|
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?
|
You are looking at the early jets that would have scrapped or sold retained.
|
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) |
Originally Posted by gr4techie
(Post 10118429)
1)
It's my opinion that Stormshadow and Brimstone are the only reason why Tornado wasn't scrapped years ago. 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. |
Given the relative proximity I am slightly surprised that the GR4s only carried 2 missiles each, rather than the maximum of 4 (presuming the clearances are in place).
|
JTO, wreapon/target matching? Cost? Political demonstration rather than military effect?
|
Originally Posted by air pig
(Post 10118172)
Support is not just missiles on target though is it.
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. :ok: 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. :ok: |
Originally Posted by Just This Once...
(Post 10118455)
Given the relative proximity I am slightly surprised that the GR4s only carried 2 missiles each, rather than the maximum of 4 (presuming the clearances are in place).
Beyond that, well done to all who risked their necks. OAP |
Now, do I understand that Fighter "protection" of "bombers" is de-rigeuer or, is this an overkill, esp with SO weapons? |
Originally Posted by ORAC
(Post 10118470)
Better to have it, and not need it; than need it, and not have it.
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! :uhoh: OAP |
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..... |
Demonstration at Akrotiri Main Gate expected at noon tomorrow (Sunday)
|
Originally Posted by Onceapilot
(Post 10118466)
Come-on JTO, I think you know some of the variables. :ok: 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 :E |
[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. :oh: OAP |
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? |
Reports starting to come in about a large explosion at an Iranian weapons depot near Aleppo after warplanes sighted in the area.
Probably coincidental. |
Originally Posted by A_Van
(Post 10118113)
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 - ISI |
A couple of initial reports on the explosion(s) south of Aleppo, perhaps in Azan:
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. 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. |
Originally Posted by recceguy
(Post 10118451)
You will notice that US commanders and President Trump now list France before UK,
Originally Posted by larssnowpharter
(Post 10118512)
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?'
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. |
Originally Posted by JPJP
(Post 10118505)
Typhoon was there to protect the French Mirage, in case of a hasty retreat. Ummm, I meant a ‘fighting withdrawal’.
:E |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 04:15. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.