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

[AndersJ]

Piecing together what information there is regarding this alleged loss (or losses?), it seems that the IAF were caught off guard and were not expecting a long range BVR exchange on that day. It also seems to be the case that both sides initially had ROE that only allowed the use of long range AA missiles if the other side crossed the border. However, following the IAF attack with AG weapons into Pakistan, it seems that the PAF commander in charge of air operation changed their ROE on the fly while his units were still airborne, now allowing the use of long range AA missiles.

With the benefit of hindsight, it seems naïve that the IAF seems to have been caught off guard since by all logic the PAF was bound to do something following the IAF AG attack on Pakistani soil. Maybe they expected (and were hoping to) lure the PAF across the border into India for a more “classic” dogfight type engagement? Who knows?

However, given that there seems to have been no massive launch of AMRAAM’s and METEOR’s from the IAF in response, it looks like the IAF were simply not expecting an exchange of long range active radar AA’s. In some sense this is understandable, since such a missile makes no distinction between military and civilian traffic, and given the close proximity of Islamabad and Lahore, it’s understandable that the IAF were keen to avoid the PR disaster downing a commercial jetliner would have entailed. However, we now know that the PAF diverted civilian traffic shortly before initiating the BVR engagement. But if the IAF had no contingency plan for such a scenario, it may have taken them too long to get this info up the chain of command and back to get the clearance to respond. And this is probably why there appears to be no AMRAAM and METEOR debris in Pakistan, while there seems to be a lot of PL-15 debris in India: The IAF were never cleared to respond before the fight was over.

But whatever the cause of this one-sided BVR engagement was, having established that the PAF launched numerous active radar PL-15’s across the border, the question then becomes exactly when did the IAF become aware of this? The most obvious tell-tale would be PAF locking up IAF jets on radar. But did they? Or were these missiles launched using link data from a SAAB Erieye? This could actually be the case, since some sources claim that the PAF has integrated the PL-15 with the Erieye on their own, and a PAF AWAC seems to have been on a racetrack course in western Pakistan at the time.

Consequently, there are two possible scenarios for the SPECTRA EW suite to handle under these conditions: The first is a radar lock–up by a J-10, which is surely something an IAF fighter would react to under normal conditions. Then again, maybe they had been intimidating each other the whole time? Locking up each other up with radar? If this was the case, then the IAF would at this stage not be aware that anything was amiss, suspecting only that the PAF were just like themselves bluffing and playing a game of chicken. The second is that there was no such warning, and that the missiles were initially guided by link data.

Consequently, it’s not unlikely that the first indication the targeted IAF jets got that they were in trouble was when the PL-15 went active. And if this is the case, then SPECTRA should off course definitely kick-in immediately. However, here it gets interesting: Because you never want to show your hand when it comes to EW. So unless at war, you want to curtail how your EW suite reacts to “provocations”. Because otherwise you divulge your ECM capabilities before they are actually really needed, and your opponent can thus adjust his ECCM and so on. And this is obviously not something you want to do. But I have no idea how French systems handle this, but I would assume that there is switch or procedure somewhere that the pilot can toggle. In addition, some ECM schemes to defeat active radar missiles require certain preparations. What these are, be they certain HW or SW tools, I will of course not divulge here, but even if SPECTRA has these “tools” it’s not certain that the pilot was authorized to activate them given the current ROE and that there was not an all-out war going on.

So again, even if a Rafale or two was lost, I don’t think this reflects badly (at least not yet with such limited info at hand) on either the Rafale or the SPECTRA system. Since again, what would reflect badly on the Rafale aircraft system would be numerous losses in an all-out war where we could suspect that all stops when it comes to EW secrecy had been taken out. But even then, I’m sure that the French provide an “EW SW toolbox” with the Rafale which it is up to the IAF to fill, and the French AF’s own "SW pack" in the Rafale will be very different from that of an IAF Rafale. So there is that as well to take into account before passing any judgement either on SPECTRA or the aircraft system itself for that matter.

 

[Waterballoon]

AMRAAM is not in Indian service.

 

[minimes]

SPECTRA is last line of defense, situation awareness and datalink from AEW&C that can withstand EW is the key in system VS system era.
Here are some info-graphic showing the datalink and # of AEW&C on both side.
Apparently, Rafael is not integrated into the system only voice communication.
If it's accurate no wonder India is lost.

 

[F-2]

Spectra paper by creator. Basic capabilities of the system.

Honestly I think they went in with a poor plan against someone with a longer stick.

 

[DWG]

One swallow doesn't make a summer; one shootdown tells us nothing about the relative capabilities of the systems involved.

Everyone is focused on the alleged shootdown, but how many shots missed? How many shots did Spectra defeat? The PL-15 designers could be sitting with heads in hands asking 'how did we go so wrong?' We simply don't have the data to draw reasonable conclusions.

Remember, when Syria managed to shoot down an F-16I with an antiquated S-200, there were no sudden claims that the F-16I's defensive countermeasures weren't equal to the task, so what's different here?

 

[minimes]

Spectra paper by creator. Basic capabilities of the system.

Honestly I think they went in with a poor plan against someone with a longer stick.

The problem isn’t poor planning, but rather a drastic underestimation of the opponent.

The IAF assumes they’re safe because they still cling to the belief that the AMRAAM missile remains the longest stick in the PAF’s arsenal.

I’m surprised the IAF actually has fallen for the mainstream Western media narrative that Chinese tech is merely stolen, cheap knockoffs lagging behind Western or even Russian systems.

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

It's very hard to say, given the total lack of evidence. Did the F-117 shootdown mean stealth didn't work?

I don't see how this is a debate we can meaningfully have.

 

[AndersJ]

Spectra paper by creator. Basic capabilities of the system.

Thanks for posting that info on SPECTRA. Too bad the information about the Matra LE decoy system mentioned in that paper is so scant.

Found some more info that I found interesting: As far as I can tell, it seems like the Pakistani home-grown Link 17 system is integrated on the Erieye AWAC and can at least guide the PL-12. Based on that it seems unlikely that that data link can't feed a PL-15 as well.

Given this info, then that's probably how the PAF did it: Launch SP-15's from J-10's without locking the IAF aircraft up with the J-10's on-board radar. This would mean that the Rafales had no idea they had SP-15's in flight targeting them until the PL-15's went active. This would be the most sneaky and effective way to do a long range BVR attack because if you combine the fact that in such a scenario then the Rafale pilots would only became aware that they were under attack by active radar AAs just seconds before impact and if the Rafales SPECTRAs were not in "war" mode then you have a recipe for disaster.

 

[AndersJ]

It's very hard to say, given the total lack of evidence. Did the F-117 shootdown mean stealth didn't work?

I quite agree: But there has been a lot read into this single Rafale loss by some parties.

Just look at how this has been reported about in some media and the conclusions some people on the forums are willing to draw from it.

 

[Waterballoon]

You are not guiding an X-band AAM with an S/L-band AWACS radar.

- AEW&C provides Redfor positon to Bluefor fighters
- Bluefor fighters use their radars in TWS mode to track Redfor fighters
- Bluefor fighter fires active homing AAM in TWS giving updates to AAM without triggering Redfor RWR
- Redfor gets only last second notice of an active AAM going pitbull

 

[AndersJ]

You are not guiding an X-band AAM with an S/L-band AWACS radar.

- AEW&C provides Redfor positon to Bluefor fighters
- Bluefor fighters use their radars in TWS mode to track Redfor fighters
- Bluefor fighter fires active homing AAM in TWS giving updates to AAM without triggering Redfor RWR
- Redfor gets only last second notice of an active AAM going pitbull

I think you are misunderstanding the scenario I was portraying: The AWACS own radar tracks the target and that position data is used to guide the missile via Link 17. In such a scenario the the launch aircraft could even turn away after missile launch. It would not need to paint the target aircraft with its own radar at all.

 

[Ainen]

Piecing together what information there is regarding this alleged loss (or losses?), it seems that the IAF were caught off guard and were not expecting a long range BVR exchange on that day. It also seems to be the case that both sides initially had ROE that only allowed the use of long range AA missiles if the other side crossed the border. However, following the IAF attack with AG weapons into Pakistan, it seems that the PAF commander in charge of air operation changed their ROE on the fly while his units were still airborne, now allowing the use of long range AA missiles.

Interesting way to explain events would be if Pakistani ROEs were changed before Indians fired (or at least finished firing) - i.e. Pakistani jets fired first, on still cooperative targets.
Huge risk on hands of commander on field, but he could've guessed that this formation is past any demonstration, and won his bet.

SPECTRA may or may have not picked up the launch - but at very least it should've picked up second burn of PL-15s(unless of course there was overcast in-between?)

Interesting detail - that Mig-29 much closer to the border. Top cover intervening in order to let strike formation escape?

 

[Colt_Six_Nine]

View attachment 769547

I believe the ZDK-03 has been taken out of service by PAF. Some say the AWACS radar/system will be removed and replaced by a EW suite. Some say the airframe will be used for transport.

 

[AndersJ]

Interesting way to explain events would be if Pakistani ROEs were changed before Indians fired (or at least finished firing) - i.e. Pakistani jets fired first, on still cooperative targets.
Huge risk on hands of commander on field, but he could've guessed that this formation is past any demonstration, and won his bet.

SPECTRA may or may have not picked up the launch - but at very least it should've picked up second burn of PL-15s(unless of course there was overcast in-between?)

Interesting detail - that Mig-29 much closer to the border. Top cover intervening in order to let strike formation escape?

We can only speculate, but after having watched the press briefing the PAF Deputy Air Ops held my guess is that the PAF had a contingency plan that was executed when the IAF AG strike came.

My guess is that the PAF had prior clearance to do what they did if the IAF did what they did, i.e. to initiate a BVR attack in response to the AG attack. However, this seems to have come as a complete surprise to the IAF as far as I can tell which can only be described as incredibly short sighted if true: You launch an AG strike into another country and then you expect them to just sit there and roll their thumbs?

Again, maybe the IAF hoped the PAF would surge across the border in anger and were waiting for that and not the massive BVR attack that followed. Whatever the reason, it sure looks like the PAF chain of command got this right and the IAF didn't.

 

[F-2]

Seems crazy to me post 2019 they would expect the PAF to shoot.

 

[minimes]

I believe the ZDK-03 has been taken out of service by PAF. Some say the AWACS radar/system will be removed and replaced by a EW suite. Some say the airframe will be used for transport.

I heard 2 of the ZDK-03 gone through upgrade to KJ-500 standard

 

[UpForce]

Consequently, it’s not unlikely that the first indication the targeted IAF jets got that they were in trouble was when the PL-15 went active. And if this is the case, then SPECTRA should off course definitely kick-in immediately. However, here it gets interesting: Because you never want to show your hand when it comes to EW. So unless at war, you want to curtail how your EW suite reacts to “provocations”. Because otherwise you divulge your ECM capabilities before they are actually really needed, and your opponent can thus adjust his ECCM and so on. And this is obviously not something you want to do. But I have no idea how French systems handle this, but I would assume that there is switch or procedure somewhere that the pilot can toggle. In addition, some ECM schemes to defeat active radar missiles require certain preparations. What these are, be they certain HW or SW tools, I will of course not divulge here, but even if SPECTRA has these “tools” it’s not certain that the pilot was authorized to activate them given the current ROE and that there was not an all-out war going on.

I'm reminded of having listened to Col. Michael "Starbaby" Pietrucha (instructor EW officer, F-4G and F-15E) on the "10 Percent True" podcast. On one or another episode he recounted how Soviet/Russian, ahem, "diplomats" used to vacation with curiously antennaed RVs around major continental US air bases and training grounds, especially during major exercises. He said the (then) F-16s' electronic suites (at least) had multiple modes and one was reserved exclusively for major power war use only, never to be used otherwise and thus impossible to surveil. Difficult to imagine a modern Rafale being less flexible in the use of its capabilities.

 

[shin_getter]

I think it was the rafale and not so much some other aircraft that got shot down suggests that they where used more aggressively. In this kind of long range BVR fight without stealth it is pretty simple to get safe by running as soon as the opponent is anywhere in range if one have AEW cover.

I think it is the reputation of rafale and its EW system that made the aircraft push further and closer to the opponent.

Overconfidence is what leads to losses when performance characteristics is not that different.

 

[F-2]

I think it was the rafale and not so much some other aircraft that got shot down suggests that they where used more aggressively. In this kind of long range BVR fight without stealth it is pretty simple to get safe by running as soon as the opponent is anywhere in range if one have AEW cover.

I think it is the reputation of rafale and its EW system that made the aircraft push further and closer to the opponent.

Overconfidence is what leads to losses when performance characteristics is not that different.

I think the attack was made with long range stand off weapons that the Rafale carriers. Also I Think Meteor is the only long range weapon currently integrated. I think Astra is still not available in number?

 

[Colt_Six_Nine]

I heard 2 of the ZDK-03 gone through upgrade to KJ-500 standard

I haven't heard or seen anything along these lines. However, it is very possible that you may be correct given that Pakistan isn't usually very vocal about its acquisitions - or at least it hasn't been up till the recent military leadership.

 

[publiusr]

I wonder if there is some pageantry here.
Watching a VICE program about how soldiers across the border from one another all but put on little shows—like that scene from RAN where two samurai on horseback would charge and retreat—quite different from the grim, relentless island hopping campaign.

South Koreans would wear Ray-Bans—but that’s about it.

 

[Galaxy]

The bigger mystery is did the IAF even fire back at the PAF? Rafaels are equipped with Meteors, it’s probably safe to say they have a range of at least 150kms, now couple that with the radars the Rafale has and I would say there would be a high probability of a kill. So far there is zero wreckage or evidence of a Meteor however there is a relatively intact PL-15.

There are a few things that come to mind, either Pakistan had some incredibly good electronic warfare or the IAF for whatever reason did not go offensive due to whatever moronic reasons. I have to hand it to the PAF, they did their business and as much praise as the IAF gets from western countries that trained with them they performed poorly in 2019 and recently. I would not doubt the IAF pilots are as good or better than than PAF pilots but to me it would seem that the IAF is crippled with irrational ROE and poor mission planning and possibly poor data sharing and integration between AWACs, fighter/attack aircraft, SAMs, ELINT aircraft and ground based radars. It makes sense, since they have a mismatch of domestic, French, Israeli, US, and Russian system all trying to work together and communicate. Than again the Indians have supposedly solved this issue years ago and the Pakistani also have many different platforms from different countries albeit not as much as India and they don’t seem to have issues with everything working.

 

[Ainen]

The bigger mystery is did the IAF even fire back at the PAF? Rafaels are equipped with Meteors, it’s probably safe to say they have a range of at least 150kms, now couple that with the radars the Rafale has and I would say there would be a high probability of a kill. So far there is zero wreckage or evidence of a Meteor however there is a relatively intact PL-15.

This is where I came from with the PAF fired first idea (and why mig loss fits) - by firing first, rafale squadron was put on the defensive, without way to retaliate. They just weren't allowed to turn hot.

Someone had to counterattack to prevent pursuit, that was either top cover or cap (mig squadron). Not unlike Balakot, by the way.

Question of course why migs were doing that (and not rafales). Probably because of lower average speed of ramjet weapon on trajectory; it's just worse at reclaiming initiative b/c it comes later.
Or all available rafales were already used for strikes.

Btw, while no one cared about mig, if it's UPG - it's also important. In Indian service they have a rather advanced Italian integral AESA jammer(ELT-568).

Unlike all others (they rely instead on podded Belorussian Talisman).

 

[AndersJ]

I see several have mentioned that the SPECTRA MAWS perhaps should have been able to pick up the second burn on the PL-15's used. Maybe, but as far as I know while MAWS in general are very useful to detect short range IR missile launches, they are not quite as useful to pick up long range BVR missiles. In addition, for really long BVR engagements, lofting is usually used and in those scenarios I would assume that the missile's second stage burn-out is in the vicinity of the apex of the loft which means that it would be far away and difficult to detect. In addition, as someone said: Metrological conditions could have played in as well. And while I'm not familiar with the PL-15's kinematic details, I would assume that it's guided in a lofted trajectory for the type of long range shots we are talking about here.

Another thing that could be an issue is sensor saturation: AFAIK there were over 100 aircraft in total (circa 70+ IAF plus 40+ PAF) flying around so there were a lot of signals to sift through. OTOH, while the RWR probably looked like a Christmas tree, if the SPECTRA (in war mode) missed jamming incoming active radar missiles even in a dense signals environment like that, that would not be good systems engineering so I don't think that that was the problem. In addition, there are certain know techniques to jam active radar missiles which I'm sure that the Rafale has, but again, not something you would fly around with and advertise how they work unless at war.

So I'm still leaning towards the theory that the IAF Rafale loss was down to the IAF simply not expecting this scenario and getting caught with their pants down when the PAF launched their massive BVR missile attack. Again, in hindsight this appears naive, but given there seems to be no evidence they replied in kind with BVR missiles of their own, hubris and/or underestimation of the PAF seems to me to be the most plausible reason for the alleged Rafale loss, and not that the technological lead of Western aerospace technology is in decline. And when I say lead, I mean the stuff that counts today: I.e. radar, EW, sensor fusion and systems technology etc. No amount of thrust vectoring and snappy Cobra maneuvers at flying displays will change that fact.

 

[AndersJ]

@Galaxy and @Ainen : I agree with what you're saying: I was most likely the IAF ROE that was the reason they did not fire any METEORs: Image firing that kind of missile into Pakistani airspace which while the valid PAF targets certainly were closer, also contained (or so the IAF commanders probably thought at the time) civilian traffic inbound and outbound from Islamabad and Lahore.

 

[Ainen]

Again, in hindsight this appears naive, but given there seems to be no evidence they replied in kind with BVR missiles of their own, hubris and/or underestimation of the PAF seems to me to be the most plausible reason for the alleged Rafale loss, and not that the technological lead of Western aerospace technology is in decline.

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.

 

[Galaxy]

This is where I came from with the PAF fired first idea (and why mig loss fits) - by firing first, rafale squadron was put on the defensive, without way to retaliate. They just weren't allowed to turn hot.

Someone had to counterattack to prevent pursuit, that was either top cover or cap (mig squadron). Not unlike Balakot, by the way.

Question of course why migs were doing that (and not rafales). Probably because of lower average speed of ramjet weapon on trajectory; it's just worse at reclaiming initiative b/c it comes later.
Or all available rafales were already used for strikes.

Btw, while no one cared about mig, if it's UPG - it's also important. In Indian service they have a rather advanced Italian integral AESA jammer(ELT-568).

Unlike all others (they rely instead on podded Belorussian Talisman).

I don’t believe the IAF had all Rafale airborne during the aerial engagement, as they would keep some on standby for emergencies and to relieve the Rafales coming back from combat missions due to running low of fuel and munitions. Even if all Rafales were airborne (which they definitely were not) responsible mission planners would have them armed with Meteor missiles, even the ones firing ground munitions or at minimum have some Rafales and SU-30MKIs tasked with protecting the ground strike aircraft.

My theory is the IAF have really poor mission planning. Also why have MiG-29s operate so close to the front? Did they have air cover? Were they used for ground strikes? Did they maintain low altitude? Did they have electric warfare aircraft and AWACS support? So many questions and apparent poor decisions made by the IAF

 

[Ainen]

mission planners would have them armed with Meteor missiles, even the ones firing ground munitions or at minimum have some Rafales and SU-30MKIs tasked with protecting the ground strike aircraft.

And that's the point - I assume for now that they were in fact armed with them, just didn't have a chance to fire.
Simplest explanation why - when their MAWS started shouting foul words, they weren't in position to fire back, and weren't in a position to effectively evade. In this situation there's no way to reverse, any attempt to is suicide.

Also why have MiG-29s operate so close to the front? Did they have air cover? Were they used for ground strikes? Did they maintain low altitude? Did they have electric warfare aircraft and AWACS support? So many questions and apparent poor decisions made by the IAF

Top cover doesn't operate in front of stand off carriers; normally it's behind and higher.
Migs can carry suitable PGMs(Kh-35U), but we didn't see their use. As far as I know, they don't use rampages yet, only navy mig-29ks.

The only explanation I see is they rushed in to cover rafale retreat, but were outranged and got their own PL-15 instead.

 

[Archibald]

As paper above described SPECTRA, it was designed to protect the aircraft after year 2000. We're in a year 2025.

Small nitpick : just like AdA Rafales have evolved from standard F2 (2004) to F4.2 (2025) so has SPECTRA and, more generally : auto-protection. A lot.
Also : would be interesting to know where does India "Rafale standard" stands : somewhere between F3, F3R and F4.1, but where, exactly ?

 

[AndersJ]

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.

Yes, but again, we only know about ONE loss and have no idea about the SW version running in the Rafale and if SPECTRA was in "war" mode or not. And sure SPECTRA's initial versions probably hail from the turn of the century, but today's EW systems are far more SW driven. And in addition, both HW and SW parts are continuously upgraded on an aircraft like the Rafale. I worked on then EW suite for the Gripen even BEFORE the turn of the century but I would not judge the Gripen's current combat effectiveness based on the capabilities of the EW systems I was working on back then.

Small nitpick : just like AdA Rafales have evolved from standard F2 (2004) to F4.2 (2025) so has SPECTRA and, more generally : auto-protection. A lot.
Also : would be interesting to know where does India "Rafale standard" stands : somewhere between F3, F3R and F4.1, but where, exactly ?

Exactly: And even the venerable F-16 is still flying now, more than 50 years from when it first took to the air. Western platforms today are extremely adaptable when it comes to capabilities simply through SW changes. I suspect that in a future war, the difference between a complete victory with none to small losses and a total annihilation of your AF could be because you did, or did not do, that last SW upgrade.

 

[Maro.Kyo]

SPECTRA is last line of defense, situation awareness and datalink from AEW&C that can withstand EW is the key in system VS system era.
Here are some info-graphic showing the datalink and # of AEW&C on both side.
Apparently, Rafael is not integrated into the system only voice communication.
If it's accurate no wonder India is lost.

View attachment 769545


View attachment 769546


View attachment 769547

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.

Link 17 system is integrated on the Erieye AWAC and can at least guide the PL-12. Based on that it seems unlikely that that data link can't feed a PL-15 as well.

I think you are misunderstanding the scenario I was portraying: The AWACS own radar tracks the target and that position data is used to guide the missile via Link 17. In such a scenario the the launch aircraft could even turn away after missile launch. It would not need to paint the target aircraft with its own radar at all.

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.

The bigger mystery is did the IAF even fire back at the PAF? Rafaels are equipped with Meteors, it’s probably safe to say they have a range of at least 150kms, now couple that with the radars the Rafale has and I would say there would be a high probability of a kill. So far there is zero wreckage or evidence of a Meteor however there is a relatively intact PL-15.

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.

 

[UpForce]

@Galaxy and @Ainen : I agree with what you're saying: I was most likely the IAF ROE that was the reason they did not fire any METEORs: Image firing that kind of missile into Pakistani airspace which while the valid PAF targets certainly were closer, also contained (or so the IAF commanders probably thought at the time) civilian traffic inbound and outbound from Islamabad and Lahore.

I cursorily watched hopefully the relevant parts of PAF's press conference when someone posted it here. Reading this I began to wonder about their description about changing their ROE literally on the fly and rerouting of civilian traffic; I mean, reroute as much as you will, civilian planes can't just instantaneously disappear into thin air. Viewed through a cynical lens, as long as the active engagement might have lasted if there was any civilian traffic in the vicinity then yes, it would raise the bar for IAF to start lobbing BVR missiles in the general direction of, if not ethically then at least in terms of its potential for a major escalation. Doesn't pertain to or explain SPECTRA not saving the lost Rafale though.

Exactly: And even the venerable F-16 is still flying now, more than 50 years from when it first took to the air. Western platforms today are extremely adaptable when it comes to capabilities simply through SW changes. I suspect that in a future war, the difference between a complete victory with none to small losses and a total annihilation of your AF could be because you did, or did not do, that last SW upgrade.

As to keeping things updated:

Also instrumental in SPECTRA’s performance is a threat library that can be easily defined, integrated and updated on short notice by users in their own country, and in full autonomy.

If there was an up to date threat description about the PL-15E available then IAF should have had it uploaded.

 

[Galaxy]

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.

If this is true it would reaffirm bad mission planning by the Indians, it would be like bringing a pistols to a rifle fight. The SU-30MKI have two primary long range air the air to air missiles being the R-77-1 and Astra MK-1 and both are believed to have a range of about 110 km which is by no means bad but the Indians should have known the PAF was using PL-15s which should have a considerable range advantage. The IAF should have had some escorts with Meteors or better yet purchased some R-37Ms. The IAF is its own worst enemy, there is always someone or multiple people that end up dropping the ball and predictably the IAF never learns or seems to relieve those unqualified and incompetent individuals from positions of power. Same mistakes were made as in 2019 and this pattern will likely repeat in the future. You can’t teach an old dog new tricks.

 

[Ainen]

It's still RoE then.
Even if Rafales didn't carry meteors, which I find very hard to believe - there iirc were S-400s within range.

Shooting 40N6(or even 48N6) to let fighters with MRAAMs into range isn't some 5D chess.
And we know that those were fired. Just, likely, after taking losses, in a belated change of Indian RoE.

 

[Waterballoon]

PAF telegraphed PL-15 on JF-17C couple days before the clash. The Indians still didn't prepare themselves accordingly.

Occams razor should be applied here. Rafale just wasn't able to cope with the cutting edge technology of the Chinese AESA radars and PL-15. No need for excuses such as bad ROE/planning/tactics/no AWACS support/bad weather/Delhi belly etc...

 

[DWG]

Occams razor should be applied here.

Occam's Razor says take the simplest solution that explains all the facts. That's currently that we don't know enough facts to draw conclusions.

 

[Galaxy]

It's still RoE then.
Even if Rafales didn't carry meteors, which I find very hard to believe - there iirc were S-400s within range.

Shooting 40N6(or even 48N6) to let fighters with MRAAMs into range isn't some 5D chess.
And we know that those were fired. Just, likely, after taking losses, in a belated change of Indian RoE.

That is another good point. The Russian used S-400s over Ukraine in which they knocked out F-16s equipped with EW system and many SU-27s, MiG-29s and SU-24s from long distances and often while those aircraft are at very low altitudes as there are several videos of Ukrainian aircraft getting shot down while flying low. It makes me wonder what Indian S-400 systems were doing? I find it hard to believe the Pakistanis just jammed everything because even the Ukrainians can’t prevent the Russians from effectively using S-400s and other missiles from downing Ukranian aircraft with the help of NATO EW systems. My guess they were out of range or did not engage due to fear of friendly fire. If Ukraine were to launch dozens of aircraft it’s guaranteed at least some would get knocked out.

 

[AndersJ]

That is another good point. The Russian used S-400s over Ukraine in which they knocked out F-16s equipped with EW system and many SU-27s, MiG-29s and SU-24s from long distances and often while those aircraft are at very low altitudes as there are several videos of Ukrainian aircraft getting shot down while flying low. It makes me wonder what Indian S-400 systems were doing? I find it hard to believe the Pakistanis just jammed everything because even the Ukrainians can’t prevent the Russians from effectively using S-400s and other missiles from downing Ukranian aircraft with the help of NATO EW systems. My guess they were out of range or did not engage due to fear of friendly fire. If Ukraine were to launch dozens of aircraft it’s guaranteed at least some would get knocked out.

Absolutely: And I think everyone who will be acquiring air defense systems in the future and are considering going with Eastern or Western systems are by now fully aware of the S-400’s unique performance in Ukraine. And let’s not forget how it handled all those ATACMS in Crimea as well. In addition, the VVS' groundbreaking way of asserting its air dominance over Ukraine by launching all those glide bombs from stand-off distances well inside Russia is also giving us a very clear indication of its capabilities.

 

[AndersJ]

Occam's Razor says take the simplest solution that explains all the facts. That's currently that we don't know enough facts to draw conclusions.

Unfortunately, as you can see in some of the replies in this thread that’s a sentiment not shared by all.

Apparently, the loss of one single Rafale is statistically significant and heralds the beginning of a Chinese dominance in the defense sector.

Even some aviation journalists are jumping on the band wagon. This is an X-post by someone who writes for the Combat Aircraft Journal no less:

 

[Desertfox]

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.