Here it comes: Syria
The only point to run it on would be to increase the total numbers of aircraft in the RAF. With the Typhoon there are no new aircraft being ordered, just redistributed from the current fleet?or have I missed an extra order of Typhoon aircraft recently?
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Clipperton island
Posts: 364
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You will notice that US commanders and President Trump now list France before UK, however painful it might be to swallow for some.
Now some numbers :
UK : 4 Tornados from Akrotiri, 2 Storm Shadow each : total 8
France : 5 Rafale from St Dizier (France) 9 Storm Shadow, 3 launched from a French Frigate ("Aquitaine") : total 12
In both raids, fighters in protection, not involved in the bombings :
- Typhoon to protect Tornadoes (needed)
- Mirage 2000-5 to protect Rafales (not as much needed)
Now some numbers :
UK : 4 Tornados from Akrotiri, 2 Storm Shadow each : total 8
France : 5 Rafale from St Dizier (France) 9 Storm Shadow, 3 launched from a French Frigate ("Aquitaine") : total 12
In both raids, fighters in protection, not involved in the bombings :
- Typhoon to protect Tornadoes (needed)
- Mirage 2000-5 to protect Rafales (not as much needed)
You have missed the point. Tornado carries more than the offensive missiles. Just look at how the deaths and injuries from IES's in Afghanistan dropped when GR4 recce operation with RAPTOR took place. It has been stated that over 60% of all allied intelligence was supplied by the RAF. Some from UAV but the majority by Tornado.
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
JTO, wreapon/target matching? Cost? Political demonstration rather than military effect?
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Rockytop, Tennessee, USA
Posts: 5,898
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Absolutely. From what I could see from various online tracking sites, significant numbers of RAF MRTT tankers, Typhoons and other aircraft like the R1 Sentinel were active in theater at the time of the attack. It is surprising to me that they weren't mentioned in the initial MoD news release.
It almost seemed like the MoD release about the four Tornados was meant to minimize UK participation to appease critics back home. Of course, now that the attack is being heralded as a success, hopefully more UK assets will bask in the glory.
The UK's unflinching loyalty to America in times of military need is always appreciated.
The Med was full of the 100th ARW Quid tankers from Mildenhall last night, both KC-135's and some visiting KC-10's. And perhaps a couple of those planes were not tankers but working with a borrowed callsign as in past events.
Bravo Zulu to all on a job well done.
It almost seemed like the MoD release about the four Tornados was meant to minimize UK participation to appease critics back home. Of course, now that the attack is being heralded as a success, hopefully more UK assets will bask in the glory.
The UK's unflinching loyalty to America in times of military need is always appreciated.
The Med was full of the 100th ARW Quid tankers from Mildenhall last night, both KC-135's and some visiting KC-10's. And perhaps a couple of those planes were not tankers but working with a borrowed callsign as in past events.
Bravo Zulu to all on a job well done.
Thread Starter
What surprises me, a little, is the reference to Typhoon and M2 involvement as "protection". Now, do I understand that Fighter "protection" of "bombers" is de-rigeuer or, is this an overkill, esp with SO weapons? Beyond that, well done to all who risked their necks.
OAP
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Now, do I understand that Fighter "protection" of "bombers" is de-rigeuer or, is this an overkill, esp with SO weapons?
Thread Starter
Quite so. However, although the whole situation here is specific to the circumstances, I get the feeling that the "Fighter" component would be pretty much as vulnerable to the hi-tech Russian missile air defences (if used) as the "Bombers" themselves. Interesting. If the Russian air defence assets had been used, I can see the Fighter escort acting to dilute kill probability (soaking up the shots), engaging opposing Fighters in air combat as escort or HVAA protection.
Very interesting, esp when you consider the concept of Ops for the two new UK carriers, supposedly operating without land based support but, needing 5th Gen capabilities!
OAP
Very interesting, esp when you consider the concept of Ops for the two new UK carriers, supposedly operating without land based support but, needing 5th Gen capabilities!
OAP
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
As reported the airspace was jam packed with aircraft - including tankers, C4I, SEAD, EW and doubtless many CSAR/MV-22 etc. I am sure the Typhoons were on CAP, just not necessarily to protect the GR4s.
I suspect Nicosia ATCC turned off their radar and went home.....
I suspect Nicosia ATCC turned off their radar and went home.....
Come-on JTO, I think you know some of the variables. What surprises me, a little, is the reference to Typhoon and M2 involvement as "protection". Now, do I understand that Fighter "protection" of "bombers" is de-rigeuer or, is this an overkill, esp with SO weapons?
Beyond that, well done to all who risked their necks.
OAP
What surprises me, a little, is the reference to Typhoon and M2 involvement as "protection". Now, do I understand that Fighter "protection" of "bombers" is de-rigeuer or, is this an overkill, esp with SO weapons? Beyond that, well done to all who risked their necks.
OAP
Thread Starter
[QUOTE=ORAC;10118488]As reported the airspace was jam packed with aircraft - including tankers, C4I, SEAD, EW and doubtless many CSAR/MV-22 etc. I am sure the Typhoons were on CAP, just not necessarily to protect the GR4s.
It would seem, maybe so. In fact, I doubt that the Typhoons were directly tied to the GR4's at all?
So, going back to my comment about the forthcoming mighty carriers (2). I wonder under what circumstances they could politically operate in combat Ops (at risk of loss) without the total support of ground based assets? Politically, it will not happen.
OAP
It would seem, maybe so. In fact, I doubt that the Typhoons were directly tied to the GR4's at all?
So, going back to my comment about the forthcoming mighty carriers (2). I wonder under what circumstances they could politically operate in combat Ops (at risk of loss) without the total support of ground based assets? Politically, it will not happen.
OAP
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: UK/Philippines/Italy
Age: 73
Posts: 557
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I noticed that the general giving the Pentagon briefing to the press corps failed to answer a valid question from one of the assembled members of the 4th Estate. The question was along the lines of, 'Were any of the allied aircraft painted by Russian radar?'
Other questions focused on 'deconfliction'.
I would find it difficult to believe, given that the attack was telegraphed, that the Russians had no knowledge of the attack after it was in progress.
Could it be that they were content to let this, admittedly limited, attack succeed?
Other questions focused on 'deconfliction'.
I would find it difficult to believe, given that the attack was telegraphed, that the Russians had no knowledge of the attack after it was in progress.
Could it be that they were content to let this, admittedly limited, attack succeed?
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Rockytop, Tennessee, USA
Posts: 5,898
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Reports starting to come in about a large explosion at an Iranian weapons depot near Aleppo after warplanes sighted in the area.
Probably coincidental.
Probably coincidental.
Last edited by Airbubba; 14th Apr 2018 at 20:05.
It seems that the Syrians used everything they had in terms of AD: C-125, C-200, 1st gen of BuK and 2-3 other types of AD systems, still from the times of Soviet Union. They even do not have C-300, while they were sold to Cyprus/Greece in 90's.
I wonder what exactly the intercept ratio was (per type of missile and per type of AD complex). First announcements differ greatly and seem not trustworthy. Western leaders are just saying that the goals have been achieved, which sounds vague. Conversely, the Russian MoD gives too detailed numbers, which I doubt a lot (i.e. 71 missile intercepted of 100+ and also split is provided per attacked facility/airbase):
https://function.mil.ru/news_page/co...2171300@egNews
It's in Russian but autotranslation should work...
See reply to the Shayrat claims later in the post.
The US analysis is that the Syrians were completely taken by surprise during last nights strike and only launched after the targets had been hit.
McKenzie: "Syria fired 40 surface to air missiles into the air after strike on ballistic (unguided trajectory) to no effect....after the 105 US and allied missiles had already landed."
You can see from satellite imagery that there was more than 23 hits at Shayrat. US General Joseph Votel briefed at the time that 57 out of the 59 cruise missiles struck their targets.
April 7, 2017
ISI FIRST TO ANALYZE SHAYRAT AIRFIELD MISSILE ATTACK
Based on very high resolution imagery captured less than 10 hours after the attack, ISI presents in depth battle damage assessment
ISI very high resolution satellite imagery was able to reveal the results of the Tomahawk cruise missiles attack on the Al-Shayrat Air Base. According to ISI experts, the total of 44 targets hit. Several targets may have hit twice.
An in-depth examination of the damage to the objectives shows that 13 double hardened aircraft shelters (HAS) got 23 hits. 5 workshops got hit. The workshops are not necessarily related to WMD, but to aircraft and their ability to do maintenance and fly.
Ten ammunition storages got hit. Seven fuel reservoirs of the AFB got hit at two sites with eight hits total. Two locations remain untouched. One SA6 Battery utterly destroyed along with its radars and control systems. In total, five SA6 Battery elements hit.
The results show that the target hits were accurate and that the Tomahawks have been used effectively against quality targets. Although 58 missiles hit the base, it seems that the overall damage to the base is limited because the warhead of the Tomahawk is not considered large and weighs about 450 kg.
ISI FIRST TO ANALYZE SHAYRAT AIRFIELD MISSILE ATTACK
Based on very high resolution imagery captured less than 10 hours after the attack, ISI presents in depth battle damage assessment
ISI very high resolution satellite imagery was able to reveal the results of the Tomahawk cruise missiles attack on the Al-Shayrat Air Base. According to ISI experts, the total of 44 targets hit. Several targets may have hit twice.
An in-depth examination of the damage to the objectives shows that 13 double hardened aircraft shelters (HAS) got 23 hits. 5 workshops got hit. The workshops are not necessarily related to WMD, but to aircraft and their ability to do maintenance and fly.
Ten ammunition storages got hit. Seven fuel reservoirs of the AFB got hit at two sites with eight hits total. Two locations remain untouched. One SA6 Battery utterly destroyed along with its radars and control systems. In total, five SA6 Battery elements hit.
The results show that the target hits were accurate and that the Tomahawks have been used effectively against quality targets. Although 58 missiles hit the base, it seems that the overall damage to the base is limited because the warhead of the Tomahawk is not considered large and weighs about 450 kg.
ISI first to analyze Shayrat airfield missile attack - ISI
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Rockytop, Tennessee, USA
Posts: 5,898
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
A couple of initial reports on the explosion(s) south of Aleppo, perhaps in Azan:
Explosion heard in government-controlled area south of ...
Syrian media: Explosions at Iranian base near Aleppo
Explosion heard in government-controlled area south of Aleppo- monitor
by Reuters
Saturday, 14 April 2018 19:48 GMT
BEIRUT, April 14 (Reuters) - A huge blast was heard in a Syrian government-controlled area in a rural region south of Aleppo, the Britain-based war monitor The Syrian Observatory for Human Rights said on Saturday.
The Observatory said the cause of the explosion was unknown, as well as its target.
by Reuters
Saturday, 14 April 2018 19:48 GMT
BEIRUT, April 14 (Reuters) - A huge blast was heard in a Syrian government-controlled area in a rural region south of Aleppo, the Britain-based war monitor The Syrian Observatory for Human Rights said on Saturday.
The Observatory said the cause of the explosion was unknown, as well as its target.
Syrian media: Explosions at Iranian base near Aleppo
By JPOST.COM STAFF
04/14/2018
An Iranian military base in Syria was targeted by unidentified aircraft Saturday night, Syrian media is reporting.
The Iranian base, located in the Jabal Azzan region south of Aleppo, is the largest in the country. Eyewitnesses are reported to have observed explosions and flames at the site.
Other unconfirmed sources have identified the planes as Israeli fighter jets.
By JPOST.COM STAFF
04/14/2018
An Iranian military base in Syria was targeted by unidentified aircraft Saturday night, Syrian media is reporting.
The Iranian base, located in the Jabal Azzan region south of Aleppo, is the largest in the country. Eyewitnesses are reported to have observed explosions and flames at the site.
Other unconfirmed sources have identified the planes as Israeli fighter jets.
Originally Posted by JPJP
Typhoon was there to protect the French Mirage, in case of a hasty retreat. Ummm, I meant a ‘fighting withdrawal’.
@Airbubba
Hezbollah media sources denied the reports and said that the explosions at the site resulted from explosives detonating within the warehouse.
Let's examine a few cases:
1. Israelis in invisible aircraft attack the base
2. Some people on that base get frantic orders, after Friday's strikes, to move some stuff from X to Y and a few people screw up an ordnance handling procedure.
3. Rogue American (or British, or French, etc) pilots take off and attack the base with no orders from above.
I'll bet on 2, with two plus decades of time in service to inform my guess.
Maybe I put a side bet on 1 if the IDF thought they could sneak one in while the world was in a tizzy over the cruise missile strikes.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: London, New York, Paris, Moscow.
Posts: 3,632
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts