India loses top fighter jet – bad news for its future air combat
India has lost its top fighter jet, the Rafale EH. Three Rafale jets were shot down. In addition, at least one Sukhoi and one MIG plus a large Israel reconnaissance drone were destroyed by Pakistan's air force.
Until the latest air combat, India had acquired 34 Rafale jet fighters. These are multimission platforms suitable for all combat aviation missions: air superiority and air defense, close air support, in-depth strikes, reconnaissance, anti-ship strikes and nuclear deterrence.
In the latest confrontation, which apparently lasted around an hour, the Rafales were carrying SCALP cruise missiles, which in the UK are known as Storm Shadow. These missiles have been used extensively in Ukraine.
The Rafales also had MICA (missile d'interception, de combat et d'auto-défense) air-to-air missiles. At least one of these missiles was found near the crash site of the first Rafale that was downed. That Rafale had a tail designation of BS-001, meaning it was the first Rafale delivered to the Indian air force. BS means single seat. BS-001 tail of the first downed Rafale
The combat that took place was at a distance, not a classical close-encounter dogfight. Pakistan was operating over Pakistani air space when its J-10 jet (Chinese but co-produced in Pakistan) launched Chinese PL-15 air to air missiles. Some parts of a PL-15 missile have been recovered on Indian territory, including part of its AESA (active electronically scanned array) radar. Chinese image of the launch of a PL-15
The PL-15 is China's answer to the US AIM-120D AMRAAM (advanced medium-range air-to-air missile) which is an all-weather, beyond-visual-range missile. It has a range of 200 to 300 km (124 to 186 miles), although the export version is 145 km (90 miles). It is assumed Pakistan has the export model. The PL-15 is pretty fast. Once launched, its speed is around Mach-5 (6,173 kph or 3,836 mph).
By way of contrast, the French MICA air to air missile has a significantly shorter range, around 60 to 80 km (37 to 50 miles). Thus the Chinese PL-15 as a stand-off weapon has a significant advantage. That seems to have paid off in the recent encounter. Two versions of French MICA air to air missile
The US Air Force has put most of its bets on two capabilities: stealth for platforms such as the F-22 and F-35, and
long-range interdiction with air-to-air missiles in warfare described as 'beyond visual range.'
Consequently, fighters such as the F-35 have traded off maneuverability to emphasize stealth, and have long-range air-to-air missiles to support BVR encounters.
The Rafale is not a stealth platform and, while in many ways technologically advanced, it is not as BVR capable as Chinese-designed jets and air-to-air missiles. Furthermore, even the AMRAAM seems to fall short of the mark in any competition, meaning that the AMRAAM will need to be replaced with a longer-range and faster air-to-air missile.
Russia also has a BVR air-to-air missile, the R-77 which is being upgraded. A new version, R-77M, designed for Russia's new Su-57 fighter, has a dual pulse motor (like China's PL-15) and AESA radar. Quite possibly it incorporates Chinese technology. Russia also appears to have a scramjet-powered version of the R-77. Nothing is known of the range of either missile, although the earlier R-77 was inferior in range to AMRAAM.
What happened to India in the latest firefight is bad news for NATO, which appears to be falling behind technologically – and it is a warning to the United States to speed up development of an AMRAAM replacement.
While the US has a new replacement for AMRAAM, designated as the AIM-260 JATM (joint advanced tactical missile), as of now it is in low-rate production and has not achieved initial operational capability. Supposedly, it has a range of 200 km (124 miles), putting it at the low end compared to the PL-15.
There is still a lot more to be learned about the latest encounter between the Pakistani and Indian air forces. There may be more bad news.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Asia Times
44 minutes ago
- Asia Times
Australia's trade would be fatally exposed in a US-China war
If war breaks out between the United States and China someday, one of the major concerns for Australia is the impact on its trade. Our trade routes are long and exposed. Every year, thousands of merchant ships — bulk carriers, tankers, container ships and other types — visit Australian ports to deliver imported goods and pick up exports for delivery at distant ports. When a cargo ship of petroleum leaves the Persian Gulf for refining in East Asia, then sails for Australia, the total trip is approximately 20,000 kilometers. The ship passes through lonely stretches of sea and numerous choke points, such as the Strait of Malacca in Southeast Asia, often within range of missiles and other weapons. Such attacks could come from Chinese ships in the event of a war, or as we've seen in the Middle East with the Houthi rebels, they could also come from militants seeking to disrupt global shipping. Australia's current defense strategy cites the security of our 'sea lines of communication and maritime trade' as a priority. The aim is to prevent an adversary from cutting off critical supplies to our continent in a war. To achieve this, the government has embarked on the lengthy process of expanding the Royal Australian Navy surface and sub-surface fleet, including the acquisition of nuclear-powered submarines. As I explain in my forthcoming book, The Big Fix: Rebuilding Australia's National Security, the problem with the government's maritime plan is that it is built on a deeply flawed foundation and cannot deliver what it promises. Defense documents insist on a need for the Australian Defense Force to be able to project naval power far from Australia's shores in order to protect the nation's trade. The presence of these warships would ostensibly deter attacks on our vital shipping. However, those who developed the maritime plan do not appear to have considered whether the merchant ships delivering this trade would continue to sail to Australia in the event of a war — presumably with China. The reality is that Australia's A$1.2 trillion (US$778 billion) of exports and imports are carried in ships owned by non-Australian companies, flying foreign flags and largely crewed by citizens of other countries. Decisions about whether to continue sailing to Australia during a conflict would be made in overseas boardrooms and capitals. The Australian government has no leverage to force the owners of these ships to continue to service our continent. Australia's national interests may well not be the paramount concern. Nor does the Australian government have the option to turn to Australian-flagged vessels. Australia's shipping list contains only a handful of domestically owned and flagged cargo ships available in case of war. In fact, the biggest vessel (by length) that the government could take into service is the Spirit of Tasmania IV ferry. If all goes according to schedule, at some point in the 2040s, Australia will have at most 26 surface warships and perhaps eight nuclear-powered submarines, the navy hopes to acquire through the AUKUS deal. Australia is expected to acquire three Virginia-class submarines from the US under the AUKUS deal. Photo: Colin Murty / AAP via The Conversation Due to training and maintenance requirements, the total number of vessels available at any one time would be more on the order of ten. In other words, the government's future maritime plan, costing hundreds of billions of dollars, may result in just ten available ships at any given time to protect the nation's trade over thousands of kilometers. Fortunately, Australia has other options for safeguarding its trade that don't necessitate the building of warships. Our first investment in security should be diplomatic. The government should prioritise its investment in diplomacy across the region to promote security, including trade security. Regional countries are best placed to secure the waterways around Australia, particularly from the most likely future threat: Houthi-like militants. The Australian government should also modernize its shipping regulations and include in the budget provisions for war-risk insurance. Such insurance could compensate owners for the potential loss of ships and cargoes as an inducement for them to sail to and from Australia during war. The government must also encourage greater investment in our national resilience. Currently, the biggest risk during a conflict is an interruption to the nation's liquid fuel supply. We must greatly expand our onshore reserves of fossil fuels in the short term, while initiating a nation-building project to electrify the economy in the long term. Electrification would eliminate a considerable vulnerability to national security. Additionally, the government should identify and subsidize vital industries, such as fertilizers and certain medicines, which are essential to the continued functioning of our society in the event of a war. This would reduce our reliance on imports of critical materials. Lastly, Australian industries, with the government's assistance, should further diversify their trading partners to reduce over-dependence on one or two main destinations. Trade is undoubtedly important to Australia and the government is correct to protect it. But it is also true that not all security problems are best answered by the military. This is particularly important since the size of our planned fleet is obviously insufficient for the enormous task it will face. Either Australia invests in impossibly large numbers of warships or it takes a different path. The art of war requires a balance between the desired ends and the means to achieve them. This simple statement underpins the formation of all good strategy, which a state ignores at its peril. Unfortunately, in the case of the nation's maritime plan, the ends and means are seriously out of whack. Instead of setting itself up for failure, the government needs to put aside its ineffectual maritime plan and choose the means that do align with the ends. Only then will it be possible to protect Australia's trade. Albert Palazzo is adjunct professor in the School of Humanities and Social Sciences at UNSW Canberra, UNSW Sydney This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
HKFP
an hour ago
- HKFP
China ‘firmly rejects' US accusation of violating tariff deal
China said Monday it 'firmly rejects' US claims that it had violated a sweeping tariffs deal, as tensions between the two economic superpowers showed signs of ratcheting back up. Beijing and Washington last month agreed to slash staggeringly high tariffs on each other for 90 days after talks between top officials in Geneva. But top Washington officials last week accused China of violating the deal, with Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick saying Beijing was 'slow-rolling' the agreement in comments to 'Fox News Sunday'. China hit back Monday, saying Washington 'has made bogus charges and unreasonably accused China of violating the consensus, which is seriously contrary to the facts'. 'China firmly rejects these unreasonable accusations,' its commerce ministry said in a statement. US President Donald Trump said last week that China had 'totally violated' the deal, without providing details. Beijing's commerce ministry said it 'has been firm in safeguarding its rights and interests, and sincere in implementing the consensus'. It fired back that Washington 'has successively introduced a number of discriminatory restrictive measures against China' since the Geneva talks. The ministry cited export controls on artificial intelligence chips, curbs on the sale of chip design software and the revocation of Chinese student visas in the United States. 'We urge the US to meet China halfway, immediately correct its wrongful actions, and jointly uphold the consensus from the Geneva trade talks,' the ministry said. If not, 'China will continue to resolutely take strong measures to uphold its legitimate rights and interests,' it added. Trump-Xi talks? US officials have said they are frustrated by what they see as Chinese foot-dragging on approving export licences for rare earths and other elements needed to make cars and chips. But Washington's Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent looked to ease the pressure on Sunday, saying the two sides could arrange a call between their respective heads of state to resolve their differences. 'I'm confident… this will be ironed out' in a call between Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping, Bessent said on CBS's 'Face the Nation'. He added, however, that China was 'withholding some of the products that they agreed to release', including rare earths. On when a Trump-Xi call could take place, Bessent said: 'I believe we will see something very soon.' China has been less forthcoming, and the commerce ministry's statement on Monday did not mention any planned conversations between the two leaders. The Geneva deal was 'an important consensus reached by the two sides on the principle of mutual respect and equality, and its results were hard-won', the ministry said. It warned Washington against 'going its own way and continuing to harm China's interests'. Global stocks finished mixed on Friday after Trump made his social media post accusing Beijing. The Hong Kong stock exchange was down around 2 percent shortly after opening on Monday.
HKFP
an hour ago
- HKFP
Taiwan says China deployed 2 aircraft carrier groups, dozens of ships in May
China deployed two aircraft carrier groups and dozens of ships in waters north and south of Taiwan last month, a Taiwanese security official said Monday, as Beijing keeps up military pressure on the self-ruled island. Up to 70 Chinese ships, including navy vessels, were monitored from the Yellow Sea to the South China Sea from May 1-27, a security official said on the condition of anonymity. Beijing has ramped up the deployment of fighter jets and warships around Taiwan in recent years as it pressures Taipei to accept its claims of sovereignty over the island. China has refused to rule out using force to bring Taiwan under its control, leaving the island to face the constant threat of invasion. 'Its military actions and grey-zone activities have included large-scale deployments across the entire island chain, involving comprehensive maximum pressure,' the security official said in remarks released Monday. 'On average, there have been between 50 to 70 naval vessels and government ships as well as hundreds of sorties by various military aircraft continuously conducting harassment operations.' Some of the ships passed through the Miyako Strait to the Western Pacific Ocean for 'long-distance training, including combined air-sea exercises', the official said. Another 30 Chinese vessels with no name, documentation or port of registry were detected near Taiwan's Penghu archipelago in the Taiwan Strait on May 19 and had been 'deliberately sent to harass', the official said. And a total of 75 Chinese aircraft were involved in three 'combat readiness patrols' near the island during the month, Taiwan's defence ministry figures show. Asia-Pacific's so-called first island chain links Okinawa, Taiwan and the Philippines, while the Yellow Sea is west of South Korea — all partners of the United States and critical to its influence in the region. 'More provocative' The Taiwanese security official said China's activities in May were 'more provocative than previously observed'. In one incident, Tokyo and Beijing exchanged diplomatic protests each accusing the other of 'violating' national airspace, after a Chinese helicopter and coast guard vessels faced off with a Japanese aircraft around disputed islands. The Chinese actions were a demonstration of 'military expansion' and were aimed at controlling the 'entire island chain and improving their capabilities', the official said. China's deployment coincided with Taiwanese President Lai Ching-te's speech on May 20 marking his first year in office and came ahead of an annual security forum in Singapore at the weekend. US Secretary of Defence Pete Hegseth told the Shangri-La Dialogue that China was 'credibly preparing' to use military force to upend the balance of power in Asia. Beijing, which did not send its Defence Minister Dong Jun to the summit, warned Washington 'should not play with fire'. 'It felt like they were in a state where they could announce something at any moment, trying to seize on some opportunity or excuse to act,' the Taiwanese official said of the Chinese. China has carried out several large-scale military drills around Taiwan since Lai took office.
