Dassault Rafale - Updates and Discussion

[randomradio]

Today's Russia can't fight NATO. Their modernisation began only a decade ago. All they have done is induct old stuff in pretty decent numbers, but they still need to make a dent in deployed next gen tech, which they have started doing 20 years before Europe.

Drones could change the game as well, both air and ground. This is another area where the Russians are making greater and faster strides than Europe.

Let's just say that by 2035, while the European militaries will continue looking pretty much the same as they do today, the Russian military would look completely different.

Worst case scenario, the S-500/550 lives up to the claim of stopping ICBMs and HGVs.

 

[_Anonymous_]

And your answer must also have to factor in decades & generations of rampant corruption and mismanagement in Russia.

It doesn't matter in a short war . Autocracies don't normally survive long wars theocracies do but the latter part is moot . In fact in short wars , dictatorships are extremely good at mobilization & propaganda.

That mess started before the Soviet Union crumbled; in fact it's a large factor in why the Soviet Union crumbled so hard that Russia basically became a third-world country in 1991. This mess is why the former Soviet countries that have joined the EU and NATO are much more prosperous (and less corrupt, though there's still a lot of work to do on that front) now than they were before they joined.

You're conflating two very different issues here. I'm referring to war fighting capacities & the will to win . You're bringing in arguments on the polity & economy of a nation whereas these hold good when you're basically comparing two vastly different societies as opposed to 2 dissimilar societies which is what Russia & Western Europe is .

For perspective on 2 vastly different societies let me draw your attention to France & Algeria or France & Annam in the 19th century .

Let me also refer to dissimilar societies bringing up the example you're cited earlier of whether UK would be able to invade India today. Now while this may be a very simplistic example as there are a whole host of factors which go into negating the argument on why UK can't invade India , I made the comparison only to illustrate the point.

This mess is why Ukraine, which was hit just as hard as Russia and has remained poor and corrupt to this day, dreams of joining the EU and leaving Russia behind.

Ukraine may be poor as per your exalted European standards . Top of the mind , I know of at least a dozen sub Saharan African & Asian countries including India who'd love to enjoy Ukraine's pre war economic metrics.

Well it's obviously not giving you the result you desire.

Yes. US & Afghanistan , US & Iraq , France & Vietnam , Vietnam & US , France & Algeria all say hi. In fact in the last part you didn't even have an external base for the insurgency usually a reason for insurgencies prevailing over the ruling classes.

Pls do wave back as a matter of courtesy & acknowledgement.

Point is the conventional forces of the Eurobloc are larger and better equipped than those of the conventional forces of Russia.

Undoubtedly larger & better equipped. Will to fight ? Will to take extreme losses & reversals in the short term ? I'm fairly certain they lack the stomach for it .

Besides minus US I very much doubt NATO can act as a coherent group. I mean the Poles or the Hungarians would certainly give the US more respect that they would the French or even ze Germans . No offense meant , but we know what the UK thinks of your war fighting abilities & I'm not even bringing in Paddy here .

In a conventional scenario where Europe intervenes in Ukraine to stop Russia, they'd succeed; and they wouldn't need America's help.

I don't think it's written in stone or anywhere that the European component of NATO would succeed minus US involvement.

The whole thing is moot anyway since this scenario has been ruled out.

 

[A Person]

I'm referring to war fighting capacities & the will to win.

War fighting capacities are on the West's side. Superior numbers, superior intel, superior equipment, superior coordination, superior logistics, superior everything.

And the "will to win" of the Russian people? Most of them would rather join the West than fight it. And the last time someone tried to carve an empire across Europe by relying on the "will to win", they lost pretty badly.

Yes. US & Afghanistan , US & Iraq , France & Vietnam , Vietnam & US , France & Algeria all say hi. In fact in the last part you didn't even have an external base for the insurgency usually a reason for insurgencies prevailing over the ruling classes.

All of these examples are insurgencies against an occupying power. By the way, you forgot one: the USSR & Afghanistan says hi, too!

But, for some reason, Russia will not only succeed in quashing the Ukrainian insurgency because they have such a strong will to win, but you've even pushed for them to successfully occupy and pacify Poland and Germany.

Are you so sure Russia would follow the same approach if the target was Berlin or Warsaw & not Kyiv / Kiev.

Good luck with that!

 

[Picdelamirand-oil]

Undoubtedly larger & better equipped. Will to fight ? Will to take extreme losses & reversals in the short term ? I'm fairly certain they lack the stomach for it .

Besides minus US I very much doubt NATO can act as a coherent group. I mean the Poles or the Hungarians would certainly give the US more respect that they would the French or even ze Germans . No offense meant , but we know what the UK thinks of your war fighting abilities & I'm not even bringing in Paddy here .

 

[_Anonymous_]

War fighting capacities are on the West's side. Superior numbers, superior intel, superior equipment, superior coordination, superior logistics, superior everything.

Without the US component, there isn't much to differentiate between the Euro component of NATO & Russia. If the former holds a huge edge in air power, the latter does so in the army.

And the "will to win" of the Russian people? Most of them would rather join the West than fight it.

Most of Ukranians too would do so given a choice yet here they are fighting the Russians.

And the last time someone tried to carve an empire across Europe by relying on the "will to win", they lost pretty badly.

Will to win (in your book) = will to conquer. Not in mine. That's an important distinction. ☺

All of these examples are insurgencies against an occupying power.

They may have initially started out as insurgencies but ended up in wars / civil wars in most cases .

By the way, you forgot one: the USSR & Afghanistan says hi, too!

Ah ! You took the bait , as expected. Yes that too. Btw - It does nothing to support your contention & now you're quoting examples to negate your own previous assertion.

But, for some reason, Russia will not only succeed in quashing the Ukrainian insurgency because they have such a strong will to win, but you've even pushed for them to successfully occupy and pacify Poland and Germany.

Did I say that? However if NATO support for insurgency in Ukraine post conquest is established all those States will we have terrorist related activities in them too.

Good luck with that!

Which brings us back to where we started.

 

[randomradio]

That's some daredevil flying. Have one for Rafale?

 

[A Person]

Without the US component, there isn't much to differentiate between the Euro component of NATO & Russia. If the former holds a huge edge in air power, the latter does so in the army.

Whatever, I won't bother with counting tanks and attack copters and ITVs and artillery trucks. The entire western military doctrine is based on the principle that air superiority means that the enemy's land army goes bye-bye.

Will to win (in your book) = will to conquer. Not in mine. That's an important distinction. ☺

Russia is attempting to conquer Ukraine. Europe is attempting to prevent this conquest. Will to win on Russia's part has therefore to be the will to conquer. If they don't want to conquer, they don't want to win a war of conquest.

Ah ! You took the bait , as expected. Yes that too. Btw - It does nothing to support your contention & now you're quoting examples to negate your own previous assertion.

Nope. I'm talking about conventional military against conventional military. You're talking about occupation forces vs. insurgency. If the Eurobloc fought Russia on the battlefields of Ukraine, Russia would lose, badly, end of story.

 

[_Anonymous_]

Whatever, I won't bother with counting tanks and attack copters and ITVs and artillery trucks. The entire western military doctrine is based on the principle that air superiority means that the enemy's land army goes bye-bye.

What're you going to fight them with? Rafales & Typhoons, that's what. For your air power to make real inroads you require the Lightnings in good numbers. I don't think the air forces which've opted for it have them in sizeable numbers. Plus the Russkies will throw in their formidable S-400 S-300 & few versions of the S-500 too. Good luck with that.

Russia is attempting to conquer Ukraine. Europe is attempting to prevent this conquest. Will to win on Russia's part has therefore to be the will to conquer. If they don't want to conquer, they don't want to win a war of conquest.

I think I was quite clearly referring to your statement on how the last time "someone tried to carve an empire across Europe by relying on the "will to win", they lost pretty badly."

Whom were you referring to here? Napoleon or Hitler or both or were you referring to Putin ?

Nope. I'm talking about conventional military against conventional military. You're talking about occupation forces vs. insurgency.

Two aspects here. It's winning the war followed by winning the peace. You lost a war in Vietnam which began as an insurgency & to an insurgency in Algeria. The US won the war in Iraq post Gulf War -2 & lost to an insurgency. Ditto in Afghanistan. In Vietnam it lost a war which began as an insurgency.

If the Eurobloc fought Russia on the battlefields of Ukraine, Russia would lose, badly, end of story.

I personally think it'd end in a stalemate. In any case I don't see Russia losing.

 

[randomradio]

Whatever, I won't bother with counting tanks and attack copters and ITVs and artillery trucks. The entire western military doctrine is based on the principle that air superiority means that the enemy's land army goes bye-bye.

Gotta give air defence importance. Even after we know what the Rafale is capable of, we still gave a lot of importance to the S-400.

The Russians operate with the knowledge that they may have to fight with air denial in mind, hence the heavy use of air defences even within mobile units.

In any case, I'd recommend reading this:

https://www.benning.army.mil/armor/earmor/content/issues/2017/spring/2Fiore17.pdf

It basically says the US Army should use its superior numbers to defeat the technologically superior Russian Army, not counting the further superiority the Russians will have once their Armata UCP enters in numbers.

Things are not as simple as you want it to be.

 

[Bon Plan]

Let's just say that by 2035, while the European militaries will continue looking pretty much the same as they do today, the Russian military would look completely different.

I don't think so. The Ukrainian war will change a lot of things in Europe.
You will see in the coming 2 years a lot of weapons purchases, fighter jets at top.

 

[Picdelamirand-oil]

Gotta give air defence importance. Even after we know what the Rafale is capable of, we still gave a lot of importance to the S-400.

Man of little faith, it is quite obvious that the Rafale will win against the S 400 and even against the S 500!

 

[randomradio]

I don't think so. The Ukrainian war will change a lot of things in Europe.
You will see in the coming 2 years a lot of weapons purchases, fighter jets at top.

I did not mean numbers, I meant tech. For example, the best jets the Europeans will have are the Typhoon, Rafale and F-35. But Russia would have graduated to next gen fighters with drones, even near-space fighters. Plus their SAMs are climbing up to the next level too. I don't see Europe competing with such tech and with adequate numbers until the 2040s. The US is required here. I really hope the French begin wingman drone programs for the Rafale soon.

On the ground too, Europe's answer to the Armata UCP will happen only after the 2040s. Europe definitely doesn't compete with a future RA, and the US also has no plans to compete with them technologically anytime soon. There's no saying to what extent the Russians will have automated their ground forces by 2030 too.

The roles have been reversed, Europe is gonna have to enter the 2030s with a massive tech disadvantage.

 

[randomradio]

Man of little faith, it is quite obvious that the Rafale will win against the S 400 and even against the S 500!

The IAF thinks it matters though. All their SAM inductions happened AFTER the Rafale's full capabilities were configured and contracted. Wouldn't you agree that the IAF knows something the Europeans don't?

It will be funny though, if the Rafale cannot be killed by the S-400, but the S-400 can protect itself from the Hammer.

 

[Picdelamirand-oil]

The IAF thinks it matters though. All their SAM inductions happened AFTER the Rafale's full capabilities were configured and contracted. Wouldn't you agree that the IAF knows something the Europeans don't?

It will be funny though, if the Rafale cannot be killed by the S-400, but the S-400 can protect itself from the Hammer.

The IAF certainly knows things that motivate its choices, but it is doubtful that the French will ignore them as this would reduce the effectiveness of the Indian Rafale. It is not for nothing that the two countries have strategic agreements. But I do not see how the choices of the Rafale and the S 400 would be contradictory if the Rafale can destroy the S 400, after all India's enemies do not have Rafale.

 

[Bon Plan]

On the ground too, Europe's answer to the Armata UCP will happen only after the 2040s.

On the ground we could see improved variants or Leo2 and Leclerc, with 140mm gun (a proto was built in the Leclerc case) or a 130mm in the german case (it was studied to adapt with Leo2 turret).
The 140mm gun is 70% more effective than 120mm one.

 

[Bon Plan]

I did not mean numbers, I meant tech.

Don't over estimate the russian weapons.
1) The Ukrainian war is not made with the latest gen weapons. See how many helo have been shooted down.
2) The russian armies don't show amazing results in Ukr.
3) See AESA for exemple. No AESA radar on a russian FOC fighter so far. ie +/- 10 years late versus french radar teh.

 

[randomradio]

The IAF certainly knows things that motivate its choices, but it is doubtful that the French will ignore them as this would reduce the effectiveness of the Indian Rafale. It is not for nothing that the two countries have strategic agreements. But I do not see how the choices of the Rafale and the S 400 would be contradictory if the Rafale can destroy the S 400, after all India's enemies do not have Rafale.

The S-400 has been bought for use over a 20-30 year period. It needs to take care of threats that show up even in the future, or it becomes meaningless. It's obvious that the Russians have incorporated changes into the S-400 as and when the West have demonstrated new capabilities. So what you say applies for India-Russia as well. The S-400 is after all a very massive investment for India. At full anticipated strength, S-400's procurement price could be 2/3rds of MRFA's.

If during exercises we figure out that the S-400 has weaknesses against the Rafale, we will ask the Russians to plug those fixes. And the Russians being the prudent people they are, will incorporate those fixes on their S-400 as well. The opposite holds true for France, Rafale's weaknesses will have to be fixed too.

In India, the S-400 commanders will be expected to invest in capabilities that will help defeat the Rafale, FGFA and AMCA for the duration of the SAM's service life in order to prepare against unknown present and future threats.

 

[randomradio]

On the ground we could see improved variants or Leo2 and Leclerc, with 140mm gun (a proto was built in the Leclerc case) or a 130mm in the german case (it was studied to adapt with Leo2 turret).
The 140mm gun is 70% more effective than 120mm one.

The difference between the two will be logistics, defensive systems, mobility and unmanned capabilities, not firepower. No point in having a 140mm gun if the Afghanit can shoot its projectile down.

Don't over estimate the russian weapons.
1) The Ukrainian war is not made with the latest gen weapons. See how many helo have been shooted down.
2) The russian armies don't show amazing results in Ukr.
3) See AESA for exemple. No AESA radar on a russian FOC fighter so far. ie +/- 10 years late versus french radar teh.

That's current gen tech. Which is why I said the Russian military will look very different in the 2030s. By 2030, the Armata UCP, Su-57 and Mig-41 will have capabilities the Europeans will not have.

 

[Bon Plan]

The difference between the two will be logistics, defensive systems, mobility and unmanned capabilities, not firepower. No point in having a 140mm gun if the Afghanit can shoot its projectile down.

There is no system available to destroy a sparrow in flight (1800m/sec).
Afghanit is efficient (to be seen) against RPG and low speed bullet.

Logistic? The actual operations in ukrainia are not a good exemple.

Russian armies are made of a small node of very skilled troups (para troopers, special forces) and the mass is made of unskilled, unmotivate, low trained people. See also how many tanks and trucks seemed to have been abandoned (no fuel? tires break? crew afraid?)

The difference between the two will be logistics, defensive systems, mobility and unmanned capabilities, not firepower. No point in having a 140mm gun if the Afghanit can shoot its projectile down.



That's current gen tech. Which is why I said the Russian military will look very different in the 2030s. By 2030, the Armata UCP, Su-57 and Mig-41 will have capabilities the Europeans will not have.

Mig41? what is that?
Armata is so coslty Russia will only able to have few units, specially after west economic measures.

 

[_Anonymous_]

The Rafale fighter jet is a warplane with a ‘French touch’

The name means "gust" in French. Indonesia is buying 42 Rafales, a fighter jet that's been flying in various forms for decades.

www.popsci.com