Dassault Rafale - Updates and Discussion
- Thread starter Domobran7
- Start date
How much of this can be retrofitted to the Indian F3r, come the mid 2030's ?
All Rafale aircraft can be retrofitted to the full Rafale F5 standard, but the cost varies depending on whether it is an older or newer Rafale. Furthermore, an older Rafale will have less potential than a newer Rafale, which further reduces the appeal of retrofitting it. For example, the French Air Force plans to retrofit all Rafale aircraft delivered to France after the first exports to Egypt in 2015. If foreign air forces had the same assessment as the French Air Force, then all exported Rafale aircraft would be retrofitted.
Not the radar, the F-35 provides ELINT and ESM capabilities like AWACS.
The F3R demonstrated survivability against the best Chinese SAMs and missiles. Yes, China's harder to crack, but the same rules apply. We have better SAMs to test the jet against as well.
But given all the elapsed time, yes, the F3R needs upgrades to keep it relevant in the future. I guess they are taking care of it. But today it's still very relevant against pretty much anything China has. The only exception is if the J-20 has been built up to the same VLO standards as the F-22. Right now, most sources say it's not, so it's safe to say Rafale can handle the J-20.
Rafale cannot "yet" compete with the F-22 though. We have to wait and see if the F5 can.
But even if the Rafale individually cannot, the goal is to make sure the network can.
AESA radar on F35, RWR , and etc is a complete BMC2. That is what I am saying.
Due to Jammers and decoys employed other counter measures activated by both Rafales and Su30MKI along with AWACS in the vicinity. But we do not have any firm confirmation.
HQ22 is still not known.
Try again, I'm too slow, so make me understand. As you said, I failed to comprehend.
I don't understand this HBJ, LBJ etc, I want the frequencies used. Simple IEEE frequency designations will do.
What is this multidomain approach? What do you mean by it?
And are you trying to say the F-35's stealth isn't sufficient? If a jammer is necessary for survival anyway, then what difference does it make between stealth and non-stealth 'cause what's being jammed is the radar?
You are following Pakistanis. I'm following Indians.
Erm. How so? Hammer provides 10 km range when flying low and SmartGlider provides 100+ km range from high altitude. And Rafale has SCALP for standoff. All three regimes are covered. The F-35 currently only has the latter two and will soon get all three.
If you cannot, then maybe you can ask them to explain.
Er. Based on dictionary:
Definition of EXPENDABLE
that may be expended: such as; normally used up or consumed in service; more easily or economically replaced than rescued, salvaged, or protected… See the full definition
www.merriam-webster.com
-more easily or economically replaced than rescued, salvaged, or protected
"Attritable" generally refers to something designed to be used and potentially lost or sacrificed in a mission, often in a military context, without causing significant negative impact.
Both words seem to be synonyms for each other.
You will have to help me understand how Defensenews explains this:
US Air Force relaunches effort to replace MQ-9 Reaper drone
It's take two as the service reaches out to industry for more info on technologies for building a new combat drone.
www.defensenews.com
Clue: Your "attritable" Harop costs $700,000. Your "expendable" MQ-9 costs $32M. Your "expendable" but in reality "non-expendable" CCAs cost $20-28M. I want to see how you're gonna spin this now.
Lol, so now you want to put words in my mouth in order to win arguments.
I never said they don't know, I said they are limited in saying things publicly. Have told you before multiple times and I'm not gonna waste time again. Here are links to previous comments from other threads where I explained what the political realities are:
ADA AMCA - Advanced Medium Combat Aircraft
ACM Singh said that? I think he wants Make in India MRFA. Nope. He specifically answered regarding the question of importing 5th gen counter to PAF's future acquisition of J-35. @17:14 mark onwards: Some AMs are willing to import Su-57, but the govt's not gonna buy it with a war going on...www.strategicfront.org
What words? I've already quoted what the Chiefs have already said.
What benefit is there for the forces for lying publicly about this then?
What magic do you know that goes against decades of procurement decisions the forces have made?
Regarding the MRFA carrot:
MMRCA 2.0 - Updates and Discussions
We can get the f-35 provided we either buy the f-16's or we sell our sovereignty. The f-35 is a very tricky purchase which will give Americans a lot of access to our operating methods. Sell sovereignty, it didn't brought back the kashmir we lost to Pakistan, didn't prevent Chinese from...
Why would the IAF lie about procurement decisions? That goes against govt policy too. The forces are not allowed to lie to the general public, don't you know? They are only allowed to speak the truth or speak nothing at all.
ORCA doesn't exist. But you were not taking about ORCA, but stealth vs non-stealth.
When you questioned the need for passive stealth, you pointed out that ORCA would be a better option over AMCA. You said I'm completely wrong for saying ACT will be enhanced by passive stealth and that stealth has other advantages like performance and preventing jettison. You spouted some random nonsense about stealth being more expensive when both F-15EX and Rafale are more expensive than the F-35. And now you seem to be backtracking by claiming ORCA, but you don't realize it will be very expensive too, perhaps more than AMCA. TEDBF alone is expected to cost as much as AMCA.
So you'll have to explain why passive stealth does not enhance ACT or provide performance advantages over 4th gen, 'cause that's the point I made.
What's nuclear weapons got to do with this debate? We are talking about using Rafale against Pak, Russia, and China. Whether nukes are used or not, Rafale will have to continue fighting the same threats it's been designed to fight.
Pak's nukes have for all intents and purposes been neutralized. Whereas nuke threats from Russia and China are are far more real and far more deadlier, and more usable too.
You have placed Pakistan on a pedestal for some reason. Both in terms of consuming their propaganda as well as assuming they are much more dangerous than Russia and China. And I'm the insane one...
Why don't you explain what they are planning then?
How are they planning on going against their doctrine of "one enemy at a time" and challenging the US and India at the same time, which they have been doing their utmost to avoid?
You will have to explain then why you think IN will fare better than MN without any SSNs?
China has to come to us, whereas China is already around French territories. So who is under greater threat?
That's nice. Now, try again. Why is the RBE2-XG not much better than Uttam or Virupaksha in your opinion?
Why do you think the Rafale cannot power the RBE2-XG?
Can you also tell me what new engine the F-35 is getting to power their new radar?
So why is the USAF giving up on stealth to fight China?
But you said ARM-only is not sufficient, an active seeker is necessary? How did your opinion change so quickly that now HARM can even fight China?
CDS admitted to losses. But you didn't just claim he was referring to Rafale loss, but also that it was shot down by the PAF. How do you explain that?
Happy or sad, AASF is a program, SmartGlider is part of it, which means the French intend on using it for SEAD/DEAD. Which means they are fine with a slow bomb for this role. Why does this contradict your need for only using high speed?
Not every radar requires a Rudram-II/III or AARGM-ER to address. You need cheaper solutions to address less capable radar systems as well, once the bigger threats are taken care of by standoff strikes.
I've said as much:
"...The AASF can be a nice inexpensive option against poorly-defended targets or for mopping up stragglers like SPAAG radars etc. But a more capable standoff ARM has to be available before the FMAN/FMC comes..."
Dassault Rafale - Updates and Discussion
So Why US Navy purchased SH18 Growler when they have F35 ? The drone is used as another bomb truck, potentially a air to air missile truck, another airborne radar for multistatism, for fuel supply, etc.... Gee I dunno..... maybe because USN has more squadrons on carriers than F-35C's? :rolleyes:
Oh, and what are these "poorly-defended targets?"
Great, I'll go tell IAF that they're wasting money on the Rudram series then. Harop is apparently all we need.
Sarcasm works only if it makes sense within the context. It would help if you know what you actually said:
Even against a relatively poor IADS like Pakistan's, SCALP suffered too much attrition. It's just too slow.
Your entire argument was centered around dismissing slow speed. I never said anything about high speed. The IAF will use both Rudram and Harop.
And it's funny how you think 1 missile shot down as claimed is "too much attrition."
Again. What you originally said was:
"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."
But they are using non-rocket/ramjet/scramjet solutions too.
You are changing your opinion without even realizing it.
Can you agree both slow speed and high speed are necessary for SEAD/DEAD?
Now, next up, Typhoon EK. What are the frequencies we are talking about? What frequencies are contained in the wingtip pod, and what frequencies in the escort pods? Clue: It's public knowledge. I don't want that LBJ, HBJ crap. Actual frequencies or even band designations. Let's see how much you actually understand about the subject.
Also, the real differences between RBE2-XG and Uttam/Virupaksha for you to say they are equivalent. I'd really like to know how much you think you know about this subject.
No, the AESA radar currently used is an old one. It cannot perform AWACS' radar functions. AWACS has been been designed to provide a complete overview of the battlespace and then focus on the details depending on the threat. But the F-35 still has to provide fire control. So both radars complement each other.
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. The fixed radar provides only a 120 deg view. If it was on a repositioner, at least it would have managed an Erieye class capability, but limited FoV means it's no AWACS.
It can fly closer to the target and provide a better tactical view of the battlespace, but that's about it.
If that worked, then it means the network won. That works for us.
It's decent, like the radar, but the missile itself is not sophisticated enough.
Chinese SAMs have compromised performance due to the need to keep things cheap. That's their greatest flaw. The Russians have found balance by focusing on multiple designs whereas the Chinese have stuck with just one type, so it's not as survivable. The Iranians had made the same mistake.
It is 120 deg forward view , but the mission computers are powerful too which gather data from different sensors. It can't replace AWACS but my point was it still functions as mini AWACS due to powerful onboard computer and software. Especially as a node for communication support measures.
That's where stealth has advantage. Do we know if F35s were also used in Op Midnight Hammer for scanning or ECM?
That means It can be detected passively only from front within 120 degrees sector while scanning.
If each missile has a kill probability of 70% firing 10 on one target will definitely get it. I don't know if this is their strategy. But I believe, one Rafale will encounter 15-20 missiles on Chinese front. Chinese have capacity to fire missiles like bullets from a machine gun.
The mission computer won't help, the antenna hardware is the key. The current antenna hardware is only suitable against a small number of targets compared to AWACS that can track dozens using high-priority modes.
Future fighter radars will come with such features, but the FoV on the F-35 is a major limitation.
Mini-AWACS is a different concept, it's about communications, not radar. A patrol of F-35s can exchange data similar to AWACS, that's why mini-AWACS. It's become irrelevant due to the arrival of 4G and 5G wireless tech.
Most of the F-35's EW capabilities are still not functional.
Yes and no. The radar signals reflect off of surfaces too.
It's called multipath propagation.
That's not a good strategy. Such things have been done in the past too. And it was done as recently as last month, when the PAF fired 4-5 PL-15s at IAF jets and failed.
The reason being if you know how to spoof one or two missiles, you can spoof all of them.
Pretty much all wars have seen SAM overkills, it's nothing new.
The air package that assisted the strike consisted of F-22 Raptors and F-35 Lightning IIs, which conducted intelligence, surveillance, and escort functions. These fifth-generation stealth attack aircraft provided air dominance and denied interception attempts.
How US Duped Iran’s Air Defense In 'Operation Midnight Hammer': 5 ‘Secret’ American Weapons Used In Massive Tehran Strike
The air package that assisted the strike consisted of F-22 Raptors and F-35 Lightning IIs, which conducted intelligence, surveillance, and escort functions. These fifth-generation stealth attack aircraft provided air dominance and denied interception attempts.
How does the world's most advanced aircraft – the F-35 Lightning II – detect and defeat ground-based and airborne threats while using electronic protection, support, and attack capabilities to advance its missions? It has the world's most advanced, fully-integrated electronic warfare (EW) and countermeasures technology – the AN/ASQ-239 system – designed, produced, modernized, and sustained by BAE Systems.
Our AN/ASQ-239 system is a next-generation electronic warfare suite providing offensive and defensive options for the pilot and aircraft to counter current and emerging threats. Its advanced technology optimizes situational awareness while helping to identify, monitor, analyze, and respond to threats. Advanced avionics and sensors provide a real-time, 360º view of the battlespace, maximizing detection ranges and giving pilots evasion, engagement, countermeasure, and jamming options.
https://www.baesystems.com/en-us/product/an-asq-239-f-35-ew-countermeasure-system
This is good for a stealth aircraft, minimum communication in a confined area where the target is, along with the strike package, just like above where B2 were flying just behind F22 and F35. It's useful in this context. This is not possible with Rafales as of now if they are carrying a strike package.
In context of Pakistan, their width is not much hence even long range ASM does the job, but this advantage won't be there against China. The area is huge.
They do think that there is a need to make F35 as some sort of AWACS because they will be penetrating if the payload is small and they can't communicate with AWACS.
Concept is, a universal BMC2 4th, 5th gen aircrafts along with naval forces, and then within this a subset of stealth BMC2.
But if they are developing there must be some reason, must be better than PL15 and with better scanner. Otherwise there is no point.
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 has
meta-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."
Er. Based on dictionary:
-normally used up or consumed in serviceDefinition of EXPENDABLE
that may be expended: such as; normally used up or consumed in service; more easily or economically replaced than rescued, salvaged, or protected… See the full definition
-more easily or economically replaced than rescued, salvaged, or protected
"Attritable" generally refers to something designed to be used and potentially lost or sacrificed in a mission, often in a military context, without causing significant negative impact.
Both words seem to be synonyms for each other.
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.
You are changing your opinion without even realizing it.
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.
Last edited:
I have heard that MRDA considers Tejas to be an Israeli fighter and they refuse to equip non-European fighters with Meteor missiles.
Couldn't help but interject...you should read this thread from the linked post onwards, where our friend @randomradio was arguing with me that AWACS were useless and that all of the AWACS' roles will be performed solely by fighters alone...and not even any future fighter but the existing Rafale itself:
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
Now he's arguing the opposite. You see, there's no point of reference with him. He just likes to argue.
And i have heard that everyone considers J-10 as basically an Israeli Lavi. Maybe thats the reason for its export failure after producing so many internally.
People can think whatever they want, but the J10C won the first 4.5-generation fighter air combat victory.
Even the warzone, which is always arrogant towards China, reported the J10C in detail.
China’s J-10C Fighter: Separating Myth From Reality
China's J-10C is in the spotlight after claims of Pakistani air-to-air kills against their Indian counterparts, but just how capable is it? Multiple reports suggest that Pakistan’s J-10Cs played an outsized role in recent clashes with the Indian Air Force, especially at long range.
www.twz.com
J-10C did not shoot down even one Indian fighter. Infact we shot down one J-10C on the 7th early morning.People can think whatever they want, but the J10C won the first 4.5-generation fighter air combat victory.
Even the warzone, which is always arrogant towards China, reported the J10C in detail.
China’s J-10C Fighter: Separating Myth From Reality
China's J-10C is in the spotlight after claims of Pakistani air-to-air kills against their Indian counterparts, but just how capable is it? Multiple reports suggest that Pakistan’s J-10Cs played an outsized role in recent clashes with the Indian Air Force, especially at long range.
which one will you sir among Rafale & F15 EX as best fighter, if you set aside the unpredictability of Uncle sam.