What's new

Purpose of S-400 and Rafale is to hit Pakistani aircraft inside Pakistani air space

Can I ask? Why do Indians call the Su-30 the "Raptor of the East"? They mean it's as good as the F-22 Raptor or just as a cool name?
First time I heard about this was here,in this forum.

SU 30s are huge and almost same as F22 in terms of dimensions. Each SU30 can carry 12 BVR missiles at one time. If you ask any Indian here about SU30 now they would be bad mouthing it as worst jet in the world. Indian have a habbit of presenting their goodies like Gods but in their hands even Rafale are useless.
 
Can I ask? Why do Indians call the Su-30 the "Raptor of the East"? They mean it's as good as the F-22 Raptor or just as a cool name?
First time I heard about this was here,in this forum.

Not only raptor of the east but also a mini AWACS.... Anything Indians can get their hands on becomes 2nd to none.
 
We all saw how "effective" the Armenian S300s were, i dont see the S400s fairing much better - as usual russian weapons are hyped far in excess of their capabilities as demonstrated by their combat records.

For every system - there is a counter - i am certain that at this point the Turks, Chinese and Pakistsn how understood how to neutralise the S400.

Dont get carried away with this new god of the S400, dont you remember what happened to the old god of the Raptor of the East - the Su30MKI ...
S300 are old. They are from 1978
 
I have found this to be the trend with the Indian forces in general i.e. all the blame for failures is put on equipment/ technology and similarly all hopes and dreams are tied to equipment/technology.

Pre-2019, SPYDER was an awesome air defence system from Israel, come 27th feb, the spyder was shooting down its own.

Similar is the case with the SU-30 MKI. On this very same forum I've seen my friends from the East claim that SU-30 MKI is better than any 4.5 generation aircraft in service. It was portrayed as some amazing aircraft with a mix of Russian/ french / israeli and Indian inputs --- something that was unbeatable, even for the mighty typhoon (yes sir, claims were made by the Indians on the MKI being superior to the EF-2000 quoting an exercise in which as per Indian claims, IAF scored some kills on the typhoons). Come 27th feb, the same typhoon beaters are busy dodging AMRAAMs from F-16's.

Now it is the same game with the Rafale and S-400, again putting ones complete trust in technology and weaponry ignoring the fact that it is not the only factor in play.
 
S300 are old. They are from 1978

We all saw how "effective" the Armenian S300s were, i dont see the S400s fairing much better - as usual russian weapons are hyped far in excess of their capabilities as demonstrated by their combat records.

Well there are many versions and upgrades. The last few years I started wondering if the systems are as good as they are said to be.
Here's the thing: The Russians have been suspiciously reluctant to use both their S-300 and S-400 systems in Syria. The ones that they own and use themselves. Not the Syrian ones. They gave the Syrians an old S-300PM version. Now,you might say "They probably wanted to avoid problems if they shot any Israeli or American jet fighter". But they could have shot down missiles,UAVs or anything else,just to send a message. But they didn't.

Then in Armenia...I think the problem was their SHORADS and maybe the systems were off or not given an order to fire? I don't know.
But the Armenians also had an old version that was introduced in 1985 just like the S-300PM.
Greece has the S-300PMU1 which were introduced in 1993 and Azerbaijan has the S-300PMU2 which are even better.
Screenshot_2021-05-27 S-300 missile system - Wikipedia(1).png
 
27 Feb was the best thing IAF could have got ,Pakistanis getting deluded to an extent that they think they have a chance against IAF in an actual war(not a scirmish) even after Rafale & S 400 is hilarious.

Besides more than both of them, it's ASTRA BVR integration which will be a nightmare for PAF.
 
Last edited:
27 Feb was the best thing IAF could have got ,Pakistanis getting deluded to an extent that they think they have a chance against IAF in an actual war(not a scirmish) even after Rafale & S 400 is hilarious.

Besides more than both of them it's ASTRA BVR integration which will be a nightmare for PAF.
Misplaced, your trust in the rafale and s400, it is - Yoda probably

My dude. We arent deluded. We just happy. There is a difference. I have no idea where you get ur delusion from. It aint like you saying ur raptor of the east will destroy PAF F16s as soon as they take off. We have our counters/developing them. Thats all
 
27 Feb was the best thing IAF could have got ,Pakistanis getting deluded to an extent that they think they have a chance against IAF in an actual war(not a scirmish) even after Rafale & S 400 is hilarious.

Besides more than both of them, it's ASTRA BVR integration which will be a nightmare for PAF.
Lol, abhi and your armed forces must have thought the same and told themselves, all is well, it isn't a war, just a skirmish.
 





The Rafale aircraft will give India a strategic advantage in case of any aerial combat with China in the mountainous Tibet region as the fleet will be able to use the terrain to its advantage, destroy enemy air defence and incapacitate the surface-to-air missiles, former Chief of Air Staff Air Chief Marshal (retd) B S Dhanoa said on Sunday.

Dhanoa, known as the architect of the Balakot strikes, said the Rafale jets along with S-400 missile systems will give the Indian Air Force a major combat edge in the entire region and that India’s adversaries will think twice before starting a war with it.

In case of Pakistan, he said the purpose of the S-400 and Rafale is to hit Pakistani aircraft inside Pakistani air space and not when they come inside Indian territory, adding the neighbouring country would not have responded on February 27 last year to the Balakot air strikes if India had the French-manufactured jets then.

In an interview to PTI, Dhanoa said the Rafale, with its fantastic electronic warfare suite and maneuverability, will be able use mountainous terrain in Tibet to its advantage and blind the enemy before India’s strike aircraft penetrate hostile airspace to carry out their missions.

The former Chief of Air Staff also said that the Rafales being supplied to the IAF are much more advanced than the ones being used by the French Air Force as India had asked for something “more” due to requirement to operate in unique conditions like operations from Leh.

Five Rafale jets out of 36 arrived India last week at a time India is in the midst of a bitter border row with China in the high altitude eastern Ladakh region.

“Rafale has got a fantastic Electronic Warfare (EW) suite (SPECTRA), fantastic weapons and therefore are capable of protecting themselves electronically besides being able to use the terrain to their advantage,” Dhanoa said.

“So they (Rafales) can play an important role in doing DEAD (Destruction of Enemy Air Defence) on the Surface-to-Air Missiles that the Chinese have put on Tibet.

“Once you take out those surface to air missiles, then other aircraft like Su30, Jaguars, even Mig 21s can go out and drop the bombs on the Chinese forces. The strike aircraft carrying bombs can put tonnes and tonnes of bombs on the enemy troops, freely carrying out their mission. But if you do not do DEAD then you will suffer a lot of casualties,” he said.

The leading air forces globally carry out Suppression of Enemy Air Defence (SEAD) or DEAD using their top of the line aircraft or weapons before launching any major operation in hostile territories.

As the Chief of Air Staff, Dhanoa had strongly defended the Rafale deal when the opposition parties ramped up attack on the government alleging massive irregularities in the procurement. The top IAF brass led by Dhanoa played a key role in implementation of the mega deal.

“Against China there are big Himalayan mountains in between us which create serious line of sight issues. You can put a missile with a range of 300-400 kms on the ground in Tibet or in India. But it will only work within the line of sight,” he said.

He said the Rafales, with terrain following capability, will give India a major capability enhancement.

“In air combat, the first thing that is important is information dominance, you get information and deny the enemy the information. The key role the Rafales will play in Tibet is information dominance and in case of Pakistan, it is a major deterrent. Of course there will be other roles too,” he said.

Asked about the comparison between the Rafales and J-20 fighter jets of China, he said the Chinese aircraft is not stealthy and presently, with its current engines, cannot supercruise unlike the newly-acquired Indian fleet.

In a beyond visual range (BVR) combat, he said Indian missiles are far superior than theirs. The French avionics on board the Rafale are “far superior” than the Chinese systems in J-20s, he said.

“Hence in a BVR environment the Rafales are superior to the J-20s,” he added.

“With the induction of the Rafales we will have a tremendous jump in capability. That’s why I called both (Rafale and S 400) of them game changers. Both these platforms will give the IAF a tremendous capability jump. The Rafale in the air and S-400 on the ground.

In October 2018, India signed a USD 5 billion deal to buy the S-400 air defence missile systems from Russia to bolster the IAF’s air defence mechanism.

The ‘Triumf’ interceptor-based missile system can destroy incoming hostile aircraft, missiles and even drones at ranges of up to 400 km. The delivery of the missile systems is scheduled to begin next year.

“Both S-400 and Rafales are critical game changers. Rafale is a deterrent. The purpose of deterrence is not to fight a war. Purpose of deterrence is to make the other person think twice before he starts a war or a skirmish with you,” he said.

He said the Pakistanis would not have responded on February 27 last year to India’s Balakot strikes if India had the Rafale jets.

In this context, he also mentioned an operation by the IAF to drop bombs on a Pakistani post along the LoC in Kel sector in 2002, and how Pakistani Air Force never dared to respond to it.

“On August 2, 2002, we did bombing of a Pakistani post as the Pakistanis had intruded about 600-700 metres inside the LoC in our area and set up a post. We bombed with four Mirage 2000s and after that the Pakistanis never came back,” Dhanoa said.

“The Pakistanis never ever dreamt of bombing an Indian post in retaliation because we had Beyond Visual Range (BVR) missiles on Mirage 2000, MiG 29 and the Su-30 Ks and they did not have any BVR missiles on any of their fighters,” he recalled.

“They just kept quiet about it and just didn’t acknowledge that something had happened and later on played it low key when the news did break in the international media! That is what is called deterrence,” he added.

Asked whether India should consider procuring two more squadrons of Rafales as it makes operational sense, Dhanoa called it a good idea and said that it will be the “cheapest option” of getting a 4.5 generation fighter into the air force.

“We already have infrastructure for two squadrons. We do not need additional infrastructure for the next two squadrons. They will come, in my assessment, at 60 to 70 per cent of the cost of the current ones,” he said.

“The cost of research and development for all India-specific enhancements have already been covered. The next two squadrons of Rafales will be the cheapest option of getting a 4.5 generation fighter into the air force,” he added.

Dhanoa, who retired as the IAF Chief on September 30 last year, said having two more squadrons of Rafales will give the force a lot of strength.

“If you have 72-80 aircraft, it will match whatever F-16s the Pakistanis have got. It will be good for deterrence,” he said adding it will make economic sense.

Dhanoa also thanked all the people who stood by the Rafale deal, including the defence minister, the civil servants, the then defence secretary, the director general (acquisition) and many others in the government.

“You have to give them full marks, because they stood by it despite many apprehensions. Normally everybody gets scared that this deal may be termed later as a scam and they may be hauled up by the investigation agencies after their retirement, or some other roving inquiry that may happen which may implicate them in the future. These people stood by it; we signed and executed the deal,” he said.

Dhanoa said the political leadership also stood their ground and did not dump the deal.

“They were going into an election. You could have always opted for a soft option of setting up a committee. Everybody stood their ground. The national leadership, the bureaucracy. That is why you have the aircraft,” he added.

Dhanoa also expressed happiness that the first squadron of Rafales will be part of the Number 17 Squadron, also known as ‘Golden Arrows’, based in Ambala.

“I am very happy...I was the last Commodore Commandant of 17 squadron. It got number plated in March 2012. It stopped flying in December 2011. Having celebrated our Diamond Jubilee in October 2011. Last year the Squadron has been resurrected and this year aircraft have finally come to the Squadron,” he said.

“Golden Arrows have a very rich tradition. The Squadron has fought in all the wars. It participated in the Liberation of Goa, 1965 war, 1971 war, and it fought in Kargil,” he added.

Dhanoa commanded the squadron during the Kargil war.

“In case, there is fighting in Eastern Ladakh, we will not miss it,” the Air Chief Marshal (Retd.) said in a lighter vein.
I did some research and here are my two cents

1) india has s-300missile systems since 2006

2) they have su-30 mkis, mirage 2000, mig-29s , tejas

3) spider air defenses

yet on feb 27th none of these systems were able to defend against the PAF onslaught bombing Indian military targets in Indian occupied Kashmir.

there is a problem with long range air defenses. They are static and enable the enemy to build strategies to counter theee, example is Syria , Libya , Iraq and Armenia where in each of these countries this system was defeated.

these system can be used to compliment an effective airforce with point defense capability but are not a substitute for an effective airforce. So investing in aerial superiority drones would be a massively better use of money in Pakistan

k
 
there is a problem with long range air defenses. They are static and enable the enemy to build strategies to counter theee, example is Syria , Libya , Iraq and Armenia where in each of these countries this system was defeated.
I'm not saying you are wrong,but there are differences between each country and army.
For example in Syria,supposedly a lot of the defences that were modern,have intercepted a lot of missiles. But the problem is,they are against probably the second best if not the best air force in the world,Israel.
However in Libya,if you mean the 2011 war during Gaddafi,their AA weapons were too old. In Iraq too,although many managed to hit Western aircraft. During the Iran-Iraq War,they were of course good. Of course,it always depended on the system. For example some of the more modern Soviet SAM systems and the French Roland were pretty good.

In Armenia,the situation was a bit different. They did have a majority of old Soviet AA weapons and maybe some of their systems were not in use or their radars being too old? I don't know.

But it's also a matter of people. The personnel,training and how well they can use them. For example,the Serbs showed remarkable skills fighting against NATO during the Yugoslav wars. The Russians also have a lot of men who are very skillful in Air Defence.
 
I'm not saying you are wrong,but there are differences between each country and army.
For example in Syria,supposedly a lot of the defences that were modern,have intercepted a lot of missiles. But the problem is,they are against probably the second best if not the best air force in the world,Israel.
However in Libya,if you mean the 2011 war during Gaddafi,their AA weapons were too old. In Iraq too,although many managed to hit Western aircraft. During the Iran-Iraq War,they were of course good. Of course,it always depended on the system. For example some of the more modern Soviet SAM systems and the French Roland were pretty good.

In Armenia,the situation was a bit different. They did have a majority of old Soviet AA weapons and maybe some of their systems were not in use or their radars being too old? I don't know.

But it's also a matter of people. The personnel,training and how well they can use them. For example,the Serbs showed remarkable skills fighting against NATO during the Yugoslav wars. The Russians also have a lot of men who are very skillful in Air Defence.
True, skill does play a factor but Syria had s-300 , taken out by isreal
Current Libyan government in Tripoli had s-300s taken out by wing long drones.

Armenia had s-300s taken out by Turkish tb2 …….



soon it will be Pakistani drones destroying Indian air defenses

so if it quacks like a duck; if it walks like a duck it’s an Indian air defence system being destroyed by Pakistan

k
 
Your country exist because of people like him.

Lungideshis should know where to talk.


When the time comes you will see what we mean by war.
as if your armed forces knew that things would not escalate before they entering the battlefield, no one is buying such bs excuse, every soldier going to the battlefield with everything they got in hand, so that day truly showed your armed forces are not prepared.
 
True, skill does play a factor but Syria had s-300 , taken out by isreal
They haven't taken out any S-300s in Syria.


Current Libyan government in Tripoli had s-300s taken out by wing long drones.
That's not true,the Tripoli government don't have relations with Russia and the LNA in Tobruk don't have S-300s.


Armenia had s-300s taken out by Turkish tb2 …….
Armenians have old S-300PS version and they might have had old or no SHORADS protection for them at the moment they were hit.
 
Back
Top Bottom