What's new

Rafale is not a Game Changer - Senior Analyst Shahzad Chaudhry

He does not need to mention SPECTRA. Dassault's marketing and Indian fanship talk it up as if it is something "revolutionary", but it isn't. I can guarantee that the systems that are available to the PAF on the F-16s and what we will be employing on the JF-17 blk3 and retrofitting on the older blocks will allow PAF a very potent capability in the envisaged environment whether the IAF brings the Rafale or the Su-30MKI.

What is lost on many here is that Pakistan Air Force cannot be deterred by Rafales just like it was not deterred by the MKIs. We will maintain our deterrence against India through not one, but multiple options to inflict damage. This is something that neither 36 nor 126 Rafales can address. By the time India inducts S-400, Pakistan will have counter-measures in place. Keep in mind that we literally ate grass to get what we needed to in the past. There is just no way that Pakistan will *ever* let India erode the conventional deterrence. Even if India goes for F-35s, Pakistan will counter.

As such, India can buy not 36, but 126 Rafales however the situation will not change for the PAF because by the time India does that, Pakistan's entire fleet will be comprised of only 2 platforms i.e. F-16 and JF-17s with a very potent set of capabilities in all roles. We don't need an expeditionary Air Force as such we can do without twin-engines, very long endurance, and over-priced French nice-to-haves.

The shiny kit syndrome aside that very many are afflicted with here and elsewhere, when it comes to "employment", these two platforms of the PAF will prove equal to the task.
Radar size, payload, endurance , self protection suit, tow decoys, ultra long range missles all matter no matter how much we underplay it

Jf17 simply wasnt designed to address all these and neither we saw a major design change (size + endurance + engine upgrade) in block III to attempt to adress these
 
.
To be frank, if the PAF had gotten the Rafale instead of India, there'd be a dozen threads saying, "how the Rafale gives the PAF the edge..." etc.

We should change our mindset. By downplaying India's moves, we are giving our government and military decision-makers a pass. No more passes.

If we're too broke to afford new weapons, we need to then take those not doing their job (of growing the economy) accountable.

I know first hand that back in 1999 PAF seriously considered Rafael. We also looked at JAS 39 Griffin but it had too many American parts for our taste especially the engine.

Rafael was the logical step as the unit was basically sanction proof and the French were and our friends. The plan was to buy this with Saudi and Qatar. This did not pan out because ganja/ nawaz spent all our money on his farmhouse. The CBA did not make sense unless 100-200 planes were bought. Since we had no money we decide to go full hog into the JF-17, the PAF the most intelligent of the three services was looking for western avionics and engine but None of this worked out And we did the hard work of improving Chinese technology and concepts. Today it worked out and we have a world class fighter in JF-17 block 2 and Block 3

I do agree with you that those responsible for governing need to govern! I just wanted to give the history of the decisions and how Allah plans Best



kv
 
.
I know first hand that back in 1999 PAF seriously considered Rafael. We also looked at JAS 39 Griffin but it had too many American parts for our taste especially the engine.

Rafael was the logical step as the unit was basically sanction proof and the French were and our friends. The plan was to buy this with Saudi and Qatar. This did not pan out because ganja/ nawaz spent all our money on his farmhouse. The CBA did not make sense unless 100-200 planes were bought. Since we had no money we decide to go full hog into the JF-17, the PAF the most intelligent of the three services was looking for western avionics and engine but None of this worked out And we did the hard work of improving Chinese technology and concepts. Today it worked out and we have a world class fighter in JF-17 block 2 and Block 3

I do agree with you that those responsible for governing need to govern! I just wanted to give the history of the decisions and how Allah plans Best



kv
Gripen also not considered due to adding little to JF-17 ASR baseline. PAF wants a strike fighter, we have enough and potent A2A.
 
.
Accountibility comes after acceptance

We dont even accept that two parties bankrupted pakistan not once but several times

Even today central punjab and sindh overwhelming support these people including super educated highly talented people .. Pml n & ppp took almost twice as much as votes as pti in 2018.. When country was bankrupted to a level never seen before...

Rafale is going to give india an edge by 2025.. no doubt about it.. The techinical superority we gained in 2010 (b52-aim120c combo) will move back to IAF . only counters are a full package f16b70/aim120d or highly intergated block 3 in large numbers or the J31 if available
The edge is going to be less impactful in terms of equipment and more in terms of tactics and training the french are going to provide. A well trained IAF with just Mig-29s is hundred fold a greater threat than a mediocre one with Rafale’s and Su-30s
 
.
The edge is going to be less impactful in terms of equipment and more in terms of tactics and training the french are going to provide. A well trained IAF with just Mig-29s is hundred fold a greater threat than a mediocre one with Rafale’s and Su-30s
Yep. The edge would've been greater had the IAF secured this fighter earlier and in greater numbers.

If the PAF had secured the Rafale instead, I think the idea of it melding in with our 75-odd F-16s and forming one cohesive offensive package (with layers of A2A and SOW/A2G) would've been the edge. This would have doubly been the case if we had slotted in the V-upgrade for the F-16s. For this role, the PAF would've needed around 24 Rafales to make it work, i.e., 99 'medium/heavy' fighters for offensive ops (Rafale + F-16) plus 150-200 JF-17s to hold the border.
 
.
The edge is going to be less impactful in terms of equipment and more in terms of tactics and training the french are going to provide. A well trained IAF with just Mig-29s is hundred fold a greater threat than a mediocre one with Rafale’s and Su-30s
why do we assume india is not professional airforce..they are..its not libyian airforce
 
.
Yep. The edge would've been greater had the IAF secured this fighter earlier and in greater numbers.

If the PAF had secured the Rafale instead, I think the idea of it melding in with our 75-odd F-16s and forming one cohesive offensive package (with layers of A2A and SOW/A2G) would've been the edge. This would have doubly been the case if we had slotted in the V-upgrade for the F-16s. For this role, the PAF would've needed around 24 Rafales to make it work, i.e., 99 'medium/heavy' fighters for offensive ops (Rafale + F-16) plus 150-200 JF-17s to hold the border.

unfortunately, the greatest drawback to these official thoughts is that these are from a nation called Pakistanis. So, our own values reflect in what the PAF does and does not do or how we support those with higher caliber in country or nurture them.

All off topic, although the French tried to fleece us first with the Rafale but finally found the Indian willing in their desperation for conflict.
 
.
why do we assume india is not professional airforce..they are..its not libyian airforce

They were, and still are - but in the last few years have populated their ranks with “yes men” and political influence.
Make no mistake, pound for pound the IAF is still one of the finest air arms in the world.
 
.
Air Cdre Kaiser Tufail (Retd)

Quite clearly, the inadequacy of IAF’s Su-30MKI and MiG-29 twin-engine fighters in the air superiority role led to the decision to acquire the Rafale, ostensibly a more modern and capable multi-role fighter. While both Russian fighters are highly maneuverable in a visual dogfight, as evidenced in several IAF exercises with RAF Typhoons and USAF F-15s and F-16s, they seem to have shortcomings in network-centric, Beyond Visual Range (BVR) combat. This was noticed during the 27 February 2019 skirmish with PAF F-16s, when a pair of Su-30s failed to establish data link and were of no mutual support to each other. The capabilities of the much-touted N011M ‘Bars’ airborne intercept radar are also suspect as the patrolling Su-30s were unable to launch even a single radar-guided R-77 BVR missiles against two dozen PAF fighters milling in the area on 27 February. While a definitive conclusion about the shortcomings of the Su-30 fire-control radar and missiles cannot be made on the basis of a single engagement, it is clear that they are not at par with the PAF F-16/AMRAAM combo. The IAF was aware of these limitations of the Russian fighters, which is why it had initiated measures for the acquisition of Western multi-role combat aircraft instead of more Su-30s, as far back as 2012.

IAF’s choice fell on the French Rafale, which is, indeed, a formidable multi-role fighter with long range and endurance, along with a sizeable payload in the class of the Su-30, areas that single-engine fighters like the F-16A/B and JF-17 cannot compete in. With a powerful radar and the long-range, radar-guided Meteor BVR missile, it comes at a cost of $120 million apiece. Dollar for dollar, PAF can acquire four JF-17 Blk-III for the cost of one Rafale, thus more than offsetting the latter’s payload capabilities, at least. The range of the Rafale’s Meteor missile claimed by the manufacturer (MBDA) to be 100+ km led the Indian Prime Minister to ruefully state that, “if we had the Rafale, results would have been different [on 27 February].”

Mr. Modi has apparently not yet been briefed by his Air Staff about the JF-17’s upcoming PL-15 BVR missile guided by the new AESA radar, which beats the Rafale’s ramjet-powered Meteor by several tens of kilometers. It is manifest that long range BVR combat will take precedence over close combat in any future conflict, and enemy aircraft will be shot out of the skies while remaining well inside their own territory.

While we are at it, it may be worthwhile to have a cursory line comparison of the Rafale, F-16A and JF-17 in one-on-one visual air combat.

All three aircraft have a ‘clean’ configuration Thrust-to-Weight Ratio of 1:1 and can climb and accelerate equally well. In a turning fight, Aspect Ratio and Wing Loading are critical parameters. The JF-17 and F-16A enjoy better Aspect Ratios of 3.7 each, compared to the Rafale which stands at 2.6. A better Aspect Ratio (square of wing span to wing area) implies better aerodynamic efficiency due to less induced drag during turning. As for Wing Loading, or the weight of the aircraft per unit area, the lesser the better. The Rafale has a slight edge, having 68 lbs/sq ft compared to the JF-17 and F-16A, both of which have Wing Loadings of 77 lbs/sq ft. A lightly loaded wing helps in a tighter turn, though in case of the Rafale, this advantage is overcome by greater induced drag due its lower Aspect Ratio. In sum, all three fighters are at par, more or less, in a turning fight.

Induction of the Rafale in IAF has created considerable media interest, and the impression has been created that with immediate effect, IAF will rule the Indian skies. It must, however, be remembered that it will be at least two years before the Rafale achieves anything close to Full Operational Capability. PAF, on the other hand, has been flying F-16s for 37 years, including hot scenarios during the Afghan War, in local counter-insurgency operations, and the latest Operation ‘Swift Retort,’ downing half a dozen enemy fighters in these operations. The JF-17 has been fully operational for over a decade, and is expected to replace the legacy fighters over the next five years. These combat-proven PAF fighters are fully integrated with the air defence system, and are mutually data-linked, alongside all AEW and ground sensors. Such capabilities are not achieved overnight, and it will be several years before the Rafales can be considered a threat in any real sense.

Any immediate impact of the Rafale on IAF’s air power capabilities is, thus, simply over-hyped. This inference, however, must not be dealt with lightly, as there is a distinct possibility of the Indian Prime Minister using the Rafale for a false-flag operation in a surreptitious manner, to prove his point that, “with the Rafale, the results would have been different,” from those of 27 February 2019.

Air Cdre Kaiser Tufail (Retired) is a former fighter pilot and a writer on military affairs.
 
.
Gripen also not considered due to adding little to JF-17 ASR baseline. PAF wants a strike fighter, we have enough and potent A2A.
Again the parameters of what constitutes a strike fighter is a long hotly debated top - dual engines etc and role. Whether it is an interimn step or long term strategy tfx etc.

The other wdf fellow is peddling hocuspocus on J16s .. at least he moved on from f's then to su's and now j16s.
 
.
Yep. The edge would've been greater had the IAF secured this fighter earlier and in greater numbers.

If the PAF had secured the Rafale instead, I think the idea of it melding in with our 75-odd F-16s and forming one cohesive offensive package (with layers of A2A and SOW/A2G) would've been the edge. This would have doubly been the case if we had slotted in the V-upgrade for the F-16s. For this role, the PAF would've needed around 24 Rafales to make it work, i.e., 99 'medium/heavy' fighters for offensive ops (Rafale + F-16) plus 150-200 JF-17s to hold the border.
True but given the subs fiasco and then overtures to India, i dont think Rafale would have ever materalised.
Is Rafaele a game changer - i do not believe so; you have faced a logistic nightmare given French's every shifting policies to sell anywhere there is a buck to be made.
 
.
Again the parameters of what constitutes a strike fighter is a long hotly debated top - dual engines etc and role. Whether it is an interimn step or long term strategy tfx etc.

The other wdf fellow is peddling hocuspocus on J16s .. at least he moved on from f's then to su's and now j16s.
Engines really arent the issue more so versus range, payload and survivability(yesterday’s armor replaced with today’s electronic countermeasures)
 
.
Core takeaways should be:
  1. Rafale does add to IAF capability
  2. It is not being purchased in large enough quantities to make a difference in a 2 Front war
  3. JF17B3 will also be a big jump in PAF's capabilities
  4. No need to buy J-10 since better AC will soon be available (J31 or AZM)
 
.
True but given the subs fiasco and then overtures to India, i dont think Rafale would have ever materalised.
Is Rafaele a game changer - i do not believe so; you have faced a logistic nightmare given French's every shifting policies to sell anywhere there is a buck to be made.
Engines really arent the issue more so versus range, payload and survivability(yesterday’s armor replaced with today’s electronic countermeasures)
The other aspect of a 'strike fighter' is its configuration. One paper, a large twin-engine jet may look like a good strike fighter, but the designers may not have intended to initially use it that way. As a result, the jet lacks a lot of the key subsystems and weapon integrations. One example of this is the Typhoon Tranche 1.

On the other hand, a medium-weight single-engine fighter can serve as a really good strike platform if it meets the end-user's range, payload, etc criteria and comes with the right weapon integrations and sub-systems. In this case, the Mirage 2000-5/-9 is a great example.

Building on SQ8's earlier theory, if the PAF wants to split its next-gen needs into two parts -- i.e., a 5/5+ multi-role fighter (akin to the FC-31) and a larger 5+/6-gen strike fighter, it'd need to design the latter for strike from the bottom-up. So, not a multi-role concept, but a true strike focus. In this case, it may need to explore ideas such as flying wings, sticking to purely an internal payload, etc (and make the requisite trade-offs in terms of maneuverability, etc).
 
.
The other aspect of a 'strike fighter' is its configuration. One paper, a large twin-engine jet may look like a good strike fighter, but the designers may not have intended to initially use it that way. As a result, the jet lacks a lot of the key subsystems and weapon integrations. One example of this is the Typhoon Tranche 1.

On the other hand, a medium-weight single-engine fighter can serve as a really good strike platform if it meets the end-user's range, payload, etc criteria and comes with the right weapon integrations and sub-systems. In this case, the Mirage 2000-5/-9 is a great example.

Building on SQ8's earlier theory, if the PAF wants to split its next-gen needs into two parts -- i.e., a 5/5+ multi-role fighter (akin to the FC-31) and a larger 5+/6-gen strike fighter, it'd need to design the latter for strike from the bottom-up. So, not a multi-role concept, but a true strike focus. In this case, it may need to explore ideas such as flying wings, sticking to purely an internal payload, etc (and make the requisite trade-offs in terms of maneuverability, etc).
Correct - i invisage a 2 seperate track; one a medium and later a heavier class. For this there is no alternative.
 
.

Pakistan Defence Latest Posts

Pakistan Affairs Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom