eagle1On the evening of April 02, patrolling the Joint Air and Rafale M 2000D supported by a C135 as well as two joint patrols Rafale / upgraded Super Etendard (SEM) supported by a tanker version of Rafale were engaged in missions support and air interdiction. These patrols have destroyed five armored vehicles in the region of Sirte. Also a patrol Rafale also carried out a reconnaissance mission with the support of a Rafale mothership.
During the day of April 03, patrolling Air rafale, two joint patrols 2000D and two joint patrols F1CR Rafale / SEM were carried out in the Ras Lanuf. In the morning, several armored vehicles of the Libyan army were destroyed by these patrols. A patrol Rafale also carried out a reconnaissance mission.
Two C 135 of the Air Force, two Navy and SEM Gusts rigged tanker, a E3F and Hawkeye have provided support and coordination of these missions.
Since the Sude, four joint patrols composed of a million and a French 2000-5 M 2000-5 Qatari also conducted air interdiction missions.
At sea, the operations have been marked in the morning, the refueling of the aircraft carrier Charles de Gaulle by the tanker Meuse. The operation allowed the transfer of ammunition and fuel for planes and supplies. Anti-aircraft frigate Jean Bart has left the operation to return to Toulon, its homeport.
eagle1Agree, especially when you know that the few dogfights encouters between the gripen and the rafale that occured in 2007 ended with rafale wins (from an air fan report). Here is a HUD gun lock from the event.
eagle1Two new nice videos released by the french Mindef. First one is on the CdG and the second one is on the AdA from a C135fr. Nice view on the rafale and damocles.
http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xhusop_libye-ravitaillements-en-vol_news#from=embed&start=275
eagle1One correction from AlphaZulu : The Rafale 6 lgb/AASM config is also cleared for navy operations. There are several pictures / video available with appontage and catapult launch in this config.
eagle1http://lemamouth.blogspot.com/2011/03/rafale-air-100-delivre.html
Rafale Air 100% of the weapons fired (today)
basically all the weapons carried on rafales taking off from Corsica were fired (usually 4 AASM per aircraft) showing the intensity of the campaign. The mirage 2000D is close to 100% for today.
Headquarter command attacked by rafales yesterday in Tripoli :
eagle1Here is a very nice HD extract from Lionel Charlet movie on the rafale. I especially liked the part starting at 8 minutes with the rafale i AtA config above the alps.
eagle1could be SH or gripen NG in my opinion.
eagle1IAF won”t accept any last minute offers from contenders
New Delhi, Mar 28 (PTI) The Indian Air Force has decided against accepting any last minute offers from the contenders of the multi-billion dollar deal for purchase of 126 fighter aircraft even as it rejected a bidder”s proposal to equip its warplanes with a more powerful jet engine.
“No offers for upgrades or changes in the original bid submitted by the six aircraft companies would be allowed as their aircraft have been judged on the basis of capabilities offered in the original bid and their performance in the field trials,” IAF sources said here.
Six companies — Lockheed Martin (F-16), Boeing (F/A-18 E/F), Dassault Aviation (Rafale), Saab Gripen, Rosoboronexport MiG 35 and EADS Eurofighter Typhoon are contenders in the USD 11 billion dollar contract of the IAF for procuring 126 Medium-Multirole Combat Aircraft (M-MRCA).
“One defence firm had proposed to equip its aircraft with a more powerful engine along with a host of other capabilities but it was rejected as the aircraft has already undergone trials and we can”t allow firms to make last minute offers,” they added.
Though the IAF has accepted some of the futuristic capabilities offered by the companies but they were proposed in the original bid itself by the respective companies, they said.
The process of evaluation was concluded early last year and a report was submitted to the Defence Ministry.
The Defence Ministry is expected to start the contract negotiations in the deal soon after going through the technical evaluation and field trial reports of the six aircraft carried out by the IAF for over two years.
http://news.in.msn.com/national/article.aspx?cp-documentid=5086345
eagle1Operation Harmattan (1): Rafale keeps its promise
French military operations in Libya last for over a week. Let the bags and have look. First point: the military aspects (1)
In this regard, it is a no-fault. The French Air Force (Air and Marine) shows his professionalism. Four types of missions are carried out: air interdiction, strategic strikes, ground attacks and recognition – with aerial refueling and air traffic control (AWACS and Hawkeye). The Resco and transport (logistics) are also present. Each day, twenty combat aircraft are involved.
The level of commitment is modest: the contract provides operational forces can engage hundreds of warplanes in opex in the event of a serious crisis – with the “spares”, it is between one quarter and one third of our theoretical maximum.
Even if he we should not forget the venerable Mirage 2000 and Super Etendard, this operation Harmattan Rafale party. The aircraft is giving entire satisfaction and his versatility is at the rendez-vous, is evident in air-air missions, air-ground (A2SM, GBU-12, Scalp), recce, taking off from an air base (sometimes more 2000 km – Saint-Dizier) or the aircraft carrier Charles de Gaulle. Since the U.S. F-4 Phantom we had never seen that. The Rafale is keeping its promise.
eagle1http://lemamouth.blogspot.com/2011/03/l.html
French fighters have have struck again in Libya armored vehicles and a major ammunition depot, the last 24 hours, reports the Daily Bulletin of the French air force, without specifying, however, the aircrafts behind the strikes, and ammunition used.
One can imagine that armored vehicles are targeted by AASM and GBU-12/49,while a “large ammunition facilities” may be entitled to any ammunition more reactive, as one or more Scalp-EG.
fighters have concentrated their activities in regions and Zintan Misrata, under the cover of an E-3F and a Hawkeye, and the support of four tankers of the Strategic Air Forces (SAF).
Yesterday, ten fighters were engaged in separate operations. The aircraft of the Air Force joined their base of Solenzara before 10pm.
This Sunday, the air force has mobilized eight fighters. The navy has conducted reconnaissance missions.
The stud Cretan also assisted with a “joint mission” Franco-Qatari. This pad is now at its final size, with nine Mirage 2000-5, including six Qataris.
eagle1EEElightning,
I would like to answer you on one particular point (I lack of time for the rest). The fact that Typhoon AtG capability was an afterthought and never the main driver for design.
There was a interesting thread on Pprune that dealt on this topic with insight from british people who actually took part in the Typhoon development. I give you the link below for the whole discussion.
http://www.pprune.org/military-aircrew/444353-typhoon-bargain-75-over-budget-2.html
Here is an extract :
I joined the project just before the ESR-D was signed off and was involved in drafting specs (as an OR Rep) during the mid to late 80s. I left the project about the time you started work, although I became involved in testing later on. I struggle to recall any detailed discussion of the air to ground capability at all in my area on the defensive side of life during those early years. You would have known my colleague TB quite well as he did the similar job on the AI Sub System and you designed against his specs.
I maintain my line. The design driver was the air to air role. The secondary air to surface functionality was included but was subordinate when a conflict in requirement arose. There’s a good reason why it was not in the early sw releases. Germany, emphatically, did not even require an A-G capability to be tested during the early years. Air to air capability was paramount and incidentally, the Italian F104 was purely an air to air platform. As an aside, if our cost increases are bad, for the Italians add the price of a Tornado F3 lease and bizarrely, an F16 lease to tide them over. Remember the context. For air to ground roles, Germany had the F4 but at that time was not allowed to operate outside of its own airspace. Italy had the Tornado GR1 and Spain had bought the dual role F18. We had Jaguar, Harrier and Tornado GR1 so no one envisaged the secondary A-G capability as being anything other than for operational flexibility. In retrospect, it’s a good job that the UK “senior management” were indeed visionary and pressed the other Nations so hard but that’s not the point.
As for OT, all the original testing was purely A-A based. It was only in 2005 that the emphasis switched and even then only on a National basis.
As I wrote the scenarios for spec compliance for one of the other sub systems and then supported much of the operational testing I am confident that I am 100% correct.
So to answer your criticism, whilst I didn’t write the requirement, I was responsible for interpreting that requirement for MOD PE and Industry. I hope, therefore, that I wasn’t ill informed. If you interpreted those specs in any other way during development, it may be quite illuminating.
To reemphasise my original point, it is mischievous for NAO to criticise a project for not delivering a capability which was not part of the original ESR-D other than as a secondary role. The aircraft costs more because industry was employed for 10 years longer than planned and Nations cut their production numbers. It should come as no surprise that it has cost us as much for fewer aircraft because the Industry contracts branches were careful to include punitive termination clauses tied to workshare.
As an aside, it is our lack of corporate memory that allows such discussions to ensue.
eagle1PPP,
First of all I am answering you without any provocations just arguments unlike another poster. You are overacting and over sensitive. It is not the WAAF here.
comparing AASM with pave-way is fine but there are significant differences which lead to a capability gap. The stand off distance is one of them. Bringing the High altitude SAM argument is quite weak. Why use expensive Tomahawk and other cruise missiles if there were no threats ? Also the Libyan conflict is one particular example but in even higher threats environments this stand-off capability is getting even more relevant.
Both rafale and typhoon can drop bombs…and also a Tucano which is a totally different bird. So you can’t say one is equal another just because they can drop bombs. There is the capability of the weapons like explain above but also the capability of the aircraft. The rafale is here a better striker platform 1) because there are more AtG weapons installed 2) because it can take significantly more external fuel.
eagle1A new nice video of french forces (AdA and MN) with rafale, mirages, SEM, hawkeye etc :
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aBpsg7I6OsU&feature=player_embedded
eagle1ppp,
An AASM is a stand off, fire and forget weapon unlike pawevay. One rafale with 6 AASM can saturate an airfield in just one path from more than 50Km avoiding Libyan SAMs.
A Typhoon with its paveways would be much more at risk having to be much closer, to guide until impacts its LGB and the then select a second target, reposition, launch its second bomb, wait impact…and select a third target…etc etc …Not a very comfortable position if you ask me. It would be dramatically more vulnerable.
That is why except for CAS the Typhoon as close to no AtG use for the moment. It can’t take on defended target without taking a lot of risks.
eagle1that is wrong,
each rafale in an AtG confing brings 6 AAM. More than enough do defend itself effectively and face any unexpected scenario while a tornado or a mirage 2000D would be in trouble if there is no escort.
The points with Typhoon AtG capability are 1) they are late (no stand off weaponry, recce, anti-ship no ESA radar etc) 2) even fully developed (if they ever are which remain to be seen) the typhoon cannot hide that AtG was an afterthought.
For instance with 2 storm shadow or Taurus it can carry a single 1000L tank while a rafale can carry 3*2000L = 6000L. It is 6 time more ! the same story is true for other AtG configs (LGB etc). That is why the rafale or a SH are more multirole by “essence”. The lack of external store flexibility (for bulky one to accommodate with fuel tanks) for the Typhoon means that it will always impact its operational performance as a striker.
It means that the Typhoon would bring less AtG capability than a tornado and would be a step back while a rafale is a step forward for both AtA and AtG.
In the end you are paying a very expensive price for an aircraft that brings more capability in a very narrow spectrum (and rarely used) of modern air warfare.
Also I think that the argument that the Typhoon doesn’t do AtG because the Tornado does is spinned by some. The truth is just that the tornado is much better for that role and offer a wider range of weaponry. But then you need two aircrafts : one for AtG and one for escort while a true multirole aircraft is self sufficient in this conflict.
Sign In
