What's new

6 Rafale fighters to land in India on April 28, 4 more in May: Official

lightoftruth

SENIOR MEMBER
Mar 10, 2012
3,769
-19
4,013
Country
India
Location
India
By 2022 all rafale's would have arrived, it's right time to put in follow up orders of 36 more.

4 squadrons of rafale's are very much needed ,specially on eastern border.
 

nahtanbob

SENIOR MEMBER
Sep 24, 2018
7,893
-37
2,606
Country
United States
Location
United States
They used to say that Pak has nothing to match the SU30 before Feb 2019 and now
they say we have nothing to match the Rafale. Lol
F-16 is more than a match for the Su-30 in aerial combat
You can make a 1000km range A2A missile but it solely depends on who detects & locks first and shoots first.
a 1000 km A2A has to be huge. I am not sure it can fit on most combat aircraft
 

Ali_Baba

SENIOR MEMBER
May 27, 2018
2,430
-1
3,459
Country
United Kingdom
Location
United Kingdom
You can make a 1000km range A2A missile but it solely depends on who detects & locks first and shoots first.
Yes - Precisely - and by every mtric that will still be the PAF, even after the full induction of the Rafale. PAF will maintain its first look, first shoot advantage through the JF17 BLock III and PL15.
 
Oct 6, 2020
2,224
-53
1,522
Country
India
Location
India
Yes - Precisely - and by every mtric that will still be the PAF, even after the full induction of the Rafale. PAF will maintain its first look, first shoot advantage through the JF17 BLock III and PL15.
It does not depend on range of missiles, it depends on who locks and fires first, is the radar even capable to detect your enemy from that distance is what matters. An AESA Radar on F-22 Raptor gives 400km range for 3m^2 targets.
 

Yasser76

SENIOR MEMBER
Mar 28, 2017
2,127
1
3,251
Country
United Kingdom
Location
United Kingdom
Yes - Precisely - and by every mtric that will still be the PAF, even after the full induction of the Rafale. PAF will maintain its first look, first shoot advantage through the JF17 BLock III and PL15.
Considerig the small numbers and threat from China, actually higher chance of JF-17s coming up against non AESA/Meteor fighters in the IAF. The Rafale is exactly what the IAF want it to be, a silver bullet, that means the day to day work will still be carried out by MIG-21s, MIG-29s and SU-30s.

Rafale delivers will stop at 36. JF-17s will stop at 250.....
 

Invicta

FULL MEMBER
Mar 5, 2020
626
1
959
Country
United Kingdom
Location
United Kingdom
Laughing stock on PDF yes. Keep laughing.


Could you please clarify what you mean by all eggs in one basket?

26 Feb has had enough discussion on various threads. I wouldn’t get into it lest I be labelled as derailing the thread.

Indian strike on Balakot was to display a change in mindset and approach to Pakistan supported insurgency. Nothing is dead in water anywhere. Any repeat incident similar to Pulwama would display that to everyone.

I do agree and have said it earlier too, that number of AEWC aircraft is highly inadequate for the airspace that India has to defend. Same goes for number of fighters. I have listed few others in my previous posts.
IAF had all its bet (eggs etc etc) hedged against the offensive doctrine that they follow. While their airstrikes were supposed to display a change in the approach to supposed terror activities. It backfired - IAF and Indian government now knows that such an airstrike in the future would mean escalation of the situation to uncontrollable levels.

I don't know what they were thinking, they would only have succeeded if PAF and Pakistan government did not strike back, that is never going to happen. Even I sitting in a different continent know that.

So this fallacy of future airstrikes is dead in the water, it was sheer luck that situation did not escalate further. How many future governments do you think will be willing to take the punt into the unknown and risk it all.
 

VkdIndian

BANNED
Jan 6, 2021
791
-6
614
Country
India
Location
India
IAF had all its bet (eggs etc etc) hedged against the offensive doctrine that they follow. While their airstrikes were supposed to display a change in the approach to supposed terror activities. It backfired - IAF and Indian government now knows that such an airstrike in the future would mean escalation of the situation to uncontrollable levels.

I don't know what they were thinking, they would only have succeeded if PAF and Pakistan government did not strike back, that is never going to happen. Even I sitting in a different continent know that.

So this fallacy of future airstrikes is dead in the water, it was sheer luck that situation did not escalate further. How many future governments do you think will be willing to take the punt into the unknown and risk it all.
Ok. I get your point of view.

However, my assessment is that Indian Government knew very well that Pakistan could strike back and situation could escalate. Why would India think that Pakistan wouldn’t retaliate?

Pakistan’s presumption that possibility of an escalation would deter India from carrying out any such strike motivated it in adding fuel to the fire in Kashmir.

This possibility of an escalation is the very reason that should deter Pakistan from providing any support in the form of men or material. No bleeding with thousand cuts. If any major incident (like Pulwama) takes place then it would be answered with escalation that can be very expensive for Pakistan. Is Pakistan willing to take that cost and still provide support? So the ball is in Pakistan’s court now.

I hope and wish that such a situation doesn’t arise.

PS- I suggest we focus on the heading of the thread here. The aspect that you and I have mentioned has been discussed in aptly titled threads. Please continue this discussion on those threads if you have any such intentions.
 
Last edited:

Yasser76

SENIOR MEMBER
Mar 28, 2017
2,127
1
3,251
Country
United Kingdom
Location
United Kingdom
Ok. I get your point of view.

However, my assessment is that Indian Government knew very well that Pakistan could strike back and situation could escalate. Why would India think that Pakistan wouldn’t retaliate?

Pakistan’s presumption that possibility of an escalation would deter India from carrying out any such strike motivated it in adding fuel to the fire in Kashmir.

This possibility of an escalation is the very reason that should deter Pakistan from providing any support in the form of men or material. No bleeding with thousand cuts. If any major incident (like Pulwama) takes place then it would be answered with escalation that can be very expensive for Pakistan. Is Pakistan willing to take that cost and still provide support? So the ball is still in Pakistan’s court.

I hope and wish that such a situation doesn’t arise.

PS- I suggest we focus on the heading of the thread here. The aspect that you and I have mentioned has been discussed in aptly titled threads. Please continue this discussion on those threads if you have any such intentions.
Khuta! You make so many claims, yet you still do not respond when I caught you out lying about Meteor in IAF service. Still peddling your BS yet run away from my replies?
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Total: 1, Members: 0, Guests: 1)


Top Bottom