Why are you so butthurt?. He is just asking questions.
Rafales biggest quality is cost. So people will ask question when performance is subpar.
Rafale DH/EH of Indian Air Force : News and Discussions
- Thread starter Herciv
- Start date
-
- Tags
- indian defence forum
Rafales biggest quality is cost. So people will ask question when performance is subpar.
@vstol Jockey
Sir what will happen to 114 MRFA deal
We need something for declining squadron strength
And if TATA will make Rafales in India then it means that IAF is looking for more Rafales
Sir what will happen to 114 MRFA deal
We need something for declining squadron strength
And if TATA will make Rafales in India then it means that IAF is looking for more Rafales
Rampage is not meant for internal carriage. Israel's enemies do not have the kind of sophisticated IADS like China does.
Planes are capable of a lot of things for when the situation demands it, including low level flight. But unlike Jag, that is not the most efficient flight profile for planes like F-35 or B-21. Just like how a twin jet is technically capable of flying with a single engine, but that's not how you're supposed to be using it.
What is safe depends on the situation, like I said. If you have the option of prosecuting a target accurately using standoff precision strikes, trying to approach it at low altitude isn't safe, it's stupid. You'd rather preserve the airframe by flying high, which in turn allows you to shoot from further away, and hit the target from there. That way, even if you miss you can live to try again.
That's what VLO is meant for.
Back in the day, that ability to prosecute from standoff ranges didn't exist. Hence, you HAD to come close. And VLO didn't exist, so you had to fly low in order to get close. Thus, jets like Jaguar were born. But what was safe against a manually-aimed AAG isn't safe against an AESA-guided SHORADS.
But there are many more options for standoff strikes these days, that's why Jag doesn't have a true 'successor' (like F-22 was for F-15). If low altitude was still the safest approach, that wouldn't have been the case.
Last edited:
It's a standoff munition, there's no need for internal carriage.
You forgot your own point. You said low altitude is unsafe, when it's the opposite.
And tactically, a pilot will use whatever maneuver he sees fit depending on the situation, whether he's on a Rafale, F-35, or B-21. All three jets can use all altitude profiles for strike.
Jag doesn't need a true successor, time's moved on to the point where we have multirole jets capable of operating from all altitudes. Jag is just a product of its time. Even NGAD will use low altitude if that's the tactical demand. So low-altitude penetration is not out of fashion.
You gotta keep up with your own arguments.
Jaguar does have one modern successor and its name is Rafale. Replace all Jaguars on a 1 on 1 basis with Rafale and be done with it. @Picdelamirand-oil already confirmed that Rafale is very much capable of mimicking Jaguar's very low(100 feet or below) terrain-hugging flight-profile. Passive stealth could soon be compromised with advent of Quantum radars, Photonics based radars, multiple-band fused hybrid radar, multistatic GaN airborne radars and such but ground-hugging is the eternal stealthy way which is never going out of vogue, ever.
The problem is that you first have to prove that its performance is mediocre, and that is a complex task requiring a lot of information at a time when information is limited. But he acts as if it has been proven, which is diametrically opposed to the attitude of the IAF, which has been careful not to disparage the Rafale so as not to amplify the smear campaign by Pakistan and China. This is somewhat frustrating because it is impossible to respond with solid arguments until more information about the circumstances of the combat is available.
Well then it's got nothing to do with low altitude. By flying low, you're actually weakening the missile's kinematics.
I think you misunderstood, I stand by what I said:
"If you can deliver accurate payloads from higher altitude and/or standoff distances, flying low is pointless and brings undue risk to the aircraft & the pilot."
The key term are the first four words. If you can deliver. What you're talking about is what happens when you can't. If you can take out a hangar with a SCALP from 500 km away, you wouldn't try to carry out a low level approach to overlfy the hangar & drop some dumb bombs on it. That would be pointless & risky.
At that standoff distance, you'd obviously be flying high in order to maximize your on-station time & impart the best kinematics possible to your weapons. If you're saying you'd be flying low even at standoff distances in order to hide from long range radars...well in our context at least, that's still pointless. Might as well use a GLCM in that case. No need to waste a sortie.
You can't penetrate at low level either if there's IADS in the way. First you gotta take it out with standoff strikes. But if they've been taken out, you wouldn't need to fly low anyway. You'd fly high to again give yourself the best shot at taking out the next layer of IADS further in.
Hello Sir
My question is that even if a Couple of Rafales are damaged
Would India and France like to keep it a secret AND if India wants to quietly buy Two Rafales
Would it be possible to do it quietly and secretly
I mean what is the point in disclosing everything
We learn our lessons and prepare for the Next conflict
Because a Bigger conflict Is definitely coming soon
@randomradio @Rajput Lion
Can you pls tell me what is the differences & advantages each other between rampage, air lora, ive breaker?
Can you pls tell me what is the differences & advantages each other between rampage, air lora, ive breaker?
Both LORA & Rampage are supersonic missiles. LORA is basically a surface-to-surface tactical ballistic missile which can also be launched from air while RAMPAGE is derived from MLRS Rocket and is only used for air-to-surface role. LORA travels ballistic path to destroy surface targets while Rampage never leaves the atmosphere to fulfil its role. Thanks to its ballistic trajectory LORA has more range and speed advantage over RAMPAGE and is more expensive.
Ice Breaker is the air-launched version of Sea-Breaker stealth subsonic cruise missile. It's highly accurate and deadly. These Israeli weapons are not as expensive as Euro/US weapons, yet highly accutate and deadly.
Apart from these we would also acquire Crystal Maze2 or ROCKS from Israel. It's also a supersonic air-to-surface missile designed with an EO seeker specifically to take out HVTs even under heavy GPS jamming/spoofing.
Simple answer no.
And if that story of “French” intelligence officer is true, they are playing their own game. They are leaking or building a cover story for their own gains, might be at behest of USA.
They are P5 nation, they have their own interests, they are not your allies.
Our economy is big enough for that. Just need to open our Wallet for big ticket defense items. That's it.
No, you're not. It's a BM, it will still climb to altitude and achieve long range, it depends on the trajectory. For example, AIM-120C achieves its highest range from 8 km altitude in certain trajectories, whereas higher altitud provides shorter range but higher pk.
CM's range will fall, but when we are talking about tactical ranges, the CM has enough juice to hit any target in Pakistan when flying low. For targets in China, more strategic targets at 500-600 km will need more range, which the LR-LACM will meet.
So, in our operational environment, any weapon we have with sufficient range can hit any target from any altitude.
"flying low is pointless and brings undue risk to the aircraft & the pilot"
That is entirely false. Flying low keeps both the aircraft and pilot safe. And since we are talking about standoff weapons, at least in India's case, we are buying weapons that can act against any target we want from any altitude.
When you fly at higher altitudes, current crop of stealth jets are not stealthy when carrying standoff weapons in Beast mode, so you are telling the enemy you are coming long before the weapons are fired. The only jets that can use standoff weapons from higher altitude today and remain stealthy and can deploy with mass are heavy bombers. Tactical jets generate traffic for mass so they would use medium and low altitudes to ensure the missiles are not killed en route.
Rampage is a small BM with an IIR seeker meant for SEAD/DEAD. It's extremely accurate and meant to take down radars and TELs. Of course, it can hit other small targets too. 150 kg warhead.
Ice Breaker is a VLO CM meant for SEAD/DEAD. It's the CM cousin of Rampage for radars and TELs. 120 kg warhead.
LORA is a simpler BM with a bigger warhead meant for hitting static ground targets, underground targets etc. It uses a TV seeker, is not as accurate as Rampage, but it is sufficient for hitting very large targets like hangars, runways etc. 570 kg warhead.
There's also a BM called Crystal Maze with 100 km range and 80 kg warhead. And a successor called Crystal Maze II which increases range to 250 km. This was the missile that took out the command center in Muridke (RUMINT).
Why would a French intel officer break the law and speak to a foreign news agency when they are not even allowed to speak to a French one?
Good observation. This point has already been raised by multiple real "analysts" who take their work seriously.