Air Engagement of Operation Sindoor : Analysis

[Parthu]

We can argue all day about the effectiveness of the weapons (on that note, it seems several SCALPs were successfully brought down by Pakistani AD - for something that costs nearly as much as a BrahMos, its survivability seems to be comparatively quite low) but the bigger question seems to be the shortcomings of Rafale's own self-defence suite.

I had been arguing for quite a long time that so-called ACT doesn't work in the real world as well as people think it does (especially in arguments with @randomradio) and it seems now that has been proven beyond doubt. Whether the hit was from a PL-15 or a SAM, it only means one thing - the SPJ failed to do its job.

We needed the Rafale primarily for the deep-penetration strike role - but if it's not survivable against even existing threats (never mind J-20 & J-35), then it can no longer do that role successfully.

It can only function as a platform for launching standoff missiles from inside Indian airspace or perform as an ADF - but if that's all it can do, there's no point in procuring such an expensive platform. The considerably cheaper MKI-UPG and Tejas Mk1A/Mk2 are far better options for those roles respectively - again, I'd been saying that for long.

I hope it is now abundantly clear to members that penetration requires real stealth - aka passive stealth.

The lessons that USAF learnt in the 70s & 80s, we are now learning the hard way. Hopefully, the Europeans can also glean some lessons from this, but like I said previously, it was a mistake on the part of Europe to not invest in a 5th gen development cycle. But then again, their threat matrix (at least as of pre-Trump) did not involve fighting Russia without the US by their side, so it's possible that they actually saved a lot of money by not investing in 5th gen, without really risking their security.

We however, have very different requirements.

 

[Optimist]

When the French themselves say that the Rafale needs SEAD/DEAD capability, looking at 2030.

As for the Rafale flying air defence, it seems it was lacking. All the fanboy nonsense won't change this fact about the omnirole, spectra, active stealth and many other stuff.

 

[randomradio]

We can argue all day about the effectiveness of the weapons (on that note, it seems several SCALPs were successfully brought down by Pakistani AD - for something that costs nearly as much as a BrahMos, its survivability seems to be comparatively quite low) but the bigger question seems to be the shortcomings of Rafale's own self-defence suite.

I had been arguing for quite a long time that so-called ACT doesn't work in the real world as well as people think it does (especially in arguments with @randomradio) and it seems now that has been proven beyond doubt. Whether the hit was from a PL-15 or a SAM, it only means one thing - the SPJ failed to do its job.

We needed the Rafale primarily for the deep-penetration strike role - but if it's not survivable against even existing threats (never mind J-20 & J-35), then it can no longer do that role successfully.

It can only function as a platform for launching standoff missiles from inside Indian airspace or perform as an ADF - but if that's all it can do, there's no point in procuring such an expensive platform. The considerably cheaper MKI-UPG and Tejas Mk1A/Mk2 are far better options for those roles respectively - again, I'd been saying that for long.

I hope it is now abundantly clear to members that penetration requires real stealth - aka passive stealth.

The lessons that USAF learnt in the 70s & 80s, we are now learning the hard way. Hopefully, the Europeans can also glean some lessons from this, but like I said previously, it was a mistake on the part of Europe to not invest in a 5th gen development cycle. But then again, their threat matrix (at least as of pre-Trump) did not involve fighting Russia without the US by their side, so it's possible that they actually saved a lot of money by not investing in 5th gen, without really risking their security.

We however, have very different requirements.

Aren't you jumping to conclusions way too quickly?

The distance from the crash site to the border is 75 km. No AAM can kill at that range against a receding target. If we consider the M88 crash site to be true, then the incident happened at a low enough altitude to prevent disintegration, which means no time for the aircraft to glide either. So it either means the PAF gave chase by crossing the border, which the IAF denies ever happened, or the Rafale simply crashed due to a malfunction or pilot error. And we can assume the real range between the closest PAF jet and the Rafale was 100+ km, assuming BARCAP at a minimum of 30 km from their own borders.

Even modern missiles today struggle to make a kill at that range against head-on targets, never mind one that's receding.

And this is coming after PAF reported 3 Rafales were "chased away," while the IAF reported they operated 30-40 minutes over Skardu without detection.

Maybe a Rafale was shot down, but it's only a single incident and is unlikely to be the norm without generating a high kill ratio first. No one's expecting a 10:0, but maybe 10:1 or even 5:1, and the 1 indicates the Rafale will get shot down. The USAF claims the B-2 won't be survivable over China too, so even passive stealth has its limits. USAF exercises also did not see F-35s surviving all engagements, so the F-35 was killed too, and with simulated weapons and radars inferior to the missiles and radars on J-10Cs. We quite literally went up against peak Chinese 4.5th gen capabilities using older hardware on the Rafale.

You need to take a lot of things into account before jumping to a conclusion. The IAF will decide this debate.

 

[Rajput Lion]

We can argue all day about the effectiveness of the weapons (on that note, it seems several SCALPs were successfully brought down by Pakistani AD - for something that costs nearly as much as a BrahMos, its survivability seems to be comparatively quite low) but the bigger question seems to be the shortcomings of Rafale's own self-defence suite.

I had been arguing for quite a long time that so-called ACT doesn't work in the real world as well as people think it does (especially in arguments with @randomradio) and it seems now that has been proven beyond doubt. Whether the hit was from a PL-15 or a SAM, it only means one thing - the SPJ failed to do its job.

We needed the Rafale primarily for the deep-penetration strike role - but if it's not survivable against even existing threats (never mind J-20 & J-35), then it can no longer do that role successfully.

It can only function as a platform for launching standoff missiles from inside Indian airspace or perform as an ADF - but if that's all it can do, there's no point in procuring such an expensive platform. The considerably cheaper MKI-UPG and Tejas Mk1A/Mk2 are far better options for those roles respectively - again, I'd been saying that for long.

I hope it is now abundantly clear to members that penetration requires real stealth - aka passive stealth.

The lessons that USAF learnt in the 70s & 80s, we are now learning the hard way. Hopefully, the Europeans can also glean some lessons from this, but like I said previously, it was a mistake on the part of Europe to not invest in a 5th gen development cycle. But then again, their threat matrix (at least as of pre-Trump) did not involve fighting Russia without the US by their side, so it's possible that they actually saved a lot of money by not investing in 5th gen, without really risking their security.

We however, have very different requirements.

As per what has been revealed through OSINT and other informed people, Rafale remaimed 20+ minutes inside Pak airspace and pounded the targets. That no Rafale was shot down in penetrating mission, is very clear.

Even if we lost one Rafale near Bhatinda, it's still speculative along with the cause. So we can't write off Rafale just because of one foggy incident, IMO.

 

[Parthu]

Aren't you jumping to conclusions way too quickly?

The distance from the crash site to the border is 75 km. No AAM can kill at that range against a receding target. If we consider the M88 crash site to be true, then the incident happened at a low enough altitude to prevent disintegration, which means no time for the aircraft to glide either. So it either means the PAF gave chase by crossing the border, which the IAF denies ever happened, or the Rafale simply crashed due to a malfunction or pilot error. And we can assume the real range between the closest PAF jet and the Rafale was 100+ km, assuming BARCAP at a minimum of 30 km from their own borders.

Of course this is all with the assumption that the loss was a shootdown & not mechanical/pilot error. If the IAF says it is, then this argument is over. But they're taking too long to put out an official line (not just regarding our losses, but also the PAF ones we may have brought down - pictures of a Mirage-III/V engine in a wreckage in J&K are already out).

We don't know if the Rafale was egressing or not - my reading was that it let go of standoff ordnance from inside Indian airspace & continued to remain on station, possibly pivoting to a ADF role once the SCALPs were launched.

Even modern missiles today struggle to make a kill at that range against head-on targets, never mind one that's receding.

I'm pretty sure that dual-pulsed missiles with GaN AESA seekers have much better chances of success than traditional BVRAAMs at longer ranges.

PAF had been preparing for this for a long time. The J-10C+PL15 package was expressly procured for this very reason. They must have spammed enough missiles to ensure at least a hit or two.

while the IAF reported they operated 30-40 minutes over Skardu without detection.

When did this happen? Did IAF say that in the press briefing?

Maybe a Rafale was shot down, but it's only a single incident and is unlikely to be the norm without generating a high kill ratio first. No one's expecting a 10:0, but maybe 10:1 or even 5:1, and the 1 indicates the Rafale will get shot down. The USAF claims the B-2 won't be survivable over China too, so even passive stealth has its limits. USAF exercises also did not see F-35s surviving all engagements, so the F-35 was killed too, and with simulated weapons and radars inferior to the missiles and radars on J-10Cs. We quite literally went up against peak Chinese 4.5th gen capabilities using older hardware on the Rafale.

You need to take a lot of things into account before jumping to a conclusion. The IAF will decide this debate.

Of course, this is just my 2 cents - given what we know so far & based on Vstol's inputs regarding what IAF is thinking. New information will make me change my views.

As per what has been revealed through OSINT and other informed people, Rafale remaimed 20+ minutes inside Pak airspace and pounded the targets.

There's too much IW going go. Don't believe anything that IAF didn't say clearly. I'm yet to watch the latest briefing so let me know if they actually said that.

 

[Optimist]

Even if we lost one Rafale near Bhatinda, it's still speculative along with the cause. So we can't write off Rafale just because of one foggy incident, IMO.

I don't think anyone is writing it off. It needs SEAD/DEAD, the new radar and missiles. The development of the Rafale has always been underfunded.

AFAIK, Pakistan didn't have any A2A losses.

 

[Lolwa]

I don't think anyone is writing it off. It needs SEAD/DEAD, the new radar and missiles. The development of the Rafale has always been underfunded.

AFAIK, Pakistan didn't have any A2A losses.

Because there was no bvr fight. It was a one sided bvr spam. The RoE was clear to not attack any military assets.

 

[randomradio]

Of course this is all with the assumption that the loss was a shootdown & not mechanical/pilot error. If the IAF says it is, then this argument is over. But they're taking too long to put out an official line (not just regarding our losses, but also the PAF ones we may have brought down - pictures of a Mirage-III/V engine in a wreckage in J&K are already out).

We don't know if the Rafale was egressing or not - my reading was that it let go of standoff ordnance from inside Indian airspace & continued to remain on station, possibly pivoting to a ADF role once the SCALPs were launched.

It's still too far away. And we would have seen more engagements at such ranges then. Our BARCAP would be very close to the border, ready to engage whatever J-10 was shooting at the Rafale. And it wouldn't be one or two.

I'm pretty sure that dual-pulsed missiles with GaN AESA seekers have much better chances of success than traditional BVRAAMs at longer ranges.

PAF had been preparing for this for a long time. The J-10C+PL15 package was expressly procured for this very reason. They must have spammed enough missiles to ensure at least a hit or two.

The GaN doesn't matter. It's about missile kinematics. The PL-15 doesn't have the range to kill something at that range. Especially if the Rafale was flying low, 'cause you run away at low altitude.

When did this happen? Did IAF say that in the press briefing?

Wasn't the IAF, the Pakistanis reported it.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1919771640226795966

Spent 30 minutes in Pak skies. Before this, PAF had reported that they chased away 3 Rafales. Or the Rafales left and they claimed credit for it.

 

[randomradio]

When the French themselves say that the Rafale needs SEAD/DEAD capability, looking at 2030.

As for the Rafale flying air defence, it seems it was lacking. All the fanboy nonsense won't change this fact about the omnirole, spectra, active stealth and many other stuff.

I thought I was on your ignore list.

Anyway, Rafale's SEAD capability is aimed for targets in depth that it cannot reach easily. Like at 600-1000 km range. Kinda like our anti-submarine BM.

 

[RedCannon]

There's no such thing. But yeah, the current operation wasn't significant enough to reveal Rafale's main capabilities.

Let's see what the IAF has to say about it. There's only a ceasefire, things could get hot again next week.

1. I think this time had no need to go inside Pakistan airbase on the 7th night strike. They were close to the border thus standoff weapons were good enough.
2. I don't think there was any dogfight on 7th. Our task was clear drop bombs and return. So what i think happened is when the aircraft were returning they go engaged by PAF fighters. You cannot fire meteor in that position.

 

[Parthu]

It's still too far away. And we would have seen more engagements at such ranges then. Our BARCAP would be very close to the border, ready to engage whatever J-10 was shooting at the Rafale. And it wouldn't be one or two.

We don't know how many were engaged, or what the circumstances were. Maybe the others managed to evade because they were eggresing (and this one wasn't), or because they were backed up by aircraft carrying ELL-8222s. We know that we had a large number of aircraft in the sky.

The Pakistanis claim to have shot 3 Rafales but we've only kinda seen the evidence for 1 so far.

I'll have to reserve further opinions on what the plane was doing until IAF says something about it.

The GaN doesn't matter. It's about missile kinematics. The PL-15 doesn't have the range to kill something at that range. Especially if the Rafale was flying low, 'cause you run away at low altitude.

Again, we don't know these factors. All that is for sure is that, compared to something like the AIM120C-5, the range at which PL-15 can have a good enough Ph/Pk will be much higher.

We also don't know the nature of the hit, the amount of damage it caused (highly variable) & what the pilot did afterwards. He may have been hit at a high altitude while doing CAP and then came lower trying to guide the plane onto an open area before bailing. We don't know the distance he covered before coming down.

Just saying, just because it came down somewhere close to Bathinda doesn't necessarily mean that's where the plane was when it was hit. It could have originally been much further west.

Take the example of the downed PAF Mirage, both IAF & PAF say no plane crossed the boundary and yet the wreckage is on our side...meaning it must've been shot over PoK but came down on our side, carried by the momentum from when it was still flying.

The AESA seeker matters because in the end, the failure to spoof it is what would have led to a successful hit.

Wasn't the IAF, the Pakistanis reported it.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1919771640226795966

Spent 30 minutes in Pak skies. Before this, PAF had reported that they chased away 3 Rafales. Or the Rafales left and they claimed credit for it.

Meh, seems to be just IW from our cyber boys.

I wouldn't be surprised if its true though. However, that doesn't really prove the Rafale's mettle in any way as they held the initiative at that point. Even the M2K successfully penetrated Pak airspace back in 2019, without even having any of the fancy stuff Rafale does.

Surviving when the enemy AD, AEW & CAP is already up in that airspace is a different matter though.

 

[randomradio]

Again, we don't know these factors. All that is for sure is that, compared to something like the AIM120C-5, the range at which PL-15 can have a good enough Ph/Pk will be much higher.

We also don't know the nature of the hit, the amount of damage it caused (highly variable) & what the pilot did afterwards. He may have been hit at a high altitude while doing CAP and then came lower trying to guide the plane onto an open area before bailing. We don't know the distance he covered before coming down.

Just saying, just because it came down somewhere close to Bathinda doesn't necessarily mean that's where the plane was when it was hit. It could have originally been much further west.

Take the example of the downed PAF Mirage, both IAF & PAF say no plane crossed the boundary and yet the wreckage is on our side...meaning it must've been shot over PoK but came down on our side, carried by the momentum from when it was still flying.

The AESA seeker matters because in the end, the failure to spoof it is what would have led to a successful hit.

Assuming PL-15 does 300 km head-on at 15 km altitude, and the Rafale was also at 15 km and the J-10 was at mach 1.5 or so, and the Rafale was flying without any maneuvering, then the kill range against a receding is 100 km, assuming all factors line up for the PL-15.

But with Rafale flying low, at high speeds and perhaps maneuvering and using countermeasures, even if the J-10 stayed the same as above, the kill range would be far less than 75 km.

So even after assuming the best numbers, it won't come up to that point.

Typically, against a non-maneuvering receding target, max engagement range is 20-30% of the max head-on range at co-altitude. That's 60-90 km.

The seeker matters only if the kinematics were sufficient.

Meh, seems to be just IW from our cyber boys.

I wouldn't be surprised if its true though. However, that doesn't really prove the Rafale's mettle in any way as they held the initiative at that point. Even the M2K successfully penetrated Pak airspace back in 2019, without even having any of the fancy stuff Rafale does.

Surviving when the enemy AD, AEW & CAP is already up in that airspace is a different matter though.

M2000 crossed into PoK by 15 km or so, Skardu is 100 km from Kargil, almost 80 km from LoC.

Plus the PAF also spoke about chasing away Rafales.

Anyway, the IAF will let us know in time.

 

[Ashwin]

Rafale remaimed 20+ minutes inside Pak airspace and pounded the targets.

This is pure BS by info warriors. Thats just impossible.

Both sides didn't cross the border.

 

[Parthu]

Assuming PL-15 does 300 km head-on at 15 km altitude, and the Rafale was also at 15 km and the J-10 was at mach 1.5 or so, and the Rafale was flying without any maneuvering, then the kill range against a receding is 100 km, assuming all factors line up for the PL-15.

But with Rafale flying low, at high speeds and perhaps maneuvering and using countermeasures, even if the J-10 stayed the same as above, the kill range would be far less than 75 km.

So even after assuming the best numbers, it won't come up to that point.

Typically, against a non-maneuvering receding target, max engagement range is 20-30% of the max head-on range at co-altitude. That's 60-90 km.

The seeker matters only if the kinematics were sufficient.

The Pakistani claim is that the Bathinda Rafale was 42 km from the border when hit.

The supposed crash site hasn't been geolocated yet, though the Pakistanis claim it was 35 km from Bathinda (hit location, not crash site). So it was much closer to IB than to Bathinda, it was just the nearest population centre so we're calling it Bathinda.

M2000 crossed into PoK by 15 km or so, Skardu is 100 km from Kargil, almost 80 km from LoC.

Plus the PAF also spoke about chasing away Rafales.

Anyway, the IAF will let us know in time.

We didn't hit any target at or around Skardu (or anywhere in Gilgit-Baltistan for that matter). No reason for Rafales to be there just to send a message - that's not believable.

That supposed communique is 99.99% fake. Just our IW.

There is no indication at all that any Rafale had penetrated Pak airspace at any point. We engaged all targets with standoff munitions. @Rajput Lion

Several of our aircraft would have approached close to LoC & IB in the days leading up to the strike in order to probe PAF's CAP response times. It was probably one of these flights that they supposedly 'chased away'.

 

[Rajput Lion]

This is pure BS by info warriors. Thats just impossible.

Both sides didn't cross the border.

The Pakistani claim is that the Bathinda Rafale was 42 km from the border when hit.

The supposed crash site hasn't been geolocated yet, though the Pakistanis claim it was 35 km from Bathinda (hit location, not crash site). So it was much closer to IB than to Bathinda, it was just the nearest population centre so we're calling it Bathinda.



We didn't hit any target at or around Skardu (or anywhere in Gilgit-Baltistan for that matter). No reason for Rafales to be there just to send a message - that's not believable.

That supposed communique is 99.99% fake. Just our IW.

There is no indication at all that any Rafale had penetrated Pak airspace at any point. We engaged all targets with standoff munitions. @Rajput Lion

Several of our aircraft would have approached close to LoC & IB in the days leading up to the strike in order to probe PAF's CAP response times. It was probably one of these flights that they supposedly 'chased away'.

I think you guys are correct. Maybe it was just IW from our side to put Rafale in good light as it's an acquisition very close to our PM's heart. More details will come out in due time for us to glaze at the full picture.

 

[Sathya]

Astra Mk2 is must in every aircraft hereafter,
To me this is the single most essential thing we need to ASAP.

 

[South block]

Astra Mk2 is must in every aircraft hereafter,
To me this is the single most essential thing we need to ASAP.

We need R-37, AIM-174B type desi solution fast... Astra MK2 should be a temporary stop gap & no I am not talking about Astra Mk3 either.

 

[randomradio]

The Pakistani claim is that the Bathinda Rafale was 42 km from the border when hit.

The supposed crash site hasn't been geolocated yet, though the Pakistanis claim it was 35 km from Bathinda (hit location, not crash site). So it was much closer to IB than to Bathinda, it was just the nearest population centre so we're calling it Bathinda.

The crash site is Akalia Kalan, just north of Bathinda. It's 75 km from the border.

No aircraft can get hit at one point at low altitude, lose at least one engine, and still remain flying. Rafale's not a stable aircraft, the minute it takes such severe damage, it's gonna plop down quickly.

They are trying to make the scenario realistic and fit the actual capabilities of the PL-15, ie, at range less than 60 km.

We didn't hit any target at or around Skardu (or anywhere in Gilgit-Baltistan for that matter). No reason for Rafales to be there just to send a message - that's not believable.

That supposed communique is 99.99% fake. Just our IW.

There is no indication at all that any Rafale had penetrated Pak airspace at any point. We engaged all targets with standoff munitions. @Rajput Lion

Several of our aircraft would have approached close to LoC & IB in the days leading up to the strike in order to probe PAF's CAP response times. It was probably one of these flights that they supposedly 'chased away'.

Sure, let's go with that for now.

But there are clues available.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1919978623156503031

 

[RationalGuy]

To be honest, even French have realized that relying solely on Hammer to perform DEAD may not be viable against threats like S-400/500. That's why now they're looking for new supersonic cruise missile with 1000kms range and other anti-radiation missiles.

@randomradio

If you remember our last discussion on this topic about MKI's SEAD/DEAD capability vs Rafale's. I told you then MKI will be better with NGARM and other PGMs/ABMs but you said that Rafale with Hammer is next-gen SEAD/DEAD capability. But in light of the revealations made by @vstol Jockey, looks like my analysis of MKI as a more effective SEAD/DEAD platform was correct. Rafale badly needs Indian weapons to remain effective against advance IADS, IMO.

Saar we need Rudram 2 and 3 let alone 1 which AFAIK we don't have in service and also we need way more elint satellites we only have 1!!!! SU 30 MKI will turn their already useless lumber 1 HQ9s into carbon if it has Rudram missiles and data from more ELINT sats.

 

[Innominate]

Because there was no bvr fight. It was a one sided bvr spam. The RoE was clear to not attack any military assets.

That's BS stop making excuses.

Are you telling me more than a week of India threatening Pakistan with strikes, causing Pakistan military to go on alert, that IAF said to themselves that even though we're going to hit Pakistan proper it won't be Pakistan military assets and won't be crossing their airspace therefor no need to worry about PAF fighters intercepting us? If IAF thought this way than IAF is run by incompetence!

IAF RoE of not attacking military assets is waaaay different from IAF fighters defending themselves from PAF fighters when IAF fighters RWR are screaming at them that they are being locked during a state of kinetic conflict. I'm pretty sure IAF could see PAF fighters nose hot heading towards their direction in hostile intent. Even during peace time (US policy) when a fighter from a nation that is not friendly starts pointing its nose hot at a US fighter and it doesn't stop after warnings its getting shot down. That's likely a universal policy for all big air forces