Did the SPECTRA EW suite contribute to the alleged IAF Rafale loss on the 7th May 2025?

ArihantRoy93 said:
Dassault CEO Confirms No Combat Losses of Indian Rafale Jets; One Technical Incident Under Probe

Eric Trappier, Chairman and CEO of Dassault Aviation, has confirmed that no Indian Air Force Rafale jets have been lost in combat "to enemy fire", said specifically in context of Operation Sindoor.

However, Trappier acknowledged a separate incident involving a Rafale that suffered a technical failure at over 12,000 meters. The event, which did not involve enemy contact or hostile radar, resulted in what has been described as "fracticide", and an investigation into the technical cause is currently underway.

https://t.co/1v8Uhme4XU
Click to expand...

Fake news - has now been denied by Dassault in an official statement.

www.indiatoday.in

Dassault says CEO Eric Trappier made no remarks on Rafale's use in Op Sindoor

The statement clarified that Trappier made no operational or technical remarks on the use of Rafale jets, distancing the company from combat-related disclosures.
www.indiatoday.in www.indiatoday.in
French defence manufacturer Dassault Aviation on Tuesday denied that their Chief Executive Officer (CEO), Eric Trappier, made any remarks on the Rafale fighter jet's use in India's Operation Sindoor precision strikes that hit Pakistani terror infrastructure on May 7.

Issued from Saint-Cloud, France, the statement clarified that Trappier made no operational or technical remarks on the use of Rafale jets, distancing the company from combat-related disclosures.

"In response to certain press reports quoting Dassault Aviation Chairman and CEO, Eric Trappier, about the Sindoor operation, Dassault Aviation formally denies that Eric Trappier has made any operational or technical comments regarding the use of the Rafale in this operation," it said in a statement on Tuesday
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
BonPlan2 said:
This is what we found on pak forum...
View: https://youtu.be/CfLvVHdPEaY
Click to expand...
Alan is a thorough bred charlatan.

He has sold his soul to Pindi GHQ.

He also claimed that an Indian Su-30MKI was shot down during Op Swift Retreat when in reality it was a PAF F-16

There are multiple videos of two pilots coming down in parachutes in PoK. These parachutes are white in colour. Half of the chute of ACES II of early F-16 variants is white in colour. The other half looks like the Indian Tricolour to the gullible. One of the two F-16 pilots were lynched and has to be admitted to the CMH. Locals lynched him thinking him to be an Indian pilot. Even then DG ISPR, Maj Gen Gafoora has talked about having three and then two Indian pilots in custody.

Chutes used by K-36DM 3.5 used in our Su-30MKI have Made in India white and orange latitudinal patches which is visually distinct from the white chutes of ACES II of F-16.


There isn't any pictorial evidence of the other three crashes. No videos. Yet Alan claims with a straight face that 4 IAF Rafales have been shot down.

He also claims that the S-400 battery deployed at Adampur AFS was hit.
 
Last edited:
Maro.Kyo said:
This infographic is quite wrong. India doesn't have access to Link-16, and MIDS terminals were not included in their Rafale contracts for example. It is also not confirmed that if India operates Global Link data link waveform on their BNET-ARs.

As for the "Vega data link", I guess the author confused NPO Vega or the Vega-M radar onboard the A-50? Well the thing is, Indian A-50is are fitted with Israeli radars so I feel the author didn't do his research correctly.

Their Su-30MKIs and A-50is fitted with PHALCON were connected via data link that India acquired from Israel during the late 90s/early 2000s, which they opted for instead of the one from Polyot. There was an offer from UIMC during mid 2010s to integrate NKVS-27 to upgrade the Su-30MKI, but as we know, the Indians went for the BNET-AR instead. Also from mid 2010s, these fighters are allegedly equiped with Indian L band ODL, which I've described about a bit in the other thread. In the graphic it says it links only Tejas with NETRA AEW&CS but that's also wrong.



And it seems like you are confusing TDL with weapons data link. Link 17 is a TDL. General multipurpose TDLs like Link 17 are usually not fit for air-to-air missile mid course guidance uplink, since the single timeframe for such systems are usually too long for an air-to-air FC solution. Even for systems like TIDLS which has a much shorter timeframe and therefore latency small enough to provide firing solution, the weapons data uplink interface is separate from TDL.

In case of air launched cruise missiles like SOM-J which has a Link-16 terminal, that works because cruise missiles doesn't need as high of a refresh rate as BVRAAMs.

So if PAF Erieye could provide mid course guidance to the PL-15, that would mean there's a separate data link interface that could uplink and downlink with the PL-15 integrated with the Erieye mission system, which I very much doubt. More likely is that the fire solution provided by the AEW&C is uplinked via the fighter.


From what I've read, the Rafales were tasked with ground strike fitted with AASMs and MICA only. No Meteor. Fighter sweep and escort were performed by Su-30MKIs, if what I've read is to be believed.
Click to expand...

So, what data-link does India's Rafale currently use? I saw Pakistan claiming they jammed the Rafale's data-link (I seemed to hear L16).
https://twitter.com/x/status/1940376888217628925
View: https://x.com/Ramandeep_Bajwa/status/1940376888217628925
 
Last edited:
CIC-TAO said:
So, what data-link does India's Rafale currently use? I saw Pakistan claiming they jammed the Rafale's data-link (I seemed to hear L16).
https://twitter.com/x/status/1940376888217628925
View: https://x.com/Ramandeep_Bajwa/status/1940376888217628925
Click to expand...

Pakistan wasn't able to jam data links or comms of any IAF fighter jet this time.

That voice recording of Godzilla is as fake as Munir's fifth star.

Rafale uses Rafael's Global Link BNET AR software defined radio. Other acs in our inventory also use variants of this same system.
Pak won't be able to intercept and decrypt these.
 
quellish said:
Wow, that’s setting a low standard.
Click to expand...

Oh gee Mr quellish, your contribution to this thread is to take an out of context snippet out of a post I did one and a half month ago? You really earned that "top contributor" bar under your avatar haven't you? :p

Edit: A quick search of your "contributions" yields this amongst other things so I don't think I'll miss much by putting you on ignore.

Cherrio!
 
Last edited:
AndersJ said:
Oh gee Mr quellish, your contribution to this thread is to take an out of context snippet out of a post I did one and a half month ago? You really earned that "top contributor" bar under your avatar haven't you? :p

Edit: A quick search of your "contributions" yields this amongst other things so I don't think I'll miss much by putting you on ignore.

Cherrio!
Click to expand...
Dan/"quellish" has earned his Top contributor badge many times. If you get promoted to Senior Member one day, you might see more posts. Today is not that day.
 
overscan (PaulMM) said:
Dan/"quellish" has earned his Top contributor badge many times. If you get promoted to Senior Member one day, you might see more posts. Today is not that day.
Click to expand...
So someone with moderator rights jumps in to defend a post that sliced out something meaningless and out of context that was one and a half months old and contributed absolutely nothing to the discussion?

You know what? If that is who gets "promoted" and what entails to join the Senior Members and a Top Contributor club you can keep it.
 
AndersJ said:
So someone with moderator rights jumps in to defend a post that sliced out something meaningless and out of context that was one and a half months old and contributed absolutely nothing to the discussion?

You know what? If that is who gets "promoted" and what entails to join the Senior Members and a Top Contributor club you can keep it.
Click to expand...
I wasn't 'defending the post', just letting you know your judgement on the potential consequences of ignoring the poster is probably in error in my opinion.
 
AndersJ said:
You know what? If that is who gets "promoted" and what entails to join the Senior Members and a Top Contributor club you can keep it.
Click to expand...
Senior Member is generally given to all users who consistently make thoughtful and interesting posts on core forum subjects. Either people get nominated by other users, or I recognise them myself. There is an element of good forum behaviour too, and people have lost Senior Member status before.

Top Contributor is given to people who've consistently contributed previously unknown material which is the fruit of their own research, like @Mark Nankivil, or have shared generously from their own knowledge.
 
Last edited:
You are missing the point @overscan (PaulMM) : This is a thread I started and made numerous posts in myself. Some may have merit while other may be deserving of critique. And there has been a lot of back and forths here, but most people have the common sense to respond constructively and in a civilized manner and which is why I will stick to reading those going forward.
 
AndersJ said:
If true then that certainly is interesting. However, both Grok and ChatGPT agree that the IAF do have Meteor and that it is integrated on the Rafale. Now both these AI have been known to be wrong, but they are good at compiling the info they can access.
Click to expand...
Let's also use chat gpt to see if the opposite is true. I wasted a o4-mini-high ChatGpt plus subscription question just for you...

ChatGPTs answer:


Me: The indian air force does't havent meteors integrated on their rafales

  • Meteor was in the contract but hasn’t been field-loaded.
    When India signed its €7.8 billion deal in 2016, it ordered 250 Meteors alongside the aircraft. Yet during Operation Sindoor in May 2025—when Rafales struck targets across the border—the jets flew armed with SCALP-EG cruise missiles and MICA air-to-air missiles, and there’s no evidence a single Meteor was launched or even carried in those strikes Indian Defence Research Wing@mathrubhumi.
  • Integration hurdles from India-Specific Enhancements.
    All Rafales worldwide run the “F3-R” standard, which is Meteor-capable, but India’s jets include a heavy layer of custom avionics, software and helmet-sighting systems (the so-called ISE package). Marrying the Meteor’s two-way datalink and fire-control protocols to these bespoke systems has required extra rounds of flight tests, software tweaks and DGQA certification—which remain in progress Indian Defence Research Wing.
  • A long‐running delay in turning purchase into combat loadout.
    India approved funding for Meteor integration back in 2014, and Dassault’s F3-R standard (with Meteor) was validated in French service by 2018. Yet as of mid-2025, the IAF still hasn’t completed the final trials and written the release certificates needed to actually mount and fire the missile @mathrubhumi.
  • Operational and logistical factors also played a part.
    During Operation Sindoor, the Rafales were tasked primarily with ground-strike roles, so MICA and SCALP were prioritized in the weapons-bay load-outs. Meanwhile, although some Meteor rounds reportedly began arriving in India as early as 2020, shoring up stocks, training crews and lining up maintenance support has added further delay Indian Defence Research Wing.
  • Full Meteor capability is still coming—and the Rafale is ready for it.
    Dassault itself confirms the Rafale platform is “cleared to operate” the Meteor very-long-range AAM; once India’s ISE-Meteor certification wraps up, IAF squadrons will simply start loading the missile and be able to engage targets out past 150 km with its ramjet-powered no-escape-zone dassault-aviation.com. In other words, the hardware is there—the final step is finishing those integration trials and getting the green light from India’s quality-assurance authorities, after which Meteors will join MICA and Astra as the Rafale’s BVR arsenal.
Click to expand...
So....
AndersJ said:
So on what grounds do you base your statement?
Click to expand...
Same as yours apparently.

AI's goal is to work with you. Meaning it'll try to agree with things you said. Well known scientific and tech knowledge? sure it can handle your average K - masters program knowledge. It can even do research for you, but if you aren't careful with how you use it, it'll very well become a yes man.
 
Reddington777 said:
Let's also use chat gpt to see if the opposite is true. I wasted a o4-mini-high ChatGpt plus subscription question just for you...


So....

Same as yours apparently.

AI's goal is to work with you. Meaning it'll try to agree with things you said. Well known scientific and tech knowledge? sure it can handle your average K - masters program knowledge. It can even do research for you, but if you aren't careful with how you use it, it'll very well become a yes man.
Click to expand...

What I posted originally was this:

"If true then that certainly is interesting. However, both Grok and ChatGPT agree that the IAF do have Meteor and that it is integrated on the Rafale. Now both these AI have been known to be wrong, but they are good at compiling the info they can access. So I would like to turn the question around: You on the other hand now claim the IAF does not have the Meteor integrated on the Rafale. So on what grounds do you base your statement?"

But out of this post which is really a question to the person I replied to for more information, this genius @quellish then chooses to cut out this snippet of what I wrote to build his strawman:

"If true then that certainly is interesting. However, both Grok and ChatGPT agree"

So can't even quote a complete sentence but has to cut out a snippet of a sentence to build his strawman to which he replies "Wow, that’s setting a low standard."

And when I replied to this inane and useless provocation, this seems to have activated some sort old boys network and now you as well? Looking to join the club are we? In addition, you have no idea how I phrased my questions and my interaction with ChatGPT so your whole post is simple supposition.

And you also don't write out my whole post but yet again choose snippets to build yet another strawman which @quellish thought was worthy of a like. Are you guys 12 years old?

And can't you guys read? I also wrote in my original post "Now both these AI have been known to be wrong"

But the fact that my original post was a request for more information you both conveniently leave out to build your strawmen showing you are not honest debaters. So why on earth would I want read any more of your posts?

Finally: Don't you guys have anything better to do with your time than starting useless arguments and misrepresenting what people say?

Over and out.
 
Last edited:
You decide to throw out a claim
AndersJ said:
"If true then that certainly is interesting. However, both Grok and ChatGPT agree that the IAF do have Meteor and that it is integrated on the Rafale.
Click to expand...
And you acknowledge that... the grounds you base your claim on is shaky and possibly wrong:
AndersJ said:
Now both these AI have been known to be wrong, but they are good at compiling the info they can access.
Click to expand...
And then
AndersJ said:
So I would like to turn the question around: You on the other hand now claim the IAF does not have the Meteor integrated on the Rafale. So on what grounds do you base your statement?"
Click to expand...
Ask someone else to justify their statement when you've provided nothing credible to justify your own?

My point was to prove to you that quite frankly it doesn't matter what you said to your AI. You had your prompt and I had my prompt. We both now have a basis that fundamentally proves nothing against the other. At the end of the day, if you don't reference the sources your AI made the the claims based upon, if you don't provide context to what your prompt was, it provides absolutely nothing useful or credible to the conversation.

AndersJ said:
honest debaters
Click to expand...
Put your money where your mouth is. We aren't here to engage in bad faith behavior. I just personally don't enjoy it when someone cites AI without any context, any sources and then expects me to prove myself to them. I'm sure most people here don't enjoy it either. Afterall, if they wanted to engage with AI, they'd just go do it themselves.
 
Pardon me, binged the thread.

F-2 said:
Seems crazy to me post 2019 they would expect the PAF to shoot.
Click to expand...
One might not expect the PAF to shoot, but seems stupid to not have a plan for if they do.



Ainen said:
We need to separate two things (like we did in 2022 when su-35s were first lost).

Platform isn't disqualified - any combat platform is meant to be potentially lost (unless it's ceremonial). Yes, halo is lost - but this is largely chest pumping.

But said defense systems were still defeated. And Indian rafales (and even migs) are some of the very latest and best in this regard; few western forces are their match.
I.e. trees shouldn't mask the forest - Chinese BVR missiles are very much verified now.

This doesn't mean those systems are obsolete. But whether they're sufficient is another matter. As paper above described SPECTRA, it was designed to protect the aircraft after year 2000. We're in a year 2025.
Click to expand...
Since that post was written, it sounds like the PAF concentrated most, if not all, the PL15s onto the Rafales.

So, how many missiles per plane to get the one known kill?



Desertfox said:
The question needs to be asked, why was India even flying in PL-15 range when they where launching cruise missiles with double the range of the PL-15? The whole point of cruise missiles is to not be in range of air defenses.
Click to expand...
Because the PL-15 carriers were between the Rafales and their targets, and the targets were far enough into Pakistan to require getting right on the border if not actually crossing the border to reach certain targets.
 
Reddington777 said:
Let's also use chat gpt to see if the opposite is true. I wasted a o4-mini-high ChatGpt plus subscription question just for you...


So....

Same as yours apparently.

AI's goal is to work with you. Meaning it'll try to agree with things you said. Well known scientific and tech knowledge? sure it can handle your average K - masters program knowledge. It can even do research for you, but if you aren't careful with how you use it, it'll very well become a yes man.
Click to expand...
Incredible the main A to A missile not fully inegrated so far by IAF...
 
How Pakistan shot down India's cutting-edge fighter using Chinese gear

"Reuters interviews with two Indian officials and three of their Pakistani counterparts found that the performance of the Rafale wasn't the key problem: Central to its downing was an Indian intelligence failure concerning the range of the China-made PL-15 missile fired by the J-10 fighter. China and Pakistan are the only countries to operate both J-10s, known as Vigorous Dragons, and PL-15s.

The faulty intelligence gave the Rafale pilots a false sense of confidence they were out of Pakistani firing distance, which they believed was only around 150 km, the Indian officials said, referring to the widely cited range of PL-15's export variant."

See:

https://www.reuters.com/business/ae...g-edge-fighter-using-chinese-gear-2025-08-02/
 
Ainen said:
SPECTRA, it was designed to protect the aircraft after year 2000. We're in a year 2025.
Click to expand...
SPECTRA, as the AESA RBE2 radar, evolved with each Rafale block.
For exemple new GaN antennas are now integrated.
Rafale F5 will have a brand new SPECTRA.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom