But the new-generation SEAD weapons like RudraM-1 is also designed for much higher accuracy and complete DEAD of IADS/SAM C3I. That's why we have put an active MMW seeker for it to track the SAM radars even once they've switched off. So a desired result is achieved via more accuracy resulting in less saturation/volumes. Thus, these new gen anti-radiation missiles differ quite a lot from their predecessors.
I am sure the French anti-radiation SEAD missile won't be any less capable than our NGARM.
PS: This admission by the French about Rafale needing SEAD missile nay also be an admission that "active stealth" isn't a guarantee like F-22/F-35's 'passive stealth' against modern AI backed AESA radars
The idea behind SEAD is to force the enemy to act a certain way so it provides a brief window of opportunity for a particular mission. It's no different from providing suppressive fire.
In military science, suppressive fire is "fire that degrades the performance of an enemy force below the level needed to fulfill its mission".
The issue with SEAD is it's almost entirely dependent on the level of competence of the enemy. If the enemy is very competent, most SEAD missions will fail. Using saturation attacks as a tactic to "defeat" a SAM site is basically all about spray and pray. The French method to use a glider is just to overwhelm the enemy radar to force a shut down. Numbers saturates the radar's resources, speed reduces the enemy's ability to react. The goal is the same for both, but the latter tactic is more expensive due to the use of an expensive powered missile.
So SEAD does not replace DEAD. And DEAD depends entirely on the level of your own competence relative to the enemy.
