It's the same video of the rafale m88 engine. The other is this pic of IAF picking some debris.
Rafale DH/EH of Indian Air Force : News and Discussions
- Thread starter Herciv
- Start date
-
- Tags
- indian defence forum
Have seen the video. There's a longer version of the same that was shared earlier by one member. The thing is the m-88 doesn't have any scorch markings or crater so that's where the fake speculation is coming from. Two different objects fell killing one poor labourer. Claims are going it was adrone but most likely it's the rafale.
It's a tirade completely against the Rafale, which is very surprising because vstol is sometimes pro Rafale telling us that we're going to sell more than 300 and sometimes anti saying that it's over and that we'll sell more and that even the rafale M contract may be cancelled. I think he didn't like the fact that the F-18 E/F, which was his favourite, was beaten by the Rafale. Then he contradicts himself, for example here:@vstol Jockey
When will you agree that Su-30MKI is superior. We have had this discussion between us from 2015 onwards and I told you that we need more MKIs and not rafale. Just wait what happens after this war. We may even cancel the order for Rafale-M. mark my post. Everything same, and Su-30MKI outperforms Rafale. TBT, Su-30MKIs had to support Rafale on 7th Morning. It was the largest airwar ever after WW2. Over 230 ac from IAF involved as strike element and defenders for returning strikes and over 100 ac from PAF trying to stop IAF strike. Tell me one air battle ever which involved so many aircraft. This figure is not about fighters only, It includes support elemenst as well. Rafale has a big problem with Hammer. They need to increase its range. As for its active stealth capability, it is third rate. Kissi din aaram se btaunga ki kya hua tha. Rafale was taken out of active actions. I knw you will not believe it. Su-30MKI did the job.
Rafale was reduced to the job of just Air defence and LCA can do it better than Rafale. Proven useless in strike role.
All of them might be taken to cleaners, Rafale has been an over hype. It is just M2k in new body.
Rafale has no capability of SEAD/DEAD. It illuminates on radar very prominantly with all its weapons. Its approach is known and can be very easily targeted. While same is true about SU-30MKI but its 2 crew set up and highly agile vectors give it a decisive edge in any air engagement. I can say with 100% truth that after 7th Morning not even a single Rafale was used in strike role. Only and Only SU-30MKIs and Jags were used. Jaguar is an ac from late 1960s and perfomed better than Rafale due to its capability to fly really low and pop up to fire a weapon. While SU-30MKI flew high, Jags flew really low and used terrain hugging to achieve a higher radar stealth than even Rafale.
@Picdelamirand-oil @Amarante
What do you guys think? If it's all true, then the Rafale must be reassessed. It will help the IAF assess their own force structure too, as they are yet to start on it.
‘Rafale was taken out of active actions. I knw you will not believe it. Su-30MKI did the job. Rafale was reduced to the job of just Air defence’
The Rafale does air defence and the SU-30 MKI does air ground and so the Rafale supports the SU-30 by protecting it, but here:
‘TBT, Su-30MKIs had to support Rafale on 7th Morning’ is the opposite.
This text denies all the qualities of the Rafale, we can put them into perspective but to deny them when the IAF has produced nothing but praise and your navy has selected it seems to me to be a bit of an exaggeration.
In another post on the same subject, he criticises the closed coupled canard, saying that this is why heavy weapons cannot be fitted to the Rafale. The reality is that the heavy weapons that can't be fitted are too long and would hit the ground on take-off.
On the contrary, the coupled canards associated with the Rafale's FCS allow you to create dynamic instability, i.e. to adjust the instability as you wish (for example, you can keep the same instability despite dropping heavy weapons), which means you can attach the weapons without worrying about centring and then ask the FCS for the instability you want. So I don't really understand.
My thinking is the Rafale was sidelined to keep its primary capabilities a secret, 'cause it turned out our other assets were more than enough. Possibly also why there's been no mention of Meteor's use either.
So we have these two extremes, either Rafale is a dud for some reason, or Rafale's secrecy was maintained.
I can only imagine your reaction if this was an F-18E or F-35 getting shot down by a chicom export version J-10.
No jet is invincible. If mission is achieved via minimum losses then consider it job well done.
Perhaps Meteor is for China war only?
Can't imagine Euros want Pakistan to pick it up.
You got me wrong. Rafale has been found wanting compared to SU-30MKI. Su-30MKI can do all its jobs on its own, But it seems Rafale has problem. 7th morning strike needed true multirole capability and each strike formation was assigned a clear job and role. Rafale had to enter Pak airspace to do their job while Su-30MKI did it from stand off range. This is where I lamented the fact that DA must give us source codes to allow us to integrate more weapons of our choice in Rafale. With Hammer as the cheaper option, Rafale is not much worth and if it has to use only scalp for every strike, than it is very costly. Su-30MKI on the other hand is capable of firing Spice series bombs, SAAW and whole lot of other stand off weapons which Rafale cant. If you had read carefully, I had said that we need range extension of hammer. With the present set of weapons, Rafale will remain a burden rather than an asset. It is good for AD role only as of now and hence forth may not be used for strike role which will go to SU-30MKI and Jaguars and M2Ks.
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.
@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.
We need to buy 200 rafales to replace the entirety of jaguars and mirage.
And 114 typhoons/f-15EX. This is a reality we need to accept. We also need 8 E-7 wedgetails.
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.
The concepts are different. For SEAD/DEAD + Hammer combo, the Rafale's gonna have to penetrate and go in close, fire off the missile at short range to ensure mission success. Long range systems are not as effective, meaning you will have an extremely high failure rate where you will see missiles chasing ghosts. You are gonna waste multiple sorties just failing missions, like the US did over Iraq with a few thousand missiles. It's not a workable system, which is why the US developed stealth to do what the Rafale does but from higher altitudes. We don't have the assets required to fire off 2000+ ARMs just to hit a handful of radars.
But what Vstol's talking about is long range glide and powered bombs for regular strike missions. That's a completely different thing. Hammer doesn't have the range because it was made for use from low altitudes, which requires the bomb to pop up. And I had identified the deficiency of a longer ranged glide bomb nearly a decade ago. Picdel and I have argued about all this, when I pointed out that the MKI has superior long range strike capabilities, both range and payload, even money, when the SAAW was first introduced. I had even compared potential loadouts. So this is nothing new, it's a decade old topic. SPICE and SAAW were supposed to fix this, but it's possible it hasn't been done yet. I guess DRDO wants their own glide bombs integrated instead, hence the delay.
Yeah but Rafale with Scalp-EG & Hammer was used for Day 1 precision strikes on the terror camps along with MKI + BrahMos-A. But Rafale didn't do DEAD on 9th May night/10th May morning. It was done by MKI with BrahMos-A/ROCKS/RAMPAGE combo along with Jag + Rampage combo. MKI took out Lockheed Early Warning radars, HQ-9/16 SAM sites and even struck precisely their nuke centres along with damaging their 11 airbases. This is absolutely stellar performance by MKI whichever way we may look. So it most definitely has proved itself to be better than Rafale in this aspect(DEAD platform). That's what I was trying to argue last time around and it has been proved in a real war scenario.
Problem for IAF is PAF AEW&C aircraft. They know you're coming and have EW aircraft too.
It's especially Nato style killchain that is the issue. The Chinese are nowhere near as capable as the Pakistanis.
Pakistan is a special case. which is what allow you to do not to enter its airspace to strike it. But look at a map, most of your targets were very close to the border and even the Rafale with its medium-range armament could have dealt with them without any problem, and I think that was the case. After that, if you impose operational constraints that deny the qualities of a weapon system, it's not surprising that the weapon's usefulness is reduced.
Normally, the Rampage type attack should just degrade defenses, not eliminate them entirely. But I guess there was some overestimation of Pak defenses.
If our first line SEAD/DEAD alone was enough that speaks for the immense inferiority of the Pakistani systems rather than we doing something special, not counting EW.
You're projecting your own behaviour onto me. When I criticise the F-35, it's on the merits, with links to official US reports, and as far as the loss of aircraft is concerned, both the Rafale and the F-35 have sometimes been lost in non-war situations, so it shouldn't come as a surprise that they can be lost in war situations.
We have better assets.
We have 3 Phalcons, 3 Netras, and 12 P-8Is (these have been modified with A2A modes). We have plenty of EW that's superior to what PAF operates.
PAF's EW aircraft and AWACS were compromised in 2019. They bought some more AWACS to make up for it, but it obviously wasn't sufficient.
We even have advanced C&C aircraft.