Rafale DH/EH of Indian Air Force : News and Discussions

[randomradio]

Our economy is big enough for that. Just need to open our Wallet for big ticket defense items. That's it.

We need about 600-700 Rafale class jets. But it's a tall task just ordering 200.

That's why we have 270 MKI, 200 MRFA, and 200 Mk2. This entire thing is just one requirement.

In the future, when these jets come up for replacement, almost the entire fleet will be based on one jet in different variants, like what the Russians and French are doing.

 

[Speedster1]

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).

Not quite. The original Crystal Maze is a smaller version of the Israeli Popeye ASM with the same EO seeker (+ many design similarities) as Spice 2000.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1577603642529615873

This was the weapon we'd hoped would provide BDA/ live impact footage for use as evidence for Balakot. But it is a fair weather weapon and couldn't be fired. The rest is history.

Btw, I find it odd that the IAF would choose to designate ROCKS as CM-2 despite the obvious dissimilarities with CM-1. But I guess that's coincidental.

 

[Parthu]

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.

Altitude matters for kinematics. The less energy you have to spend in climbing, the more you can spend on traveling further. It's just physics.

"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 that's how you misread & misunderstand. You can't take all context away and pick at the last part of a much longer sentence.

Keeping itself & the pilot safe is not the only point of an aircraft. It's point is to prosecute targets WHILE keeping itself & the pilot safe. Now the question is, if you have the option of prosecuting the target from standoff distance (where the launch platform isn't under threat), what is the point of flying low?

You only fly low if you have to approach/penetrate. Needless to say, penetration carries risks that a standoff strike does away with. If you think otherwise, I can't argue with you.

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.

As long as that is the case, we wouldn't need penetrating aircraft.

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.

Not really - depends on what kind of weapons you are employing. Rampage is a relatively cheap option (it's basically a guided MLRS rocket) but is too big to be carried internally. So it can be a nice inexpensive option against not-so-sophisticated IADS.

If you want stealthy standoff strikes against a peer power, you can go with something like a Kongsberg JSM, internally carried by F-35.

You can carry much longer/higher payload weapons like LORA or BrahMos-A but the planes that carry them aren't really meant for penetration. They don't need to anyway, cuz they tend to have much longer range.

 

[randomradio]

Not quite. The original Crystal Maze is a smaller version of the Israeli Popeye ASM with the same EO seeker (+ many design similarities) as Spice 2000.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1577603642529615873

This was the weapon we'd hoped would provide BDA/ live impact footage for use as evidence for Balakot. But it is a fair weather weapon and couldn't be fired. The rest is history.

Btw, I find it odd that the IAF would choose to designate ROCKS as CM-2 despite the obvious dissimilarities with CM-1. But I guess that's coincidental.

The entire Popeye family consists of Popeye, CM, and SPICE.

CM-1 is called Raptor and CM-2 is called ROCKS. I don't get the naming designations either, but whatever I guess.

 

[STEPHEN COHEN]

Centre gives nod for weapons that outgun Pakistan's arsenal​

https://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/military-gets-governments-nod-to-top-up-arsenal-tri-services-101749340615417.html

 

[randomradio]

Altitude matters for kinematics. The less energy you have to spend in climbing, the more you can spend on traveling further. It's just physics.

Max range, not for tactical ranges. For example, a Jaguar at low altitude can fire off a Rampage into Afghanistan without being detected by Pakistani SAMs.

From low altitude, you get lesser range than max range, but we should be able to hit Peshawar from Srinagar, that's way beyond the tactical need of Rampage.

And that's how you misread & misunderstand. You can't take all context away and pick at the last part of a much longer sentence.

Keeping itself & the pilot safe is not the only point of an aircraft. It's point is to prosecute targets WHILE keeping itself & the pilot safe. Now the question is, if you have the option of prosecuting the target from standoff distance (where the launch platform isn't under threat), what is the point of flying low?

You only fly low if you have to approach/penetrate. Needless to say, penetration carries risks that a standoff strike does away with. If you think otherwise, I can't argue with you.

No, you made a wrong claim, I corrected it.

Regardless of whether an aircraft can fire off a weapon from high altitude or not, low altitude is still the safest place for any jet.

As long as that is the case, we wouldn't need penetrating aircraft.

It's necessary due to the low probability of success of such weapons. An aircraft can much more reliably reach a target than a weapon can.

Not really - depends on what kind of weapons you are employing. Rampage is a relatively cheap option (it's basically a guided MLRS rocket) but is too big to be carried internally. So it can be a nice inexpensive option against not-so-sophisticated IADS.

Rampage is pretty sophisticated. Anyway, assuming Rampage can be reliably intercepted by an IADS, it can still be used to spam the enemy with numbers due to its relatively low cost compared to the cost of SAMs themselves.

If you want stealthy standoff strikes against a peer power, you can go with something like a Kongsberg JSM, internally carried by F-35.

Too expensive for the same effect as a Jaguar with JSM.

The idea behind stealth is to reliably get close to the enemy so you can reduce the reaction time of defenses. The same is achieved with low altitude for non-stealth jets.

You can carry much longer/higher payload weapons like LORA or BrahMos-A but the planes that carry them aren't really meant for penetration. They don't need to anyway, cuz they tend to have much longer range.

The aircraft doesn't penetrate when using standoff weapons. In fact standoff is the opposite of penetrate. So why would you need an expensive stealth jet to fire off standoff weapons?

It's the same mistake others make when it comes to AMCA. Why does it need bigger WBs? It's meant for penetration missions using small weapons that rely on resolution rather than range. That's also the reason why the IN decided to go for a 4.5th gen design. They want their jet to fire off standoff weapons in numbers, not penetrate the defenses of a carrier group or an A2/AD zone.

It's simple, you want the aircraft to penetrate, you use stealth or go low or a combination of both. The F-35 too uses low-med altitudes for penetration. And if you want mass and range, you use standoff weapons. If you want the IADS to engage your weapons and deplete itself, you can use med altitude, or if you want to reduce the SAM's reaction time, you go low. So a combination of all three are necessary.

 

[Parthu]

Max range, not for tactical ranges. For example, a Jaguar at low altitude can fire off a Rampage into Afghanistan without being detected by Pakistani SAMs.

From low altitude, you get lesser range than max range, but we should be able to hit Peshawar from Srinagar, that's way beyond the tactical need of Rampage.

Erm...you sure we still talking about Rampage?

No, you made a wrong claim, I corrected it.

You either misunderstood my claim or took it out of context by omitting the first half of the sentence from your response. Here let me do it to you:

low altitude is still the safest place for any jet.

No, the safest place is inside a HAS somewhere in southern India.

See how that doesn't make any sense as it's not relevant to what we have that jet for?

It's necessary due to the low probability of success of such weapons. An aircraft can much more reliably reach a target than a weapon can.

You can afford to lose weapons to attrition, but not aircraft.

Too expensive for the same effect as a Jaguar with JSM.

If you don't plan on penetrating? Sure. Heck, in that case even Jaguar is too expensive. An NSM (ground-launched JSM) is much cheaper & safer.

The idea behind stealth is to reliably get close to the enemy so you can reduce the reaction time of defenses. The same is achieved with low altitude for non-stealth jets.

Again, that needs context. The enemy has dedicated AD meant to address low altitude threats. If you're flying from Guam, that's not a concern for you. If you're flying out of Hasimara or Leh, it is.

You're thinking of avoiding the S400 at Hotan by flying low...but you're ignoring the HQ-11s & HQ-16s situated much closer to the LAC, guarding against exactly this kind of approach. You ain't getting anywhere near Hotan while those SR/MRSAMs are still up. Now the question is, are you gonna take them out by standoff strikes (possibly not even air-launched) or by a low level approach with fighters to drop LGBs which is much more risky?

The aircraft doesn't penetrate when using standoff weapons. In fact standoff is the opposite of penetrate. So why would you need an expensive stealth jet to fire off standoff weapons?

It's the same mistake others make when it comes to AMCA. Why does it need bigger WBs? It's meant for penetration missions using small weapons that rely on resolution rather than range. That's also the reason why the IN decided to go for a 4.5th gen design. They want their jet to fire off standoff weapons in numbers, not penetrate the defenses of a carrier group or an A2/AD zone.

It's simple, you want the aircraft to penetrate, you use stealth or go low or a combination of both. The F-35 too uses low-med altitudes for penetration. And if you want mass and range, you use standoff weapons. If you want the IADS to engage your weapons and deplete itself, you can use med altitude, or if you want to reduce the SAM's reaction time, you go low. So a combination of all three are necessary.

You only have to penetrate if the target is out of reach of anything we can launch from within our airspace. But depending on how far away the target is, you may have to penetrate and THEN launch standoff weapons - if you want to hit the Chinese hinterland for example.

But if you do have to penetrate, the high-flying option (with VLO) is far more effective than a non-stealth jet flying low. Cuz with the low flying approach, you have to contend with & address all the IADS layers instead of just bypassing them, which is what a stealth jet would do:



Otoh, if you don't have VLO, then that speaks to what I said earlier:

"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."

...it would mean you're unable to deliver payloads while staying as far from the target as possible. In that case, yeah you're gonna have to fly low to at least give yourself a chance. But if you do that, it brings with it a very high risk to the aircraft & the pilot. Except it wouldn't be an undue risk, it would be a due risk (cuz you have no other option).

If you DO have a way of delivering payload on the same target from further away, then the risk of coming in low to hit that same target would indeed be undue...which is what I said.

I don't see what's so hard to understand.

 

[randomradio]

No, the safest place is inside a HAS somewhere in southern India.

If it can fire a missile from inside the HAS, then sure.

But the next safest would be low altitude, not high altitude.

If you don't plan on penetrating? Sure. Heck, in that case even Jaguar is too expensive. An NSM (ground-launched JSM) is much cheaper & safer.

Nope. Once again, you bring the wrong things into the discussion. You can fire from ground, but you cannot achieve surprise like an aircraft can. Nor can the ground system maneuver as fast as the aircraft to take advantage of holes in defenses.

Again, that needs context. The enemy has dedicated AD meant to address low altitude threats. If you're flying from Guam, that's not a concern for you. If you're flying out of Hasimara or Leh, it is.

Again, the opposite. You are even more safe flying low in the mountains than over sea.

You're thinking of avoiding the S400 at Hotan by flying low...but you're ignoring the HQ-11s & HQ-16s situated much closer to the LAC, guarding against exactly this kind of approach. You ain't getting anywhere near Hotan while those SR/MRSAMs are still up. Now the question is, are you gonna take them out by standoff strikes (possibly not even air-launched) or by a low level approach with fighters to drop LGBs which is much more risky?

You use holes in defenses, you can't just willy-nilly fly over active SAM units. But standoff weapons like Rampage can go above the altitude of short range systems, so only the SAM at Hotan can intercept it.

You only have to penetrate if the target is out of reach of anything we can launch from within our airspace. But depending on how far away the target is, you may have to penetrate and THEN launch standoff weapons - if you want to hit the Chinese hinterland for example.

We need B-21, Ghatak etc for that. F-35, Rafale etc cannot do that.

 

[Parthu]

If it can fire a missile from inside the HAS, then sure.

It can. It's called a ground launcher/TEL/MAL.

Nope. Once again, you bring the wrong things into the discussion. You can fire from ground, but you cannot achieve surprise like an aircraft can. Nor can the ground system maneuver as fast as the aircraft to take advantage of holes in defenses.

Gotta create the holes first.

Enemy AD is only as mobile as our MALs. They can't go very far, we can't go very far. But our enemies are our neighbours, so neither party needs to go very far. This is why context matters. For example, our 1500-km HGV is ground-based, but when the US makes a 1500-km class HGV, they make it airborne (ARRW).

They need to be mobile for that class of weapon, we don't. Same for regular ASMs.

Of course we don't put all our eggs in one basket, but yeah a lo-lo profile doesn't really open as many doors for us as one might think.

Again, the opposite. You are even more safe flying low in the mountains than over sea.

Context, again. Against a peer opponent that's capable of setting up an IADS, the mountains are actually worse. Cuz you can only fly along predictable paths below a certain altitude as the terrain doesn't allow you to fly anywhere you want. The enemy knows this too, he's gonna put a SHORADS right in your path. When you pop up over the horizon at <15 km to release an LGB, it won't matter if you are VLO are not, at that distance an X-band AESA FCR has no problem prosecuting you.

We need B-21, Ghatak etc for that. F-35, Rafale etc cannot do that.

Hey, I thought Rafale was supposed to be a DPSA.

 

[Lolwa]

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.

A fifth gen jaguar needs to be developed using the Kaveri soon. It needs to be done. Or we have to make the rafale capable to perform like the Jaguar.

 

[randomradio]

It can. It's called a ground launcher/TEL/MAL.

So a Jaguar will carry a TEL which can then launch missiles from inside a HAS?

Gotta create the holes first.

Jaguar with Rampage will do that when flying low.

Enemy AD is only as mobile as our MALs. They can't go very far, we can't go very far. But our enemies are our neighbours, so neither party needs to go very far. This is why context matters. For example, our 1500-km HGV is ground-based, but when the US makes a 1500-km class HGV, they make it airborne (ARRW).

They need to be mobile for that class of weapon, we don't. Same for regular ASMs.

Of course we don't put all our eggs in one basket, but yeah a lo-lo profile doesn't really open as many doors for us as one might think.

Enemy AD's mobility is irrelevant. If ground based systems could move at 800-900 kmph then they can replace aircraft.

Context, again. Against a peer opponent that's capable of setting up an IADS, the mountains are actually worse. Cuz you can only fly along predictable paths below a certain altitude as the terrain doesn't allow you to fly anywhere you want. The enemy knows this too, he's gonna put a SHORADS right in your path. When you pop up over the horizon at <15 km to release an LGB, it won't matter if you are VLO are not, at that distance an X-band AESA FCR has no problem prosecuting you.

Oof.

Incorrect.

I don't think you understand the immensity of the Himalayas and the difficulty of SAM operations in those areas. Even the Chinese with their immense resources cannot plug gaps in the mountains.

Hey, I thought Rafale was supposed to be a DPSA.

You said:
"out of reach of anything we can launch from within our airspace"

Do you keep forgetting your own comments?

DPSA, but not for SEAD/DEAD along the secondary and tertiary lines or long range like B-21 and Ghatak. It can go through holes and survive over first line and even second line when flying low. But once it gets to a certain point, it's going to be challenged by other jets that are part of a second wave. So what Rafale can do is use low altitude to penetrate 150-300 km or so and fire off missiles, whether it's at a target at 160-310 km, or at standoff ranges using the right weapon, like a SCALP that can hit a target at 450-600 km (ie, 150-300 km Rafale penetration + 300 km SCALP penetration) from the border if the pk of a 1500 km LRLACM is low when launched from 450-600 km away. So context. Naturally, the penetration capabilities of the Rafale will keep improving as enemy defenses keep degrading on a daily basis.

Rafale also needs to go through holes in defenses, it just won't go 500-1000 km like Ghatak or even 3000 km like B-21. So, context.

 

[randomradio]

A fifth gen jaguar needs to be developed using the Kaveri soon. It needs to be done. Or we have to make the rafale capable to perform like the Jaguar.

LCA Mk2 in certain roles, MRFA in all roles along with AMCA will easily replace Jaguar.

 

[TARGET]

 

[Parthu]

So a Jaguar will carry a TEL which can then launch missiles from inside a HAS?

No, a ground launcher will.

I was just taking your notion further. You said it's safer to be at low altitude, I'm saying it's even more safe to not fly at all...in the hope that you'll see the point I'm making.

Jaguar with Rampage will do that when flying low.

Enemy AD's mobility is irrelevant. If ground based systems could move at 800-900 kmph then they can replace aircraft.

Why would a ground system need to move at 900 kph? Are Pakistan & China moving away from us?

I don't think you understand the immensity of the Himalayas and the difficulty of SAM operations in those areas. Even the Chinese with their immense resources cannot plug gaps in the mountains.

They don't need to plug everything. They know the target you're gonna want to hit. They just need to plug the routes that can give you an approach to it.

We've been doing the same as well, ever since JH-7 was first deployed in Tibet way back when (maybe even before).

You said:
"out of reach of anything we can launch from within our airspace"

Do you keep forgetting your own comments?

DPSA, but not for SEAD/DEAD along the secondary and tertiary lines or long range like B-21 and Ghatak. It can go through holes and survive over first line and even second line when flying low. But once it gets to a certain point, it's going to be challenged by other jets that are part of a second wave. So what Rafale can do is use low altitude to penetrate 150-300 km or so and fire off missiles, whether it's at a target at 160-310 km, or at standoff ranges using the right weapon, like a SCALP that can hit a target at 450-600 km (ie, 150-300 km Rafale penetration + 300 km SCALP penetration) from the border if the pk of a 1500 km LRLACM is low when launched from 450-600 km away. So context. Naturally, the penetration capabilities of the Rafale will keep improving as enemy defenses keep degrading on a daily basis.

Rafale also needs to go through holes in defenses, it just won't go 500-1000 km like Ghatak or even 3000 km like B-21. So, context.

So....the way to avoid the pointless risk of flying low toward a target is to....wait for other systems to take out the defences guarding said target via standoff strikes in order to give you an opening?

You do realize you just proved my point for me?

 

[Optimist]

Just for a little but of reality , From a french view on the Jaguar, the UK came to the same conclusions

"I have a hole in my head!" - French Jaguars' first Gulf War

Frédéric Lert recounts the first mission by French Air Force Jaguars of the Gulf War, which proved to be a dramatic affair.

www.key.aero

The other three aircraft, hit by small calibre bullets, were repaired within 72 hours. After the initial mission, the pilots preparing for the next day’s raid were perplexed. One of them recalls: “Before the war, we were told that we had to count on 10% losses for the first mission. It was already a lot. Over Kuwait, the proportion was one third, fortunately without losing a pilot.”


Immediately the decision was made to abandon very low altitude flying in favour of medium altitude, that is to say around 20,000ft, high enough to avoid all the small arms fire. On the other hand, they would now be within range of Iraqi missiles and fighters, but both were practically ineffective, relentlessly knocked out by the Americans.

 

[_Anonymous_]

Just for a little but of reality , From a french view on the Jaguar, the UK came to the same conclusions

"I have a hole in my head!" - French Jaguars' first Gulf War

Frédéric Lert recounts the first mission by French Air Force Jaguars of the Gulf War, which proved to be a dramatic affair.

www.key.aero

The other three aircraft, hit by small calibre bullets, were repaired within 72 hours. After the initial mission, the pilots preparing for the next day’s raid were perplexed. One of them recalls: “Before the war, we were told that we had to count on 10% losses for the first mission. It was already a lot. Over Kuwait, the proportion was one third, fortunately without losing a pilot.”


Immediately the decision was made to abandon very low altitude flying in favour of medium altitude, that is to say around 20,000ft, high enough to avoid all the small arms fire. On the other hand, they would now be within range of Iraqi missiles and fighters, but both were practically ineffective, relentlessly knocked out by the Americans.

Yo pops ! You might as well have brought out articles from the Battle of Britain here. That's from 1991 when you were 60. Most guys here weren't even born then. Just for clarification I meant the Gulf war not WW-2. What were you even thinking ?

Besides , that was a western coalition fighting camel humpers. Israel would do a more competent job there with a tenth of their resources in half the time.

Flying low is out with the advances in radar tech , SAR , SAMs MANPADS & what have you ? Doesn't even work with the Houthis as the Yahoos in USN discovered.

 

[randomradio]

Just for a little but of reality , From a french view on the Jaguar, the UK came to the same conclusions

"I have a hole in my head!" - French Jaguars' first Gulf War

Frédéric Lert recounts the first mission by French Air Force Jaguars of the Gulf War, which proved to be a dramatic affair.

www.key.aero

The other three aircraft, hit by small calibre bullets, were repaired within 72 hours. After the initial mission, the pilots preparing for the next day’s raid were perplexed. One of them recalls: “Before the war, we were told that we had to count on 10% losses for the first mission. It was already a lot. Over Kuwait, the proportion was one third, fortunately without losing a pilot.”


Immediately the decision was made to abandon very low altitude flying in favour of medium altitude, that is to say around 20,000ft, high enough to avoid all the small arms fire. On the other hand, they would now be within range of Iraqi missiles and fighters, but both were practically ineffective, relentlessly knocked out by the Americans.

If you fly like an idiot with no clue, you will get shot. The US achieved the same with their Apaches in Iraq.

If flying low was dangerous, then all helicopters are doomed from the start, since they all operate below 10000 feet.

Low altitude is why helicopters are safe, and they can go as low as vehicles if the terrain permits.

We also saw both Russia and Ukraine using low altitude to survive.

Mach Loop, where the Brits train their pilots for low altitude.

Death Valley hills for the Americans.

Hills and mountains are even better at hiding jets. Hence the Mach Loop.

An IAF C-130J crashed during low-level training.

‘Wake turbulence’ led to C-130 J aircraft crash

The probability of such a loss of control is particularly high when heavy aircraft are conducting manoeuvres close to the ground.

indianexpress.com

In this case, both aircraft were flying at 300 feet above ground level and had to climb to 1,000 feet when the accident occurred.
While the lead aircraft of the formation successfully climbed to 1,000 feet after the simulated “drop”, the second aircraft crashed into a river bed without any warning or distress signal.

Y'all need to stop talking sh!t like you understand these things.

 

[randomradio]

Funny this:

View this content on Instagram

View this content on Instagram

B-2 Spirit can fly as low as 200 feet (60 meters) or even lower, depending on mission requirements. It has terrain-following radar and advanced flight control systems that allow it to safely navigate at extremely low altitudes while maintaining stealth.

However, sustained low-altitude flight is not its primary mode of operation, as it is optimized for high-altitude stealth penetration at around 50,000 feet (15,240 meters) to avoid detection and surface threats. Low-level flight would typically be used in specific mission scenarios where radar evasion is crucial.

 

[Lolwa]

LCA Mk2 in certain roles, MRFA in all roles along with AMCA will easily replace Jaguar.

Let's be real rafale was always a jaguar replacement. It is now very clear why the IAF was obsessed with the rafale. It is literally as reliable and similar in operation as the Jaguar with superior avionics than the mirage. It was always designed to fulfill both those roles. Its design philosophy now seems to be closer to the Jaguar now if you think about it. A low thrust engine but super reliable and low maintenance but the thrust was enough to compete with most medium engined fighters. The spectra is basically a decent EW and jammer. It's not as OP as much as we thought. The fact is any 4.5 gen jet has capability to jam your enemy fighter aircraft. The rafale would have most likely jammed the j-10's pl-15 but the fact is that Saab erieye GaN radar cannot be jammed by the puny spectra. It just would be seen brightly because I don't think this fighter aircrafts can realistically jam dedicated aewc. AEWCS in the sky literally translate into having battleships in the sky. The question is why weren't our AEWCS on that night. From the pakistani perspective thry didn't have any indian aewcs facing them just 80 aircrafts. So our air force was flying blind. Why weren't they no aewcs when it was clearly not a sneak attack. The Pakistanis were pretty much in the air already before the first hit on the madrassa spots.
Point is AEWCS is needed to be jammed or taken out before any actual air combat is initiated.
We don't have any thing that jams aewcs. And possibly not even in capability. We have no dedicated ew aircraft and surprisingly pakistan has a dedicated ew aircraft in the zdk-03. It's chinese jamming but still it's some jamming capability. We need E-7 wedgetail like capability and something on the lines of a super hornet blk 3 growler.
As for the rafale we need to get the source codes and induct over a 150 of them in the airforce.

 

[randomradio]

Let's be real rafale was always a jaguar replacement. It is now very clear why the IAF was obsessed with the rafale. It is literally as reliable and similar in operation as the Jaguar with superior avionics than the mirage. It was always designed to fulfill both those roles. Its design philosophy now seems to be closer to the Jaguar now if you think about it. A low thrust engine but super reliable and low maintenance but the thrust was enough to compete with most medium engined fighters.

Rafale is an ASF with secondary strike capabilities far superior to the Jaguar. It's a high thrust engine.

The question is why weren't our AEWCS on that night.

We attacked first, so we will naturally have had AWACS available.