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

[UpForce]

After leaving the defense industry I worked for more than 20 years with mobile phone technology all the way from 3G via 4G and finally 5G. And as most here probably know, China has built up a big indigenous industry there as well.

I'm a systems engineer by trade and I worked closely together with Ericsson Research and have made several contributions to the 3GPP standard and have several patents in the area to my name. And I would say that during most of those 20 years the overwhelming number of contributions that made it into the mobile phone standard were from Ericsson and Nokia. To be honest, the early Chinese contributions were not very technically impressive and looked like they had been google translated but by the time I retired they were certainly quite good.

Now many mobile phone operators today certainly buy Chinese mobile phone systems. But I would argue that that is mostly due to a good price/performance combination because when Ericsson lost tenders this was mostly due to pricing. In fact, some other mobile phone vendors were marketing their products as "Ericsson quality at Huawei prices". So certainly, Chinese technology can be pretty good. But is it really as good as the latest Western technology? I have my doubts.

I don't usually post w/o somehow tying it to the original subject but will make (a short-ish) exception here. You have much, much better visibility and understanding than I into all matters EM but even I have been able to observe (at times) a large and persistent number of Chinese exchange students on some campuses, namely those that have been central to EM/mobile tech development. The trend was clear just by that metric alone. To what extent emulation has evolved into innovation is debatable but academic metrics (I didn't bother to wade into those for this) certainly give an idea. Certainly the exchange flow isn't unidirectional anymore.

Of late some mobile operators, I think, have started to advertise they're not reliant on Chinese base stations and other relevant tech which is telling about the state of general awareness about certain trends in our World. Types of government and societal factors do matter and I posit that while EU arrangements such as GPDR are generally seen as hindrances and complications, in time they can turn out to be competitive advantages as well. Asian competition in general has been harsh but R&D at both Ericsson and Nokia (from what I've been able to parse together without paying too much attention) seems to continue apace.

Latent engineering skills that have splintered away from pioneering corporations though market shocks and reorganizations have resulted in a relatively vibrant startup culture and some migration into defense also.

 

[AndersJ]

I don't usually post w/o somehow tying it to the original subject but will make (a short-ish) exception here. You have much, much better visibility and understanding than I into all matters EM but even I have been able to observe (at times) a large and persistent number of Chinese exchange students on some campuses, namely those that have been central to EM/mobile tech development. The trend was clear just by that metric alone. To what extent emulation has evolved into innovation is debatable but academic metrics (I didn't bother to wade into those for this) certainly give an idea. Certainly the exchange flow isn't unidirectional anymore.

Of late some mobile operators, I think, have started to advertise they're not reliant on Chinese base stations and other relevant tech which is telling about the state of general awareness about certain trends in our World. Types of government and societal factors do matter and I posit that while EU arrangements such as GPDR are generally seen as hindrances and complications, in time they can turn out to be competitive advantages as well. Asian competition in general has been harsh but R&D at both Ericsson and Nokia (from what I've been able to parse together without paying too much attention) seems to continue apace.

Latent engineering skills that have splintered away from pioneering corporations though market shocks and reorganizations have resulted in a relatively vibrant startup culture and some migration into defense also.

Interesting that we have both been working with students and engineers with ties to China. And given the pool of people China has, it's not strange then that there are a lot of very skilled and talented people that have ties to there. And I have had the privilege to work with many. This was in fact one of the nice things working at Ericsson because it was a melting pot in the positive sense with talented people from all over the world.

However, that being said, there are in my experience systematic differences in workplace procedures in different countries. And just to take an example: In France, the boss usually seems to be very much the boss, and there is a clear hierarchy which you see in action when interacting with them. However, in Sweden and Finland it's different: Mangers are more of enablers, clearing the way for the engineers to do their work. In addition, the type of ranking of employees which seems to occur in some US companies I think is counterproductive because people get less inclined to share ideas and cooperate. I mean why would you help out someone who could use it to "outrank" you in the next evaluation?

In Sweden and Finland this is not the case and people really do cooperate in a good way. And TBH, I think this is one of the reasons we are good at handling large and complex systems, be they a defense or mobile network system. Co-operating in this way means that one plus one is not two but is significantly more. I think this is one of the main reasons why Sweden has such a competitive mobile systems and defense industry even though we are so few in numbers.

 

[lik]

The content of this picture is wrong. All of the IAF aircraft use Bnet data link. IAF replaced the original incompatible data link with Bnet after 2019. They deployed the same data link before the conflict.India does not use link16 as TDL
There is now increasing evidence that the PAF did not use the ZDK03 in air combat。maybe is saab 2000 or anothers

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

 

[lik]

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.

I learned from some unofficial sources that the Meteor air-to-air missile only supports one-way data link in the F3R version of Rafale, which may be the reason why IAF does not use Meteor. I just clarify that this is an imprecise guess.
Based on this speculation, this is why the IAF is eager to make the Rafale compatible with the Astra missile.

 

[AndersJ]

I learned from some unofficial sources that the Meteor air-to-air missile only supports one-way data link in the F3R version of Rafale, which may be the reason why IAF does not use Meteor. I just clarify that this is an imprecise guess.
Based on this speculation, this is why the IAF is eager to make the Rafale compatible with the Astra missile.

Interesting info. But even with such limitations, why would you not use the METEOR in a BVR fight if the opposition has PL-15's? I still think the most plausible explanation for the lack of information about any use of the METEOR during this engagement was that none were fired and by extension that the Rafales were not even carrying them at the time. Or if they were, that the IAF ROE were no changed in time for them to used. At least I have so far seen no proof that any were fired. And again, the most plausible cause for this is that the IAF were simply not expecting things to develop the way they did.

 

[lik]

Interesting info. But even with such limitations, why would you not use the METEOR in a BVR fight if the opposition has PL-15's? I still think the most plausible explanation for the lack of information about any use of the METEOR during this engagement was that none were fired and by extension that the Rafales were not even carrying them at the time. Or if they were, that the IAF ROE were no changed in time for them to used. At least I have so far seen no proof that any were fired. And again, the most plausible cause for this is that the IAF were simply not expecting things to develop the way they did.

only photo I know of at the moment of an Indian fighter carrying a Meteor missile is that of BS0014 carried during a test flight in France in 2021.There is no evidence that India has Meteor missiles .

 

[AndersJ]

only photo I know of at the moment of an Indian fighter carrying a Meteor missile is that of BS0014 carried during a test flight in France in 2021.There is no evidence that India has Meteor missiles .

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?

In addition, your answers are a bit contradictory: First you say; "I learned from some unofficial sources that the Meteor air-to-air missile only supports one-way data link in the F3R version of Rafale, which may be the reason why IAF does not use Meteor."

Now that statement by you implies they do have it but didn't want to use it.

But now in your last post you say "There is no evidence that India has Meteor missiles ."

So which is it? Are they according to your "unofficial sources" reluctant to use it or do they simply not have it?

And on what sources do you base your statements?

 

[F-2]

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?

In addition, your answers are a bit contradictory: First you say; "I learned from some unofficial sources that the Meteor air-to-air missile only supports one-way data link in the F3R version of Rafale, which may be the reason why IAF does not use Meteor."

Now that statement by you implies they do have it but didn't want to use it.

But now in your last post you say "There is no evidence that India has Meteor missiles ."

So which is it? Are they according to your "unofficial sources" reluctant to use it or do they simply not have it?

And on what sources do you base your statements?

https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=3827972783947415&id=273506732727389

View: https://www.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=3827972783947415&id=273506732727389

 

[AndersJ]

Not sure what sort of "proof" this is supposed to be either way? The article is from 16th March 2021 so more that four years ago. Do you mean that since it has now gone more than four years and that that airframe at the time was soon to be delivered then they are sure to have the Meteor by now since so much time has passed since then? Or do you mean that since they did not have it four years ago then by extension that means they do not have it today? Seems like a rather weak argument either way to me.

 

[F-2]

Not sure what sort of "proof" this is supposed to be either way? The article is from 16th March 2021 so more that four years ago. Do you mean that since it has now gone more than four years and that that airframe at the time was soon to be delivered then they are sure to have the Meteor by now since so much time has passed since then? Or do you mean that since they did not have it four years ago then by extension that means they do not have it today? Seems like a rather weak argument either way to me.

Someone asked if meteor was intergraded it seems that is at least true.

 

[UpForce]

Not sure what sort of "proof" this is supposed to be either way? .... Seems like a rather weak argument either way to me.

I made a few attempts to find official statements about Meteor being delivered for the IAF, the system reaching IOC, test shots being taken etc., but couldn't. Nothing on MBDA's website as far as I can tell. That above photo of an Indian Rafale carrying the missile is the only one around Google could find. Perhaps there's imagery on YouTube to be found, airshows or international exercises do make good venues to flaunt one's capabilities, I haven't ventured to check that.

Enthusiasts' websites state emphatically that the IAF has Meteors but none I've seen seem to clearly state the source of their information. This has turned out to be a bit of an open source intelligence thing, if there are any takers. It could of course yet turn out that hindi speakers are shaking their heads in disbelief at us for pondering such obvious matters. Or someone could just ask the IAF or MBDA press office for a comment.

 

[F-2]

Arms transfer database

armstransfers.sipri.org

 

[AndersJ]

Arms transfer database

armstransfers.sipri.org

View attachment 771996

So how will this now be countered by the forum "sceptics"?

"Well that only proves they have them doesn't it? What is the proof they are actually integrated on the Rafale? And if this is proven then: Well have they actually test fired any? And if that is shown then: Well was the shot really successful? Can you prove that? And on and on......."

 

[UpForce]

...

IAF could've easily spent a quarter (if not more) of its original/initial Meteor stock targeting all the fighters Pakistan had airborne on May 7 alone, in something not even approaching a full scale no holds barred war. We may all have to take a long hard look on what kind of production and procurement arrangements provide true strategic depth.

 

[UpForce]

You really do change footing and position fast don't you? So now they DO have the Meteor integrated on the Rafale all of a sudden? And now instead they MAY have "spent a quarter (if not more) of its original/initial Meteor stock"? Let me remind you that there has so far been zero evidence posted that the IAF fired any Meteors at all on the 7th. And now we instead need to "take a long hard look on what kind of production and procurement arrangements provide true strategic depth."? Tell me, out of what hat are you pulling all these loose and disjointed ideas?

I am dumbfounded by your reply. It's like we're not in the same conversation. I found and am finding your enthusiasm and expertise on the matter valuable. I though I had some kind of a handle on what kind of an impression I have here (generally, not just on this exchange) but am now questioning myself on the matter.

I do not claim to have some coherent idea or position on what transpired but attempted to encourage the fact finding to go on, if not for other reasons than to pass time and/or provide a distraction from my day to day. I've taken SIPRI (to which F-2 referred to) to be a reliable source and in fact felt somewhat embarrassed to not have thought of consulting their website on this matter.

Sorry to have caused such consternation, mea culpa. On my part I will most likely not pursue this further but just see where it all goes, if anywhere.

 

[AndersJ]

@UpForce: I'm deeply sorry for the mix up: I was in a hurry and due to my sloppy reading I thought I was replying to @lik and not you and this made me misinterpret the message and find a contradiction where there was none. I hope you can forgive me since I have really appreciated your input in this thread.

 

[UpForce]

@UpForce: I'm deeply sorry for the mix up: I was in a hurry and due to my sloppy reading I thought I was replying to @lik and not you and this made me misinterpret the message and find a contradiction where there was none. I hope you can forgive me since I have really appreciated your input in this thread.

Oh, that clears things up, thank you. At the best of times I'm kind of doubtful whether I'm net constructive here anyway (not to mention whether I should indulge myself in perusing this forum at all). So were I to judge others' concentrative capabilities I would indeed be a sorry case of a kettle making observations about a pot's pigmentation. Mix ups happen, it's ok.

 

[AndersJ]

Again, sorry for the mix up @UpForce and thanks for being so understanding.

Now getting back to the subject at hand, I'm TBH surprised that this theory that the IAF Rafales did not even have the Meteor integrated surfaced in the first place since I don't see what the proponents of the demise of the West ever hoped to gain by claiming such a thing?

Because if that had been true then that would have provided Dassault and the French with a "get out of jail free" card given that that would have given them the perfect alibi: "Well what do you expect? Pitting an aircraft with only short- and medium range missiles against one with long range PL-15's?" And if the IAF Rafale only had the Meteor integrated well then things would have turned out very differently, wouldn't they?"

As it looks now they (Dassault and the French) still have a "get out of jail free" card though, in that it still look like the IAF either did not even have Meteors mounted on their Rafales, or if they did, the ROE kept them on the rails and none were ever fired in return to the barrage of PL-15's that seems to have hit them. At least that's what the evidence so far points to because even after pages and pages of theories in this thread, there has been absolutely no evidence whatsoever presented that the IAF even carried, let alone fired, any Meteors on that day.

 

[lik]

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?
In addition, your answers are a bit contradictory: First you say; "I learned from some unofficial sources that the Meteor air-to-air missile only supports one-way data link in the F3R version of Rafale, which may be the reason why IAF does not use Meteor."
Now that statement by you implies they do have it but didn't want to use it.
But now in your last post you say "There is no evidence that India has Meteor missiles ."
So which is it? Are they according to your "unofficial sources" reluctant to use it or do they simply not have it?
And on what sources do you base your statements?

 

[lik]

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?

In addition, your answers are a bit contradictory: First you say; "I learned from some unofficial sources that the Meteor air-to-air missile only supports one-way data link in the F3R version of Rafale, which may be the reason why IAF does not use Meteor."

Now that statement by you implies they do have it but didn't want to use it.

But now in your last post you say "There is no evidence that India has Meteor missiles ."

So which is it? Are they according to your "unofficial sources" reluctant to use it or do they simply not have it?

And on what sources do you base your statements?

I am not biased towards any side in this air battle, but I am curious why the Rafale did not launch the Meteor missile, so I quoted two different statements. For unconfirmed sources, I note that the reliability is questionable.

I advise any military enthusiast not to use AI , they can only give wrong analysis

 

[WatcherZero]

The simple answer is it was terrible tactics by the IAF, they had a rally point for their aircraft only 50km from the border while all their squadrons got airborne and into position (giving Pakistan plenty of time to see the aerial build up and reinforce the CAP with quick alert squadrons) and they were flying right up to the border at 30,000ft to launch their cruise missile attacks to get maximum range (rather than performing low level attacks) not expecting Pakistan to retaliate against the aggressor aircraft if they didn't cross the border.

Rafale were the aircraft India were using in the strike role and as they had already used them in this role before Pakistan said in their press briefing on the attack that they knew this and so focused all their defensive efforts on intercepting the Rafales and succeeded in breaking up and dispersing the initial strike wave, though the Rafales still managed to reform and get their attacks off during the hour long air battle.

India has now finally admitted the losses and said they blundered in their tactics on the first day but quickly learned from their mistake for the strikes launched the following days which didn't suffer any losses.

 

[mokahete]

The simple answer is it was terrible tactics by the IAF, they had a rally point for their aircraft only 50km from the border while all their squadrons got airborne and into position (giving Pakistan plenty of time to see the aerial build up and reinforce the CAP with quick alert squadrons) and they were flying right up to the border at 30,000ft to launch their cruise missile attacks to get maximum range (rather than performing low level attacks) not expecting Pakistan to retaliate against the aggressor aircraft if they didn't cross the border.

Rafale were the aircraft India were using in the strike role and as they had already used them in this role before Pakistan said in their press briefing on the attack that they knew this and so focused all their defensive efforts on intercepting the Rafales and succeeded in breaking up and dispersing the initial strike wave, though the Rafales still managed to reform and get their attacks off during the hour long air battle.

India has now finally admitted the losses and said they blundered in their tactics on the first day but quickly learned from their mistake for the strikes launched the following days which didn't suffer any losses.

Stupidity would be the right word, if they really expected pakistan to not target their jets if they didn't cross the border, while launching standoff weapons to target installations inside pakistan.

cost them 1 or more jets.

 

[AndersJ]

The simple answer is it was terrible tactics by the IAF, they had a rally point for their aircraft only 50km from the border while all their squadrons got airborne and into position (giving Pakistan plenty of time to see the aerial build up and reinforce the CAP with quick alert squadrons) and they were flying right up to the border at 30,000ft to launch their cruise missile attacks to get maximum range (rather than performing low level attacks) not expecting Pakistan to retaliate against the aggressor aircraft if they didn't cross the border.

Rafale were the aircraft India were using in the strike role and as they had already used them in this role before Pakistan said in their press briefing on the attack that they knew this and so focused all their defensive efforts on intercepting the Rafales and succeeded in breaking up and dispersing the initial strike wave, though the Rafales still managed to reform and get their attacks off during the hour long air battle.

India has now finally admitted the losses and said they blundered in their tactics on the first day but quickly learned from their mistake for the strikes launched the following days which didn't suffer any losses.

Stupidity would be the right word, if they really expected pakistan to not target their jets if they didn't cross the border, while launching standoff weapons to target installations inside pakistan.

cost them 1 or more jets.

Exactly. Because despite repeated prompts in this thread to provide any shred of evidence whatsoever that the IAF Rafales were used in anything approaching a BVR fight where PL-15s and Meteors were traded, this has not been provided. So all the evidence so far points to a very one-sided BVR engagement where only one side fired long-range AA missiles. Consequently, this loss of a single Rafale tells us nothing about how Chinese equipment would stack up against Western in a true BVR fight despite all the conclusions some Eastern military equipment pundits and Media seem to be willing to draw from it.

 

[BonPlan2]

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.

IAF don't have AMRAAM ....

 

[BonPlan2]

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.

It was said that IAF just want day 1 to attack terrorist assets, with no loss on PAK army to avoid escalation.
But PAF was aware of a more than probable air attack, and they were ready.
Since IAF learned, and then they succeed day 2 missions by suppressing some SAM and ground radar (as at least one PAF Awac was destroyed).

 

[BonPlan2]

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:

View attachment 769774

I found strange that we only have pics of a part of an engine.
Where is the rest of the jet ? It's impossible with such damages that the bird fly some more miles.

 

[IndicSaiyan]

One thing that would be interesting to get to the bottom off is exactly how many PL-15's did the PAF fire during the 7th May BVR engagement? During the press conference the PAF representative said that they concentrated on the center where the Rafales were. So another way of viewing what went down is to conclude that the IAF brought knives to a gunfight, and ended up in a hail of PL-15's but with no METEORS to shoot back with.

Atleast 2-3 have fallen into Indian side without hitting anything, one of them pretty intact and is sent for detail study. Funny enough, the pakistani side denied the usage of PL-15s saying "kids in kindergarten make better models" like they did in 2019 until IAF showed AMRAAM wreckage. Also, IAF most likely doesn't have Meteors operational, although on order. Only last year German and Italian air forces operationalised Meteors afaik and only available pics of IAF Rafales with them are over French skies. They were carrying MICA as their longest range AAM as visible in the Rafale crash site.

So from that perspective, one could instead argue that it seems that SPECTRA did an amazing job since only one Rafale seems to have been lost. It could actually also be so that all other IAF Rafales were actually saved by their SPECTRA/X-Guard systems and that only one poor sod had the misfortune to be lined up exactly in the direction the PL-15 came from. We simply don't know. Sometimes you eat the bear, and sometimes it eats you. In war you get losses, even if you have the best systems.

Yes it indeed did, given that pakistani military's primary goal is to secure an air to air kill by any desperate means possible as a propaganda tool, indicated by the spamming of PL-15E missiles over Rafale, which again were bound by strict ROEs to not engage any pakistani military assets as it was a counter-terror campaign. PAF did the same by spamming multiple AMRAAMs on IAF jets in 2019 to get a "war trophy" by any means. So when ROEs were no longer in play, PAF was unable to do anything to Indian side both on the air and ground. Same Rafales were conducted airstrikes on multiple pakistani airbases, with video available indicating 2 hits from SCALP cruise missile at Nur Khan airbase, their most protected airbase guarded by HQ-9 SAM systems.

And this brings us back to where all this started: The loss of a single Rafale to an PL-15 cannot be taken to mean that SPECTRA sucks and that Chinese systems are as good as attention seeking journalists are currently making them out to be. We simply need more statistics. Until then this seems to have been a fluke given that no more than one Rafale was lost in the PL-15 barrage they seem to have faced.

Yup, if PL-15E and J-10 had been such beasts they would've shot down multiple IAF aircrafts on 10th, they couldn't. Main reason also being the S-400 batteries acting as a strong deterrent to PAF aircrafts. Rafales performed exceptionally well during this conflict, both on 7th and 10th May.

 

[dumpster4]

"A French lawmaker has called for an overhaul of the Rafale fighter jet’s SPECTRA electronic warfare system following its alleged failure during recent clashes between India and Pakistan.

Marc Chavent, a member of the French Parliament, raised the issue in a written question to the Ministry for Europe and Foreign Affairs. Citing “American analysts and intelligence data from NATO partners,” he said the Thales-developed SPECTRA system failed to detect or jam a PL-15E air-to-air missile fired by a Pakistani J-10C using the KLJ-10A AESA radar."

See:

Rafale’s SPECTRA EW Suite Under Scrutiny After Indo-Pak Clashes

A French lawmaker has called for an overhaul of the Rafale's SPECTRA electronic warfare system following its alleged failure during India-Pakistan clashes.

thedefensepost.com

 

[lik]

"A French lawmaker has called for an overhaul of the Rafale fighter jet’s SPECTRA electronic warfare system following its alleged failure during recent clashes between India and Pakistan.

Marc Chavent, a member of the French Parliament, raised the issue in a written question to the Ministry for Europe and Foreign Affairs. Citing “American analysts and intelligence data from NATO partners,” he said the Thales-developed SPECTRA system failed to detect or jam a PL-15E air-to-air missile fired by a Pakistani J-10C using the KLJ-10A AESA radar."

See:

Rafale’s SPECTRA EW Suite Under Scrutiny After Indo-Pak Clashes

A French lawmaker has called for an overhaul of the Rafale's SPECTRA electronic warfare system following its alleged failure during India-Pakistan clashes.

thedefensepost.com

I noticed that the Rafale is the only Eurofighter r that does not have an Electronic Countermeasures pod

 

[UpForce]

"A French lawmaker has called for an overhaul of the Rafale fighter jet’s SPECTRA electronic warfare system following its alleged failure during recent clashes between India and Pakistan

Marc Chavent seems to have questioned the minister on the 20th of May, 2025 already so that's about three weeks ago now. Why this has become news at this point of time, I don't know. I read the question in full (available on Assemblée nationale's website, linked below) and while he generally refers to information about SPECTRA he doesn't specify the sources; for all we know this conversation here is included. The content of the question (on first reading at least) doesn't add much to what has already been discussed here.

I'm not entirely sure as to what access Chavent has into privileged information as a member of the parliament but at least he doesn't seem to be in defense related committees. As of now I haven't found out whether he himself has relevant experience in the industry or military. I don't have issues with the question itself, it is unclear however to what extent it can satisfactorily be answered in public. Anyway, I read this as more of an inquiry into appropriate and timely actions rather than an outright call to do something specific.

Question écrite n° 6745 :
Rafale, SPECTRA et LPI : quel avenir pour la supériorité aérienne française ?

17e Législature
Publication de la question au Journal Officiel du 20 mai 2025, page 3516

Question de : M. Marc Chavent
Ain (5e circonscription) - UDR

M. Marc Chavent appelle l'attention de M. le ministre de l'Europe et des affaires étrangères sur les implications stratégiques et industrielles des récents affrontements aériens au-dessus du Cachemire. Plusieurs sources ouvertes et spécialisées - incluant des analystes américains et des données de renseignement issues de partenaires de l'OTAN - confirment la perte d'au moins un Rafale indien, abattu par un missile PL-15E lancé depuis un J-10C pakistanais, équipé du radar AESA KLJ-10A. Cet engagement soulève une question stratégique majeure : le système de guerre électronique SPECTRA n'a semble-t-il ni détecté, ni perturbé une attaque émise dans des spectres désormais standards pour les radars à faible probabilité d'interception (LPI). Dans ce contexte, où l'Inde - comme d'autres partenaires potentiels - pourrait discrètement réévaluer ses orientations capacitaires, la France ne risque-t-elle pas de voir remis en cause à la fois l'avantage technologique du Rafale et le leadership industriel de sa base aérospatiale de défense ? Le Gouvernement peut-il confirmer que le standard F5 du Rafale intègre une refonte substantielle du système SPECTRA, adaptée aux nouvelles générations de radars AESA et de missiles à guidage actif et qu'il envisage sérieusement le développement d'une version « Rafale EW », spécifiquement dédiée aux missions SEAD/DEAD, sur le modèle du Growler américain, afin de préserver l'autonomie stratégique de la France et la crédibilité de l'offre française à l'export ? Cette réflexion devient d'autant plus urgente que des plateformes de 5e génération chinoises, telles que le J-20 et potentiellement le FC-31, pourraient être rapidement déployées dans la région indo-Pacifique, introduisant un saut capacitaire en matière de furtivité, de fusion de capteurs, de guerre électronique et d'interopérabilité multi-domaines. Il souhaite connaître sa position sur le sujet.

The response may be linked to the question as it arrives.

Question écrite n° 6745

www.assemblee-nationale.fr

 

[DWG]

Marc Chavent seems to have questioned the minister on the 20th of May, 2025 already so that's about three weeks ago now. Why this has become news at this point of time, I don't know. I read the question in full (available on Assemblée nationale's website, linked below) and while he generally refers to information about SPECTRA he doesn't specify the sources; for all we know this conversation here is included. The content of the question (on first reading at least) doesn't add

Question écrite n° 6745

www.assemblee-nationale.fr

The first question to ask is why he's asking the Minister for Europe and Foreign Affairs rather than the Minister for Defence?

And the second question to ask is which party he represents, in this case the Union des droites pour la République, which if I understand my French politics correctly is the schismatic part of Les Republicains that tried to ally with the far right Front Nationale a few years ago.

So what you have here is a far-right politician trying to embarrass a centre-right government minister, and not even the right one. Any special insight is probably contra-indicated.

 

[UpForce]

The first question to ask is why he's asking the Minister for Europe and Foreign Affairs rather than the Minister for Defence?

And the second question to ask is which party he represents, in this case the Union des droites pour la République, which if I understand my French politics correctly is the schismatic part of Les Republicains that tried to ally with the far right Front Nationale a few years ago.

So what you have here is a far-right politician trying to embarrass a centre-right government minister, and not even the right one. Any special insight is probably contra-indicated.

The question was indeed transferred to the Minister of Defense. I also looked into Chavent's background and came to roughly the same appraisal as you did. I chose to highlight the relative insignificance of the question and it becoming clickbait so much after the fact rather than the underlying politics (factual as those observations might have been) as broaching the issue here even in anodyne terms is at times frowned and acted upon.

I'm slightly at a loss as to how, exactly, would a minister be very embarrassed by SPECTRA potentially not having performed 100% (or the vague appearance or possibility of deficiencies) but fishing expeditions are indeed not uncommon in Chavent's neck of the woods. Taking long shots en masse, in context, is an established internationally coordinated far right/illiberal populist tactic that has yielded some surprising and transformative results around the world. Alliances, contracts and trust do come into play in events such as these, after all.

I didn't take the wording of his question to be particularly inflammatory though, just quite speculative.

 

[mokahete]

No confirmation, but from an Indian forum.


"Bro, on 7th early morning, Rafale were given a target which was very close to the IB between India and Pakistan. Just about 70kms in. That needed Rafale to go very close to IB and even enter Pak airspace. The short range of Hammer, brought Rafale very close to interception by the BVRAAMs fired by PAF J-10c. Su-30MKI and M2k performed better as they had many stand off range weapons integerated in them jointly develoved by India and Israel. Rafale did their job but were hit while retreating and the MAWS on Rafale are mounted on the tail which had very poor coverage in rear sector. SU-30MKI have very good rear area coverage due to its extended tail for rwr. SU-30MKI defeated over 8 PL-15s due to this but Rafale was not that good. Plus just like our Astra Missile, PL-15 uses Ku band as its seeker and Indian Rafale has till not been modified for ESM for higher frequencies. and Spectra too has no jamming available in those frequency band. It was part of India specific enhancements which have been paid by India but DA has failed to do those enhancements till date. Indian and Frecnch Rafale have no ability to detect or counter PL-15 as they just do not have the ability to detect them incoming. BUT hold on for real story and dont get fooled by propaganda. We switched to Scalp as a result of exposing Rafale to BVRAAMS of PAF. That made it very costly and so Jags with Rampage missiles performed and did a better job than Rafale. There is lot to be told about Rafale story. Hold your breath, It is not what is being claimed or stated. Wait for Air to air kills of Rafale. You need more weapons with stand off ranges on Rafale and you dont need to modify spectra when you are way beyond harm. Just be a striker with Meteor and other systems. I still maintain that no Rafale was lost and 2 may have got hit by splinters which landed back safely. Maybe we lost a Mig-29( by manpads in himalayas away from conflict zone, doing a cap mission) and a M2K. Thats all. "

 

[BonPlan2]

only photo I know of at the moment of an Indian fighter carrying a Meteor missile is that of BS0014 carried during a test flight in France in 2021.There is no evidence that India has Meteor missiles .

When the first Rafale were delivered to India, it was said that few Meteor, taken on the french stock pile, were also delivered...

 

[ArihantRoy93]

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

 

[BonPlan2]

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

If all goes right, I will have the opportunity to meet a last french top rank air general next 14th of july. I will ask him if he has some news about this affair.

 

[mokahete]

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

So Indians accidentally Shot down their own rafale?

 

[H_K]

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

Trappier has said no such thing. This article is fake news and this post should be removed.

What Trappier HAS said is that the Pakistani claim of 3 Rafales shot down was propaganda, but he has remained very coy about whether 1 Rafale was lost ("we shall see"), and how it was lost.

 

[ArihantRoy93]

Here's Chinese def exfarts coping in Sinodefence forum.




"... the majority were rerouted, or blinded by cyber warfare measures."

Pure COPIUM.

Just 15 Brahmos A were used and all barring one hit it's intended target. Theres wreckage of a single Brahmos on some field somewhere in Pakistan.

Brahmos seeker can't be spoofed or the missile can't be jammed and re routed to some other destination.

What would Pakistan have done if 40-50 Brahmos had been used instead ?!

 

[ArihantRoy93]

Trappier has said no such thing. This article is fake news and this post should be removed.

What Trappier HAS said is that the Pakistani claim of 3 Rafales shot down was propaganda, but he has remained very coy about whether 1 Rafale was lost ("we shall see"), and how it was lost.

Whatever it is, theres wreckage of just a single Rafale outside Bathinda.

Hadn't it for the wreckage of rear part of a single M88 engine and that tail fin, people wouldn't have known that it was a Rafale.

PAF DG Air Op Aurangzeb lies through the teeth when he said that 6 IAF jets were shot down including 3 Rafales.