Air Engagement of Operation Sindoor : Analysis

[Optimist]

Correction

Is this just more propaganda from you? I bet you don't have a Dassault link, to the Rafale having a missile 2 way data link.
Or that it can use the Meteor 2 way link.

Are they going to use the Rafale as just a missile launcher and data link to an AEW&C or something

 

[Picdelamirand-oil]

I bet you don't have a Dassault link, to the Rafale having a missile 2 way data link

It's the specification of F4: F4.1 is already deployed and now, Meteor missile is a participant in the F4 network and like all participants it can receive and transmit.

 

[randomradio]

remember he just said it was "better" What does "better" mean? We have no idea. In these subjects, contrary to what RandomRadio would like to believe there is just only so much that can be achieved from non-secret sources. Every question that recieves an answer will only produce 5 more questions and all the "good answers" are very much state and national secrets.
Somewhere out there are people who understand all the different, real world aspects of these aircraft but none of them are for public consumption. yes it is true that if you go over enough public sources you can be more well informed; but they can also be misleading. the really important stuff will always be shielded

The F-35 has a lower RCS than the F-22. That's what you get out of it.

the F-35 can do that, and in fact I would say more "comfortable" because its not burdened with external stores. F-35 shoots down Air Superiority F-15 despite speed. still claim that speed is the difference. Wow!

The F-15EX's sensors aren't good enough.

Thank goodness he didn't say ships were passe!

But Growlers, definitely.

I've been hearing this for years...

So you prefer not to believe in facts then?

The IAF physically demonstrated 5000 sorties in 3 days with 500 aircraft in 2018.

Indian Air Force jets do 5,000 sorties in 72 hours on western front | India News - Times of India

India News: After the “surge” in air combat operations on the western front with Pakistan, which saw a staggering 5,000 sorties by fighters alone in just three da

timesofindia.indiatimes.com

That's about 1700 sorties a day for 500 jets. For about 2500 jets, that's easily 8500 sorties. And the IAF sortie rate demonstrated was significantly less than what they could actually do. If we assume they can do a modest 2500 sorties, then with 2500 jets, the Chinese can do 12500 sorties a day.

And yeah, you think a few Nimitz's that manage 250 can compete with 12500.

I don't think the type of F-15 matters to the F-35 and again the F-15EX has the superior sensors in comparison. I hope you see my point. we are saying the F-15C (by your list) is an "AS" but then the F-35 shoots it down because the F-35 is decades newer. so how is it AS if it loses to a fighter you insist can't do the AS mission? its confusing. the F-35 can't do air superiority, but it can kill air superiority fighters fairly easily...

sometimes I forget your expertise in all things american military and politics

The F-15EX has "significantly" inferior sensors. And inferior performance. It will die to the F-35.

The F-35's radar is at a much higher level, and is set to get a major upgrade. The F-15 lacks IR sensors compared to the numerous IR sensors on the F-35. The EX's EW suite is a self-protection suite, whereas the F-35 B4 is a proper EW aircraft. There's no comparison between the two.

Here: Post 6038. Read the second segment of the post.

Post in thread 'MMRCA 2.0 - Updates and Discussions'

May 9, 2025

Nah, that report is on the page about the F-15EX (pages 320-323), while the report about the specific capabilities of the EPAWSS is on pages 316-319).
Source

Against the levelof threat tested, the F-15EX isoperationally effective in all itsair superiority roles, includingdefensive and offensive counter-airagainst surrogate fifth-generationadversary aircraft, as well as basicair-to-ground capability against thetested threats. The F-15EX wasable to detect and track all threatsat advantageous ranges, useonboard and off-board systems toidentify them, and deliver...

• randomradio

• 

 

[Optimist]

It's the specification of F4: F4.1 is already deployed and now, Meteor missile is a participant in the F4 network and like all participants it can receive and transmit.

So just your speculation? Show me it's in the current specs. A simple google tells you the Rafale only has a oneway data link to the Meteor.

 

[banthelwa]

Last month, this forum was still discussing India's purchase of F35. Trump was India's friend, but now he has become India's enemy. What a ridiculous forum

Last month, this forum was still discussing India's purchase of F35. Trump was India's friend, but now he has become India's enemy. What a ridiculous forum.

If this forum is so “ridiculous,” why are you still hanging around sniffing every post like a CCP hall monitor?

Trump being transactional ≠ enemy. India evaluates options — F-35, Su-57, AMCA — because we have options. Unlike certain countries locked into flying recycled MiG-21 clones with slogans painted on the tail.

Now if our debates offend your delicate PLA senses, feel free to exit the thread — or the forum. We won’t miss the background noise.

 

[LX1111]

Yes, that was the aim of the DEDIRA PEA, to go from one to several simultaneous signals, and this PEA has been in operational deployment for a long time.

I don't think it's as good as you say. If the recording released by the Pakistani Ministry of Defense is true, then the Rafale fighter jet's RWR didn't even detect the approach of the PL15 and was shot down.
I don't know much about electromagnetics when talking about the active stealth you mentioned, so I may assume that
1. The Rafale fighter cannot interfere with different radiation sources in the same direction
2. The active stealth of the Rafale fighter has a reaction time delay
3. From the classic radar formula, it can be obtained that there is a difference between the radar wave reflected by the Rafale fighter and the radar wave received by the J-10 fighter, and the Rafale fighter's active stealth cannot bridge this difference, so it was discovered by the J-10 fighter.

 

[randomradio]

It's a pretty good article, you can feel an effort to be objective, but it's not an article written by a specialist: the successful firing of the Rafale is not just a Chinese success, it's shared with Sweden, which supplied the AWACS, without which there would have been no success. What's more, the Indian Spectra lacked data on the PL-15 - an unbridled version unknown even to the French. A library gap. These data are now most certainly recorded. It is also possible that the Rafales were deployed on strike missions without making optimum use of their low-altitude penetration profile. Failure to comply with the optimum use doctrine (nap-of-the-earth profile) probably due to overconfidence and poor coordination. In addition, the Indian pilots may have been surprised by the opposing system, which was far removed from the Red Flag scenarios. Lastly, France did not send an operational delegation to accompany the IAF, as some decision-makers were reluctant to do so. This may have affected the exploitation of the Rafale's specific capabilities.

We are dealing with an information hole. You say the Rafale failed to exploit its low altitude capabilities, while the Chinese say the Rafale was at 300 feet off the ground. The engine video without disturbed ground, if real, shows the jet was at very low altitude.

So now the question is whether the PL-15 managed a kill at about 100 km or did the Rafale crash.

RoEs too. No SEAD/DEAD, not allowed to fire back. If we assume the news about the IAF using 125 jets on the first day true, and dodging multiple missiles at that, even if no kills were registered, it's not unreasonable to expect jets to crash as they rapidly lose altitude while dodging missiles from within the PL-15's NEZ.

 

[Optimist]

The F-35 has a lower RCS than the F-22. That's what you get out of it.

Sorry, I stopped reading your post after this. In actual fact. They refer to a general term 'Stealth' which RCS is one factor, infrared is another.
They said the F-35 is more 'stealthy', without clarifying it.

The F-22 is better in the missile targeting X band. The F-35 in the lower search bands and likely has better infrared. Which I think they were referring to at the time.

 

[randomradio]

Note: Stealth+ for F-22 & Stealth++ for F-47 along with both being marked for Air Superiority mission against what these stupid F-35 fanboys are claiming. @randomradio

Yeah, they like to argue against facts. Both are victims of propaganda, just like those who shill for the A-10.

We need our own 5th gen ASF to counter Chinese 5th gen ASFs like J-20 and beyond. At the moment Indianized Su-57 looks like the best and the safest choice for IAF.

It's unlikely to make it in time. MKIzing process takes 6 years before the first jet is delivered. By the time we get it done, it will take 10 years, MKI took 12. That's AMCA territory.

And if we buy the generic export model with basic integration, like datalinks and CIT, we will end up with a standalone jet, and that's already inferior to IOC AMCA.

 

[banthelwa]

I don't think it's as good as you say. If the recording released by the Pakistani Ministry of Defense is true, then the Rafale fighter jet's RWR didn't even detect the approach of the PL15 and was shot down.
I don't know much about electromagnetics when talking about the active stealth you mentioned, so I may assume that
1. The Rafale fighter cannot interfere with different radiation sources in the same direction
2. The active stealth of the Rafale fighter has a reaction time delay
3. From the classic radar formula, it can be obtained that there is a difference between the radar wave reflected by the Rafale fighter and the radar wave received by the J-10 fighter, and the Rafale fighter's active stealth cannot bridge this difference, so it was discovered by the J-10 fighter.
View attachment 43292

Quoting radar formulas doesn’t make your argument smart — it just makes your cope sound academic.


If a Rafale was actually shot down by a PL-15, Pakistan wouldn’t be releasing grainy audio — they’d be parading wreckage 24/7 on PTV like it’s a national festival.


As for your “analysis”:

1. No confirmation of any Rafale loss exists — not from India, not from third-party trackers, not even from credible Pakistani OSINT.
2. Active cancellation ≠ magic cloak. It’s ECM + tactics + RWR + situational awareness. If you think a radar equation from a middle-school physics class disproves Rafale survivability, maybe stick to TikTok defense threads.
3. Rafale’s SPECTRA is built for multi-source jamming, not single-beam suppression. You’re confusing concepts you barely understand.

So unless you’ve got real flight logs, kill confirmation, or ELINT — stop posting YouTube-tier fantasies dressed up in math. This isn’t your local WeChat group.

Now let me get back to the cute radar equation :

Posting a screenshot of radar equations is cute like a ching chong noodle. But if you're using it to explain why Rafale was "detected" and "shot down" by a J-10, you've already misunderstood how real-world detection and survivability work.


Let me help:

1. Radar equations model received power, not detection certainty.
   At BVR ranges (60–100 km+), the RCS, jamming, angle of attack, and environmental clutter all significantly affect detectability. A low observable jet like Rafale has a front-aspect RCS in the range of 0.1–0.3 m², not your textbook sphere.
2. SPECTRA doesn’t rely on brute jamming.
   It uses DRFM-based deception, angular coverage, decoying, and emission control — plus automatic threat library updates. You're pretending it's some crude spotlight jammer from the Cold War.
3. Active cancellation isn’t perfect — and no system is.
   But to assume it "failed" based on a Pakistani MoD audio clip (unverified, unauthenticated, and conveniently without evidence) is like claiming the Chinese manned moon nission was fake because your uncle said so on Baidu.
4. RWRs detect emissions — not missiles.
   The PL-15 is active radar guided — the seeker doesn’t turn on until terminal phase. That means RWR may only get a brief spike, not an early warning. So no, this isn’t proof of "stealth failure" — it's just how modern missile engagement timelines work.

 

[randomradio]

Last month, this forum was still discussing India's purchase of F35. Trump was India's friend, but now he has become India's enemy. What a ridiculous forum.

What's with this one-dimensional thinking?

The F-35 has advocates and critics. The advocates cannot contend with Trump's antics, so the advantage is with the critics for now.

 

[randomradio]

Sorry, I stopped reading your post after this. In actual fact. They refer to a general term 'Stealth' which RCS is one factor, infrared is another.
They said the F-35 is more 'stealthy', without clarifying it.

The F-22 is better in the missile targeting X band. The F-35 in the lower search bands and likely has better infrared. Which I think they were referring to at the time.

The Houthis tracked the IR signature of the F-35 and fired using just the missile's seeker as the primary sensor. Congrats on your special IR stealth.

 

[randomradio]

SPECTRA doesn’t rely on brute jamming.
It uses DRFM-based deception, angular coverage, decoying, and emission control — plus automatic threat library updates. You're pretending it's some crude spotlight jammer from the Cold War.

To add to what you said, SPECTRA's active cancelation system does not use DRFM, it simply stores the radar signal and retransmits it back after eliminating the Rafale's signature, which it knows beforehand.

 

[LX1111]

uoting radar formulas doesn’t make your argument smart — it just makes your cope sound academic.


If a Rafale was actually shot down by a PL-15, Pakistan wouldn’t be releasing grainy audio — they’d be parading wreckage 24/7 on PTV like it’s a national festival.


As for your “analysis”:

1. No confirmation of any Rafale loss exists — not from India, not from third-party trackers, not even from credible Pakistani OSINT.
2. Active cancellation ≠ magic cloak. It’s ECM + tactics + RWR + situational awareness. If you think a radar equation from a middle-school physics class disproves Rafale survivability, maybe stick to TikTok defense threads.
3. Rafale’s SPECTRA is built for multi-source jamming, not single-beam suppression. You’re confusing concepts you barely understand.

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

Radar equations model received power, not detection certainty.
At BVR ranges (60–100 km+), the RCS, jamming, angle of attack, and environmental clutter all significantly affect detectability. A low observable jet like Rafale has a front-aspect RCS in the range of 0.1–0.3 m², not your textbook sphere.

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

 

[LX1111]

SPECTRA doesn’t rely on brute jamming.
It uses DRFM-based deception, angular coverage, decoying, and emission control — plus automatic threat library updates. You're pretending it's some crude spotlight jammer from the Cold War

RWRs detect emissions — not missiles.
The PL-15 is active radar guided — the seeker doesn’t turn on until terminal phase. That means RWR may only get a brief spike, not an early warning. So no, this isn’t proof of "stealth failure" — it's just how modern missile engagement timelines work

If the radar of PL-15 is turned on, then it has a distance of at least 30 to 40 kilometers. If the RWR is sensitive, the pilot can receive a warning. Of course, there is also a possibility that PL-15 does not turn on the active radar guidance head at all, but relies on the two-way data link to provide target guidance throughout the process.

 

[Picdelamirand-oil]

We are dealing with an information hole. You say the Rafale failed to exploit its low altitude capabilities, while the Chinese say the Rafale was at 300 feet off the ground. The engine video without disturbed ground, if real, shows the jet was at very low altitude.

So now the question is whether the PL-15 managed a kill at about 100 km or did the Rafale crash.

RoEs too. No SEAD/DEAD, not allowed to fire back. If we assume the news about the IAF using 125 jets on the first day true, and dodging multiple missiles at that, even if no kills were registered, it's not unreasonable to expect jets to crash as they rapidly lose altitude while dodging missiles from within the PL-15's NEZ.

The Rafale's automatic terrain following is safe without any problems at 200 feet above land or 100 feet above water, so at 300 feet there's really no problem - it's a setting you put on when you don't want to be too shaken up, to improve comfort.

 

[banthelwa]

If the radar of PL-15 is turned on, then it has a distance of at least 30 to 40 kilometers. If the RWR is sensitive, the pilot can receive a warning. Of course, there is also a possibility that PL-15 does not turn on the active radar guidance head at all, but relies on the two-way data link to provide target guidance throughout the process.

Let’s unpack your latest confusion:

---

1. Active Stealth ≠ Passive RCS​

You asked what my point about RCS had to do with “active stealth.” Let me explain slowly:

• Low RCS is passive stealth — shaping and material design to reduce returns.
• Active stealth, which you keep invoking but clearly don’t understand, refers to cancellation techniques like active cancellation or digital RF memory (DRFM) deception — i.e., emitting out-of-phase signals or mimicking false returns.

Rafale doesn’t use Hollywood-style “active stealth.” It uses active electronic warfare (SPECTRA) to manipulate the enemy’s detection picture — via jamming, decoying, false targets, or angular suppression. Which is exactly what I described.


You’re confusing active ECM with fantasy stealth emitters. That’s on you.

2. Your Point on Radar Equations Still Doesn’t Land​

Your whole “difference between two equations” argument boils down to this: you believe the radar wave that reflects off Rafale and is received by the J-10 is somehow proof that SPECTRA failed. That's laughable.


In real life:

• Rafale may never have been illuminated if it was flying low, using emission control, and masked by terrain clutter.
• Or, the PL-15 may have fired in LOAL mode, then activated radar in terminal phase — giving no early RWR warning, just as I already explained.
• And your formula doesn't model time delay, deceptive jamming, multi-source emission, or false range gate injection — all core parts of SPECTRA’s playbook.

Your textbook equation = detection in a vacuum.
Combat ECM = dirty, dynamic, multi-path chaos.


Try again.

3. Thanks for repeating my point on PL-15 and RWR​

You finally admitted that the PL-15 could be guided via data link and not radar emission until terminal phase. Yes, that’s exactly what I said. So why bring it up like it contradicts me?


Also:

“If the radar turns on, the pilot can get warning.”
Yes — if. But you have no proof that it ever happened, no kill confirmation, no crash site, nothing. Just a “recording” from a government that once claimed to shoot down an Su-30 but couldn’t show even a tail fin.

---

TL;DR:​

• You don’t understand the difference between passive stealth, active jamming, and fantasy “active stealth.”
• You’re misusing radar equations like a kid who found Wikipedia yesterday.
• You’re still relying on zero combat evidence — just theory + an old audio file — to claim Rafale was shot down.

Until you provide real ELINT or wreckage, this whole debate is just your insecure fantasy vs operational reality. Rafale flies. Your argument doesn’t, like those low grade tech you guys supplied to Pakistan.

 

[Rajput Lion]

Yeah, they like to argue against facts. Both are victims of propaganda, just like those who shill for the A-10.

They should admit that F-35 is a great strike jet and very good in air-to-air role, but they're hellbent to prove that it's even better than Raptor in ASF role which is downright asinine.

It's unlikely to make it in time. MKIzing process takes 6 years before the first jet is delivered. By the time we get it done, it will take 10 years, MKI took 12. That's AMCA territory.

And if we buy the generic export model with basic integration, like datalinks and CIT, we will end up with a standalone jet, and that's already inferior to IOC AMCA.

MKI deal was signed in 1996 and we got our first MKI in 2002. If we sign now, we can get first Su-57MKI in 2031. In the meantime, just like we went from Su-30K<Su-30MK<Su-30MKI from 1997-2002, we simply will go from Su-57E<Su-57M<Su-57MKI<Su-60MKI .

Su-57 is imperative now because of AMCA FOC in 2040 and F-35 being a no-go because of American shenanigance. The earlier IAF & GOI realize that, the better for us.

 

[Picdelamirand-oil]

I don't think it's as good as you say. If the recording released by the Pakistani Ministry of Defense is true, then the Rafale fighter jet's RWR didn't even detect the approach of the PL15 and was shot down.
I don't know much about electromagnetics when talking about the active stealth you mentioned, so I may assume that
1. The Rafale fighter cannot interfere with different radiation sources in the same direction
2. The active stealth of the Rafale fighter has a reaction time delay
3. From the classic radar formula, it can be obtained that there is a difference between the radar wave reflected by the Rafale fighter and the radar wave received by the J-10 fighter, and the Rafale fighter's active stealth cannot bridge this difference, so it was discovered by the J-10 fighter.
View attachment 43292

There are Chinese people who understand active cancellation much better than you do: there are Chinese academic works on this subject, you should read them.
For exemple: Security verification

 

[LX1111]

1. Active Stealth ≠ Passive RCS​

You asked what my point about RCS had to do with “active stealth.” Let me explain slowly:

• Low RCS is passive stealth — shaping and material design to reduce returns.
• Active stealth, which you keep invoking but clearly don’t understand, refers to cancellation techniques like active cancellation or digital RF memory (DRFM) deception — i.e., emitting out-of-phase signals or mimicking false returns.

Rafale doesn’t use Hollywood-style “active stealth.” It uses active electronic warfare (SPECTRA) to manipulate the enemy’s detection picture — via jamming, decoying, false targets, or angular suppression. Which is exactly what I described.

What are you making up? The so-called active stealth principle of the other side is very simple. It is to emit some electromagnetic waves with almost the same characteristics but completely opposite electric field vibration directions according to the radar waves irradiated by the enemy radar to the Rafale fighter, forming interference with the enemy's radar waves to weaken the Rafale's own RCS signal and achieve the so-called cancellation stealth.

You have written so much, but you have not understood the core of this technology at all. It is not the mess you wrote.