Neither F-15 nor Rafale were more expensive to develop than F-35.
If ORCA were to be pursued in place of AMCA i.e. for the same number of airframes, it would be less expensive not more. Both to develop (obviously, as you don't need to spend as much on R&D for stealth materials or refining airframe shape through RCS studies) and to buy or maintain.
TEDBF is too small a procurement (only <90 airframes expected total), so all the development cost has to be amortized over a smaller number of sales, obviously the per-unit cost will be more than it would have otherwise been had the procurement been for a more reasonable number of airframes like ~150. But in reality the TEDBF as we see it may not actually get anywhere as IN is evolving its requirement toward a 5th gen fighter instead.
More like, it only works on a passively stealthy airframe, Lol.
It's just one technique among a repertoire of several that construe the suite of capabilities under ECM/ESM. It's not some magic juice that turns a non-VLO into a VLO like you think it would do for Rafale.
Cuz that's not the defining capability for the role. It's just an ancillary advantage.
The real point of a stealth vs non-stealth jet is always the enhanced survivability in a modern threat environment.
They do cuz France isn't dealing with a crazed, Islamist, nuclear loose-cannon. We are. AND we also have a more sophisticated hostile nuclear power right next door. Unlike France, both of these are enemies we have to fight alone. And unlike France, we have no buffer territory either.
Except in France's case, Rafale would only ever be fighting Russia/China alongside F-35s, F-22, B-2s, Typhoons and the whole of NATO. In short, it doesn't have to do a lot of the roles required of a frontline fighter. Which is partly the reason why they're so lax about implementing a lot of capabilities on it which the Americans had done on their 4th gen fighters by the 80s itself, like a proper ARM for example.
No, not by a long shot. We stopped too soon.
They aren't. Their plan is to neutralize any possibility of India creating trouble for them on the Himalayan front while they are busy trying to take Taiwan (which may very well bring in the US & Japan). That requires them to address us, one way or the other, before launching the Taiwan op.
Getting us bogged down in a war with Pakistan serves their interests well. They'd actually prefer a series of limited conflicts rather than a single big war. There's a reason why the J-35 deliveries are being hastened.
If that doesn't work, they'll decide to fight us themselves in an attempt to inflict a quick & humiliating defeat. We just have to make that unviable.
If we have to travel across the Pacific, we won't. But we don't have to.
What French territories is China around?
To get to New Caledonia/French Polynesia, they have to go past the First & Second Island Chains. To get to Reunion, they have to go past the First chain, Malacca strait (Changi base) & Diego Garcia. Not to mention, any attack on French territories is likely to bring the US & UK in to support France.
To get to us, they just need to cross the first chain & Malacca. And nobody is likely to join a war against China on our behalf.
And that's if you totally ignore the elephant in the room which is the LAC and the fact that China is already illegally occupying our territory (Aksai Chin) & claims several other parts of our country as their own.
Not to mention, this is while our survivable deterrent is still nascent & the fact that China has scores of tactical missiles that can reach any part of the Indian heartland & centres of power whereas the only way they can threaten France in a similar way is to send a carrier group into the Atlantic or Med to attack Paris (which would trigger Article 5 anyway).
So tell me again, who is under greater threat? Who is playing with greater stakes on the table?
Cuz unless you're backing it up with a considerably higher power source (which you aren't, T-REX only provides evolutionary improvement in electrical output over M88-2), GaN-on-Diamond only represents incremental improvement over GaN-on-SiC. And whatever efficiency improvement you achieve is being offset by the fact it'll be having a smaller array size than either Uttam or Virupaksha.
Hence, it won't be much better.
It can, just not to it's full potential. Due to reasons I said above.
Oh and did you notice that they seem to have dropped all those conformal tile arrays from the F5?
Now, think about why that is. Is it because they finally figured out that they aren't gonna have the electrical output to drive all those sensors? Hmm...if only someone had told you exactly that a long time back.
Oh wait, I did!
The F-135 is already a 5th gen engine. It's sufficient to power the GaN radar functions. But APG-81/85, unlike the RBE series, are designed to be a primary Electronic Attack vector. The ECU upgrade is needed to power the GaN radar's upgraded jamming functions to their full potential.
Eh? All stealth jets have a beast mode. Even AMCA or FCAS. That doesn't mean you're giving up on stealth.
Please show me where I said that. The basic thing you need for an ARM is a passive homing head. That's what both HARM & Rudram (most likely also AASF) have. Adding an active seeker capability takes it a step further in the terminal stage, as you get to obtain more precise info about the targets in the vicinity & get the option to retarget (onto even a non-emitting target like the launcher) if necessary.
But the PHH is what is doing the most critical job of an ARM. If you employ a missile without it (like SCALP or JASSM), you have to deploy additional assets to constantly acquire ELINT regarding threat radar positions, and update the missile via datalink. That also makes you vulnerable to signal jamming as the missile would be flying inside enemy territory most of the time. And that's if you ignore the loss of survivability already brought on by lack of speed.
That's why I said SCALP is a stupid way to conduct DEAD. You just felt compelled to bring in SCALP cuz you didn't have an answer to the fact that only Rudram-II can achieve standoff DEAD against HQ-9B and only Rudram-III can against S-400.
To address either of those threats, Rafale has no option but to take on the risk of deep penetration. To address S-400 with SmartGlider/Cruiser, Rafale has to fly 250-300km inside the engagement envelope of enemy IADS. With Hammer, that's closer to 350+ km inside. Once a CCA comes it'll cut that down by a fair bit but it's still gonna be a costlier & riskier option compared to a standoff strike.
So you're of the opinion that he was talking about all the other losses EXCEPT for Rafale? What made you think that?
Already explained.
We never hide blue-on-blue, so friendly fire is out of the question. A crash due to a mechanical/technical problem isn't something that 'changing tactics' would fix.
So what does that leave on the table?
Where did I say that only high-speed is needed? I said both are needed for different roles. High speed & long range for standoff strikes against a fully intact IADS. Low speed/low range for taking care of other emitters which you may want to take out via penetration after the IADS is degraded/destroyed.
Things like PGZ-09s accompanying mobile armoured forces, PLA equivalents of low level gapfiller radars like Aslesha/Bharani etc.
There's gonna be lots of such targets which aren't capable of threatening aircraft from long ranges, those are fine for taking out with things like AASF gliders or Hammer. But if you want to use them against the S-400's acquisition/surveillance radars for example, it requires you to take on a lot more risk and suffer more platform attrition.
Read above about the different roles you need the different effectors for. It's like how you need both SM-6 and RIM-116 to defend your ship against aerial threats, but they're meant for targeting different vectors at different ranges & altitudes. Having RIM-116 doesn't mean you no longer need SM-6.
Basically, the high-speed & long-range ARMs are for the frontline duties, while the low-speed/short-range ones are for aircraft who's operating environment has already been made permissible enough by the frontline ARM strikes that degraded enemy IADS.
If you think just having the latter is sufficient, that's because you're counting on someone else to carry out the former role. For France, this works because their plan of action involves fighting alongside US or European forces who have AARGM. But in our context this means Rafale will have to depend on MKI/Tejas Mk2 for launching standoff DEAD strikes, so we have to waste MKI & Mk2 sorties to subsidize the Rafale's lack of standoff options.
This can be easily mitigated if we integrate Rudram-I/II on the Rafale. Simple.
This is what I keep trying to tell you but you refuse to listen & get into pointless arguments and whataboutery, all cuz it pains you deeply if anyone makes Dassault/MBDA look bad.
I'm not, in fact I was the first one who said you need both types of effectors back in post #1035.
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
I was the one who said both are necessary to begin with. You were the one who dismissed Rudram/AARGM-like capability and acted like SmartGlider is all you need.
So yes, both high & slow speed are required. But as of now Rafale has neither. It plans to get the slow speed option by 2030 and the high speed one by ~2035.
But the slow option only really comes into play once the IADS is degraded. At that point, even MKI & Tejas Mk2 can penetrate and hit with PGMs like SAAW or Glide bombs.
No need of an expensive new MRFA if that's all it can do, too.
Even some french services thought 1 loss was possible, if not sure.
SCALP has only one tandem warhead, mainly used against hardened shelter. Probably not the best weapons for DEAD. In this way SCALP Naval, with a general purpose warhead is probably better in DEAD, but not perfect against bunker...
Tomahawks exists with different warheads.
It was not a failed program. It was seen as a F16 competitor.
USA made hard pressures to stop this program, agreeing to uplly israel with their best birds (except F22) and giving them the possibility of customized them highly than with any other customer.
There's not much kinematic difference between the C and E except for a much more reinforced airframe. The EX can do everything the C can. It's basically the same airframe. The EX is a further development of the E.
Clean airframes are comparable. But the EX has to carry CFTs to be useful, and with CFTs, the performance is poor.
You can see the two giant bulges on the intakes with all those hardpoints included. It requires those tanks to carry its massive payload and have enough fuel for combat.
I've given the frequencies that HBJ represents & you've so far failed to prove any point with it. In fact it just reinforced by assertion that Typhoon is getting an externally-powered solution to beef up ECM capability in the frequency bands that most internal SPJs operate in (including Rafale's two frontal emitters near canard roots).
Now you're asking for MBJ & LBJ frequencies as if that would give you some intellectual victory
To indulge you, I already said it's beyond my mental capacity. So now it's up to you to explain the point you wish to make.
If you don't have any point & just arguing for sake of arguing, keep replying with nonsense.
Someone who can follow basic logic wouldn't think in such an a$$-backwards way. I've seen video evidence of the Bathinda wreckage, and so have you. It's still there on Youtube but I'm not gonna post it here for obvious reasons.
So if a Rafale wreckage is evident, and then someone talks about losses (plural), you have to assume that they're talking about all of them inclusive of this one - unless otherwise stated.
Which is why I asked you what makes you think he was talking about certain losses, but not others. Do you have any solid reason to believe that? If you don't, then best not act like you know things that you don't.
Explained below.
You obviously don't understand any of these concepts so it's needless to debate.
One cannot talk sense to a person who thinks a drone is just as indispensable as a manned fighter.
Of course, when you're unable to make any valid points, the next course of action is to throw abuses. Typical.
Expected better from you, but maybe I expected too much.
Anyway, they aren't really lying, just strategically withholding the truth. They do it all the time. Forces are within their right to support the Govt's negotiating positions. At least, they are not allowed to actively sabotage the position.
If there was no requirement for a 5th gen, then please explain why nearly 10 years of negotiations and $300 million was spent on the FGFA's preliminary design contract.
Or you think we are so rich as to throw thousands of crores at random projects we don't even need?
I said if going for the same number of airframes, ORCA will be cheaper than AMCA. Please explain why & how it would be costlier.
Stealth is bragged about as a core feature of F-35. So does that mean all 4.5 gens are now obsolete?
And you accuse me of putting Pakistan on a pedestal.
Of course, it's extremely rational to have started off with better cards in deck (they used to have less poverty, more per capita income than us), be on very good terms with both US & China, and still f@ck everything up. Turning your population into rabid Islamists due to an insatiable, irrational hatred of India & Hindus.
A logical person would recognize the fact that the powers that be assumed that India would break up or collapse within a decade after independence, but we didn't and only kept getting stronger & more united. THAT is why Pakistan continues to exist despite constantly failing & bankrupting itself through irrational policies - cuz it's propped up as a check on India by the powers that be.
Pak wouldn't survive for a week if the US and China were no longer bankrolling it. If Pak was rational, a country their size with the resources they have wouldn't be the basket case it is.
Is that why they returned to NATO's integrated command after CdG got them out of it?
We didn't take out their deterrence, we just demonstrated an ability to take it out. But as I said, we should have seen it through by carrying out the kind of ops Israel & US did on Iran. That would have included not just a couple of demonstrative strikes but volleys of missiles that destroy entire structures. Kahuta would've been blown up as well.
But we didn't. As I said, we stopped too soon.
So now what happened is that the Paks were appraised of their weaknesses, without actually paying the price for them. So they'll just come up with better ways to protect their arsenal, or spread it out even more. There's already inputs that said even before all this happened, they were in the process of obtaining new-generation ballistic missile tech from China and/or North Korea which would bring their currently obsolete delivery systems to a par with India's. They're also actively trying to obtain an SSB for a somewhat-survivable deterrent.
All these efforts will be sped up. J-35 induction is also being sped up. Along with a new AEW. Their defence budget got a huge bump for a reason.
I suppose you know this cuz you tapped Xi's phone?
Protect their own coasts where? They only have 5 boats, not all of which will be available for tasking at the same time, likely only 2-3 will be, depending on the time of year - one of which has to accompany the CdG carrier group wherever it goes.
How many territories will the remaining 1-2 boats defend? First there's the European theatre - the Atlantic, the Med, the GIUK gap & the North Sea where you have to constantly keep tabs on Russian boats.
Then there's French Guiana which houses strategic assets like Kourou launch pad.
Then there's Reunion/TAAF in the IOR and several islands throughout the Pacific, spread across thousands of kms.
The Aussies have determined that they need 8 SSNs just so they can have at least 4-5 in hand at any given time to take care of their coasts & project power into IOR/SCS countering China - and that's when operating in concert with RN & USN.
So please explain to a stupid person like me as to how France plans to fight Russia & China alone, independent of NATO, with just 2-3 SSNs in hand at any given time.
China can operate freely anywhere - as long as it's peacetime. If there's war over Taiwan, PLAN is lucky if it gets to operate outside the First Island Chain, never mind the South Pacific.
However, if there's a war against India, it's completely up to us to restrict the PLAN. If the chokepoint at Malacca fails to hold, then it's open season on the IOR.
Explain why & how.
Already did. Now you explain why you think XG is much better than Virupaksha, and from where does it get the electric power to carry out it's supposedly much more powerful functions.
Are you seriously taking this as a template for the F5 in 2025?
It's an official graphic, so yeah.
If you have a source that says F5 will be having the conformal tile radars after all, then please show it.
Not enough, obviously.
Otherwise a massive increase in active radar's FoV would've been a central point of the F5's marketing which has already begun at the Paris air show.
No, the point is there's a time & place for beast mode. And it does not coincede with the time & place for stealth mode.
All the same, you'd want your platforms to be compatible with all your weapons for contingencies. What happens if you have a radar to take out & only F-35 is available for tasking? A beast mode mission is preferable to compromising your posture by not flying a mission at all.
French would've done the same if they were actually prepping to fight China by 2027 like the US is. Then, you'd understand the value of one in the hand as opposed to two in the bush.
Already said you can even use dumb bombs for the role...as long as the enemy's IADS is pathetic or atleast has been brought down to that level by other weapons.
Based on video evidence, it's obvious that at least one Rafale was lost.
But when CDS talked of losses, he did not specify type. So unless stated otherwise, what he said applies to all losses.
Ergo, it applies to Rafale as much as it does to any other potential loss that we suffered.
IAF didn't, but the CDS who's obviously privy to the information, did concede that there were losses, and that the cause of those losses was rectified by modifying our tactics.
All of my assertions are logical conclusions drawn from those statements - overlaid on top of what we have already established through video & pictographic evidence.
So again I ask you to explain - what are your assertions based on? Random forum posts & tweets, some of which might well be part of our IW?
Yep - and I stand by that. Our operations would've been way more effective if we had Rudrams in hand.
That's why there are high-speed anti radar solutions like HARM, AARGM, Kh-31P, Rudram, LD-10, CM-102 or even Rafale's own upcoming RJ-10.
Why do you think newer ARMs are being fitted with active seekers on top of the passive homing capability?
EA-18G Growler Killed A Houthi Mi-24 Hind With An AGM-88E Anti-Radiation Missile
The Navy has confirmed our suspicions that an EA-18G Growler used an AGM-88E Advanced Anti-Radiation Guided Missile to destroy an Mi-24 Hind.
www.twz.com
The Stormbreaker/SDB-II which is roughly equivalent to the AASF SmartGlider/Cruiser already has an active seeker. The AASF may well have it as well though we don't have info on that yet.
So you're plan of action is to leave all enemy AD alone & intact cuz they're surrounded by AA guns designed to shoot down your missiles?
Are you being serious right now?There's a reason they call it SEAD/DEAD, genius. Before DEAD, you need to do SEAD.
Thanks to their powerful externally-juiced pods, those with Growlers or Typhoon EKs would do this very effectively by jamming the X-band FCRs guiding the AA guns, forcing them to use less effective optical means to engage. Rafale can attempt to do the same with its internally-powered suite, but it won't be anywhere as effective.
Given that handicap of the Rafale, of course you think AA is to be left alone
That was literally what I said in my very first post:
Dassault Rafale - Updates and Discussion
no. In Lybia it faced SAM attack already. From memory it was an obsolete SAM, However we are talking A2A missiles aren't we.
www.strategicfront.org
If Rafale ends up with Rudram, that means my assertion was correct. However, the issue I have is that this is not yet a given. Despite all the ISEs, it took us till the Navy's deal this year to get them to agree for integration of Astra.
No telling when they'll come around for Rudram. Unfortunately, we have to go to them each time we need to integrate something new. And they can say no/delay at any time due to any reason. We have no recourse - unless we get the source codes.
Unfortunately, you think this situation is a-ok.
You mean like how you brought up HBJ frequencies and then dismissed it?
It's obvious that nuance is too much for you to comprehend. No need to hurt your poor little brain any further. You'll never get it.
Already did:
"...Typhoon is getting an HBJ, MBJ (& maybe LBJ) upgrade by way of externally-powered Arexis pods, as internally-powered Praetorian isn't good enough. Rafale is getting an LBJ as well by way of a pod. But so far, there's no externally-powered HBJ/MBJ on the horizon. This is the problem.
Of these, the HBJ is the most critical for survivability as this is what ultimately saves you from the last part of the enemy's kill chain i.e. AAM or SAM seekers."
Dassault Rafale - Updates and Discussion
www.strategicfront.org
I explained it once again in greater detail, though this time around I admittedly made a mistake - I wrote Low Band where I'm supposed to write High-Band even though I was clearly talking about FCRs & Seekers (probably got confused as I was thinking of short wavelengths and low is synonymous with short, should've been thinking about frequencies instead), my apologies if that caused confusion.
Anyway the first paragraph illustrates the capability gap by itself:
"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 (High-Band) jamming will be reliant on a much less powerful & very likely insufficient solution. Low-Band (High-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."
Dassault Rafale - Updates and Discussion
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...
www.strategicfront.org
Of course. So please demonstrate your knowledge to show me how I'm wrong. Show me how the capability gap between Typhoon EK and Rafale's SEAD configuration doesn't exist.
If you're not gonna do that, there's no point in taking this conversation further.
Nope. Already mentioned in post to Screambowl.
The F-35's new radar, not much is known about it yet, it could come very close to AWACS performance, but it's limited by its very small FoV.
And:
Post 493:
I actually spoke about a radar-equipped drone replacing AWACS.
Right now, the USN is working on their own version of NGAD which the E-2D is unlikely to be able to support as an AEW, so even the NGAD will need a radar-equipped drone.
Another point I made:
The current antenna hardware is only suitable against a small number of targets compared to AWACS that can track dozens using high-priority modes.
And I provided the example of the Korean fighter radar that can track 1000 targets in low-priority mode. That's essentially the difference between a fighter radar and a BMD radar. For example, the current F-22 and F-35 radars can only track up to 100 targets in low priority and just 8-12 in high priority. Rafale's PESA could only manage 48 and 8 in high priority. The Korean radar could easily manage 20-40, similar to AWACS.
Funny how my views have been consistent across 3 years whereas you can't make sense of your own posts even from two days ago.
In terms of functionality, fighter radars can come very close to replacing AWACS, but the main drawback is FoV. The F-35's FoV is 120 deg. Rafale's is 150 deg. But both need the support of an external early warning radar that's either carried by drones, for survivability, and now new information tells us radar satellites will do the same.
And Scream argued about the capability being present today, which is not the case with any fighter jet operational today. Hence the example of the upcoming Korean radar.
The difference between you and me is I actually think.
The Korean radar's figures are nonsense. They're speaking theoretically (1 TRM = 1 target tracked), that's not applicable in the real world over any meaningful range with a fighter radar.
I had already pointed out all those drawbacks which prevent a fighter radar from doing an AEW role:
"Fighters cannot replace AEW.
Their radar wavelengths are too short, field of view of said radars is too limited, no space for Operator Work Stations to disseminate data collected by radar and conduct C&C with minimal delay, cannot track multitudes of targets in theatre (Rafale can track 40, Hawkeye tracks 2,000) without which a situation picture beyond the surface ships' horizon cannot be developed."
INS Vikrant (IAC1) & INS Vikramaditya - News & Discussions
We are cutting down P8I, Ka31 purchase due to CAPEX strains, we have 0 Minesweepers, Submarine arm is growing ancient, Helicopters is a mess, not enough funds to buy even MALE surveillance platforms and among all this an aircraft carrier. Do we realise that the 26 Fighter Jet procurement will...
www.strategicfront.org
To which your answer was:
"Everything you mentioned isn't such a big problem."
INS Vikrant (IAC1) & INS Vikramaditya - News & Discussions
We are cutting down P8I, Ka31 purchase due to CAPEX strains, we have 0 Minesweepers, Submarine arm is growing ancient, Helicopters is a mess, not enough funds to buy even MALE surveillance platforms and among all this an aircraft carrier. Do we realise that the 26 Fighter Jet procurement will...
www.strategicfront.org
But now you're arguing that it is a big problem. So you need to make up your mind.
====
And I never said that drones couldn't do the role eventually, rather that even if done by a drone, the AEW role would remain distinct from what a fighter does. A fighter would manage the situational awareness and C&C requirements of it's own strike package/drone wingmen. But this is not the same as managing a situation picture of the whole battlespace, and it never will be.
In fact the doctrine of even current stealth fighters prevents them from using active radar extensively for surveillance/tracking while penetrating, but rather to limit their operation to LPI methods (pings & bursts) so as to maintain all-aspect stealth - unless they're being used to jam specific, emergent threats. That's why F-35 is fitted with advanced 360-degree passive sensors like EODAS which are capable of even cueing missiles. A lot of the things you traditionally needed a radar to do, you can actually do passively now.
Needless to say, future 6G fighters will take this a step further. Once CCAs become commonplace, even current 5G birds will get to reduce their own active emissions even further.
Unlike a manned fighter, a CCA can actually be asked to carry out the risky business of going active radar behind enemy lines - as long as it helps the other aircraft in the package to passively take advantage of the data it's collecting & sending.
Last edited:
What I've asked you is nothing very complex. The difficulty of the question is the same as, if we are talking about cricket, asking you what is a bat or what is a ball or who is that guy on the brown patch with a hat and so on. That's how simple this question is. I'm literally asking you what are the colors in a rainbow, but for the microwave spectrum.
And good, you admit that you have no clue about this subject. Without this basic understanding, you have no clue what these EW pods do.
YES!!!
That's the point.
Against the F-35, without a competing network, all other jets are obsolete.
Rafale and F-35 can use the same level of weapons and support and go through IADS. But all other 4/4.5th gen jets cannot do it from stand-in ranges. That's the difference. That's the point of this whole exercise.
Standard 4th gen with weapons has RCS well above 1m2, but Rafale is in the 0.001m2 class and F-35's in 0.0001m2 class. The RCS difference between standard 4th gen and F-35 is 10000 times, but the difference between Rafale and F-35 is just 10 times, essentially the same as what we have between the F-15 and F-16 or the one between F-16 and Typhoon, each one 10 times smaller than the next. While the Rafale's RCS is greater, operationally the difference is not much, especially 'cause the Rafale is not as vulnerable to multistatic radars and the sensor network like the F-35 is. Plus the Rafale's RCS can be further improved with new hw/sw over time. And both jets can use EA to compensate for any stealth shortfall. That's why only these two jets can penetrate IADS.
That's why the IAF prefers Rafale over the F-35 and Su-57, and they are publicly saying that, unless you want to claim they are liars.
Give alternative 4th gen jets the same weapons and support as the Rafale and F-35 and they will still get shot down regardless due to the lack of stealth.
What's there to demonstrate? If you don't know what bat is or what ball is, how do I explain the rules of cricket?
The best part is I've already explained everything, you just don't know it. The fact that you can't understand that is funny.
All the questions I asked you, I have already answered in posts in previous pages.
Their radar wavelengths are too short, field of view of said radars is too limited, no space for Operator Work Stations to disseminate data collected by radar and conduct C&C with minimal delay, cannot track multitudes of targets in theatre (Rafale can track 40, Hawkeye tracks 2,000) without which a situation picture beyond the surface ships' horizon cannot be developed."
INS Vikrant (IAC1) & INS Vikramaditya - News & Discussions
We are cutting down P8I, Ka31 purchase due to CAPEX strains, we have 0 Minesweepers, Submarine arm is growing ancient, Helicopters is a mess, not enough funds to buy even MALE surveillance platforms and among all this an aircraft carrier. Do we realise that the 26 Fighter Jet procurement will...
To which your answer was:
"Everything you mentioned isn't such a big problem."
INS Vikrant (IAC1) & INS Vikramaditya - News & Discussions
We are cutting down P8I, Ka31 purchase due to CAPEX strains, we have 0 Minesweepers, Submarine arm is growing ancient, Helicopters is a mess, not enough funds to buy even MALE surveillance platforms and among all this an aircraft carrier. Do we realise that the 26 Fighter Jet procurement will...
But now you're arguing that it is a big problem. So you need to make up your mind.
Short wave doesn't matter. The Americans use X band for BMD. THAAD exclusively uses X band. It's about antenna design and processing, like the Korean radar, or the upcoming new gen radars, that can track thousands of targets. Nothing to do with your nonsense about 1 TRM per target, which doesn't even make sense to anyone with basic common sense about this subject. Hawkeye has an estimated 1000+ TRMs and can track more than 3000 targets. It has very little to do with the number of TRMs.
FoV is compensated by radar drones and radar satellites or by the fighter's 360 deg arrays (depending on design).
Operator workstations are handled by the network. Earliest networks could only handle a few kbps of data and that's improved to a few hundred Mbps, so a crew was necessary then. New tech allows up/downlinks of 1-10, even 100 Gbps, removing the need to carry airborne crews.
So none of these are reasons enough, highlighting your own proven cluelessness about this subject.
You excessively overcomplicate life with your own ignorance.
The purpose of the drone is purely about being a complement in terms of sensors, like an AWACS is. AWACS cannot replace a fighter, but a fighter can replace AWACS, as long as it's been designed for it.
Is the Rafale F5 then? Maybe, maybe not. Depends on the 360 deg arrays. Will purpose designed 6th gen jets replace AWACS? Yes. The B-21 and NGAD should be able to alongside the Mig-41. Maybe Chinese 6th gen fighters too. FGFA was headed in that direction, designed for independent operations like the NGAD/B-21.
Will AMCA replace AWACS? Same as Rafale F5, no clue. Depends on the size of the arrays.
The F-35 has not been designed for it, which answers Lolwa's question.
What today's fighter does do is fly closer and provide better information than AWACS can from a distance. The F-35 can do that, as can any other jet with a sufficiently capable AESA radar.
You're no fun. Fine I'll indulge you again.
A) Low Band - 100 MHz to 2 GHz
B) Mid Band - 2 to 6 GHz
C) High Band - 6 to 18 GHz
Grolwer has podded jammers for all three. Typhoon has podded solution for C (and possibly B) & offboard solution for A. Rafale now is confirmed to be getting a podded solution for A (and possibly B) but no C. It just has the internal SPJ to rely on for C - which Typhoon also has in the form of Praetorian's active emitters, but that was deemed insufficient for future threats. Considering Praetorian is a broad equivalent of SPECTRA, it implies that SPECTRA's emitters are also insufficient.
We can easily mitigate this by going for a podded solution, if only the French allow it. Even if ESJ pod doesn't come, A & even B can be handled by offboard platforms (other fighters/EW jets) if needed. But C is absolutely necessary for the fighter's own self-defence as it deals with the last leg of the enemy's kill-chain.
This is all the more important for a non-VLO fighter like Rafale (or Typhoon).
My, what made you come around?
Ah, and there it is. We're back to ACT.
FYI, the Typhoon has your magical ACT too. They call it digital stealth.
Eurofighter Typhoon: Digital Stealth | Eurofighter Typhoon
www.eurofighter.com
For some reason, none of the Typhoon operators seem to think they need not buy F-35 now that they have ACT. Germany, UK, Italy, Spain everyone wants F-35.
Not only Typhoon operators but also Rafale operators like Greece are buyin F-35:
Greece signs deal to buy 20 US-made F-35 jets in major military overhaul
Officials in Greece say they have formally approved the purchase of 20 F-35 Joint Strike Fighters from the United States as part of a major defense overhaul.
apnews.com
So no, nobody seriously believes Rafale is a substitute/equivalent for a real stealth jet.
Random RCS figures without context are meaningless.
The French military themselves do not consider the Rafale as stealthy:
'Bit of a dream right now...', French air wing commander on reports of Chinese 6th generation aircraft
Goa: Speaking over the reports of Chinese 6th Generation fighter plane, French air wing commander Guillaume Denis of French Navy’s Charles de Gaulle said its only on papers and is a bit of a dream right now. He said, “6th (generation aircraft) is a bit of a dream right now but when it comes to...
So you want to say they don't know about the capabilities of their own plane? Ok, you can continue to believe that if you will. I won't stop you.
It does cuz most LO/VLO jets are specifically designed to defeat X-band. You can either inefficiently keep pumping more & more power to obtain greater detection/tracking ranges against stealthy fighters by sticking with X-band which is a game of diminishing returns, or you can be smart about it and rely on longer wavelengths to provide you the pointers about where to look.
In fact I won't be surprised if that's part of the reason why they're now talking about substituting E-7 (L-band) with E-2 (UHF-band) for USAF's future AEW. It could be a way to give themselves a better shot at detecting China's next-gen fighters from longer ranges.
TPY-2 is a fire control radar, so yeah. That's not a good comparison though, as that ground system has virtually no space or power constraints.
That doesn't work for airborne. Plus TBMs aren't exactly stealthy.
Hawkeye doesn't maintain fire control grade tracks. It does not function in the same way how a fighter FCR does. It revisits targets periodically.
TRM count is important. Theoretically you can simultaneously maintain as many fire control-grade tracks as you have TRMs. But over any meaninful range in the real world, a single TRM is never enough. You need clusters of TRMs to function together in order to perform a job. A smaller cluster to maintain a continuous track, a larger cluster to generate a fire control solution.
Forget the Korean radar. It's most likely a mistranslation or some scientist bragging about theoretical capabilities that have no real-world applicability. There's no 1000-target tracking FCR going on KF-21, lol. Even NGAD won't have something like that.
Hmm, so you think blasting radar at full power in 360 degrees & throwing omnidirectional datalink transmissions around is the way to penetrate an advanced IADS.
Good luck with that.
An AEW radar is for surveillance above everything else - throwing light on the dark, revealing information about the enemy's positions. That means you have to fire radar anywhere & everywhere cuz you don't know where the enemy might be.
That is antithetical to the concept of LPI emissions. Why was LPI made? To keep the transmitting aircraft safe from being compromised.
It's fine to ask a CCA/other drone to compromise itself by acting as an AEW in the interest of helping the strike package which includes manned fighters. A fighter wouldn't & doesn't need to do that.
That is a continuous process as new technology develops. The chips gets small the radars and sensor become more powerful and adaptable to AI.
Let's stay instead of F35 and F22 if Rafales were deployed in Midnight Hammer along with B2, would they have done the job without getting detected? The issue is Chinese have better AD with higher number of rings and they will be tracking the Rafales on ground and also in air because they are your neighbor. The quantity of radars and spectrum tracking the aerial vehicles are higher than what IAF has encountered in Pakistan.
It is more about saturating the Radar with multiple targets creating thermal effects on radar and onboard computers, creating diversion and overload. This is very complex, even when the cooling is on it can degrade radars performance. It is to some point practical for China, may not be economical but it is doable.
Pakistan fired 4-5 on single Rafale, China can fire atleast three times more. And why just SAM , they will also employ BVR AAM.
Good job going through my previous posts. It's not a hard and fast rule, but it works for the discussion. Now reduce those into IEEE designations and apply that to Typhoon EK's pods. It's public knowledge. You can source it easily.
You said Typhoon's escort pods will be HBJ. Why don't you find out if that's true? You can source this easily too, but this requires you figuring out band designations. Time for more research.
PS: I've posted this as well.
FYI, the Typhoon has your magical ACT too. They call it digital stealth.
Eurofighter Typhoon: Digital Stealth | Eurofighter Typhoon
For some reason, none of the Typhoon operators seem to think they need not buy F-35 now that they have ACT. Germany, UK, Italy, Spain everyone wants F-35.
Not only Typhoon operators but also Rafale operators like Greece are buyin F-35:
Greece signs deal to buy 20 US-made F-35 jets in major military overhaul
Officials in Greece say they have formally approved the purchase of 20 F-35 Joint Strike Fighters from the United States as part of a major defense overhaul.
So no, nobody seriously believes Rafale is a substitute/equivalent for a real stealth jet.
Typhoon isn't a strike-optimised jet. Plus, even if it has ACT, it will be restricted to certain payloads for certain operations. It takes years to unlock all capabilities. And during this time, they need a dedicated replacement for the Tornado that can carry nukes.
For example, AMCA may have ACT, but only when empty. Reconfiguring ACT for various payloads is going to be a 10-15 year effort. Similarly, TEDBF may need ACT for certain payloads too, like 4-6 AAMs plus tanks. And perhaps one type of stand-in smart munition. And then fixing that will take years.
Rafale's reached the point it has over 2 decades.
Plus the Americans have decided they are not gonna waste time tinkering with nukes on Typhoon so they are forcing the F-35 on all the nuke users.
Anyway you named all countries that do not like France's aerospace industry 'cause of Typhoon. They will never buy Rafale. Greece has already bought all the Rafales they want for the A2A role.
The Greek purchase contradicts your claims too. If the Rafale was so significantly inferior to the F-35, they wouldn't have bought it. But many countries are even buying the Typhoon to complement the F-35, which goes to show even the inferior capabilities of the Typhoon relative to Rafale are considered sufficient against the Su-57 and Mig-41. Now you can argue the Typhoon buyers are protecting their own industries. But Greece doesn't have to care about the French industry.
Random RCS figures without context are meaningless.
The French military themselves do not consider the Rafale as stealthy:
'Bit of a dream right now...', French air wing commander on reports of Chinese 6th generation aircraft
Goa: Speaking over the reports of Chinese 6th Generation fighter plane, French air wing commander Guillaume Denis of French Navy’s Charles de Gaulle said its only on papers and is a bit of a dream right now. He said, “6th (generation aircraft) is a bit of a dream right now but when it comes to...m.economictimes.com
So you want to say they don't know about the capabilities of their own plane? Ok, you can continue to believe that if you will. I won't stop you.
This is a subject you don't understand. The IAF doesn't consider the F-35 stealth either. How do you explain that?
That's called strawman fallacy. That was made for a different argument. AWACS, nothing to do with stealth.
And no, you need to be able to detect stealth using short wave or you won't kill it.
This is ignorance. TPY-2 works in 2 modes. One radar performs surveillance, the other provides fire control. Both are interchangeable.
It has space and power constraints due to the need for air transport. Plus it has no relevance to the point being made.
Not correct. It provides fire control too. It's one of its defining features in defeating AShMs.
Sure, but not in the context of the discussion. Another strawman fallacy. We are talking about the number of targets tracked, not what happens after the targets are tracked.
Don't worry. Rafale will.
AWACS already do that. Now fighters cannot? Why?
AWACS can work in LPI mode too. Tell me what LPI is. Technical explanation.
So you want to pack advanced radars on an apparently "expendable" CCA? Then what's the point of fighters carrying radars?