Does a cruise missile count as a strike sortie ? (it should)
How many cruise missiles has been flinged towards Libya ?
It sure ain’t political to understate for France here

No cruise missiles fired since NATO took over (March 31st), AFAIK. So that can’t explain the discrepancy.

The breakdown of strike sorties seems to be roughly:

France – 35%
UK – ~25%
Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Netherlands – ~10% each

Sortie numbers are known for France and Canada. For all the other nations, I’m guessing about 0.9 missions/day/strike aircraft, which should be very close to the truth based on the French and Canadian sortie numbers.

According to Wiki the French FREMMs will have a complement of 108 whereas the Italian ones will have a complement of 145.

How come? Are the French ones more automated? or less capable? or something else?

Different concepts of operation, IMHO. This leads to very different weapons fits and manpower needs:

– FREMM IT is designed to sail around with all radars on and guns blazing, and plenty of redundancy in case a system fails or is damaged. It has two of everything: two search radars, two guns, two radar+IR fire control channels, two helos etc. The combat system is federated, meaning each system is controlled separately by one person behind a dedicated workstation.

– FREMM FR is designed to sail around with its one radar off, relying on networked operations, passive sensors and stealth to keep a god’s eye view of the battlefield and avoid being detected and shot at in the first place. This is much more like LCS. It has only one search radar, only one gun, an IR-only fire control channel, only one helo plus UAVs etc. The combat system is fully integrated instead of federated, so data fusion allows you to have fewer workstations each showing combined tracks from multiple sensors in one tactical picture.

The Italians will tell you that FREMM IT is more capable as a standalone platform. The French will tell you that no, FREMM FR is more capable and cheaper in the context of networked task force operations. 😉

It has no range compared to the Apache

Do you have more info on this?

I’m a bit skeptical, because the Apache isn’t so good on range. Plus the Tiger’s fuel fraction is about the same as an Apache’s – and that’s with the latter carrying the 100gal auxiliary tank that reduces ammunition to only 300 rounds.

Is there any public info on sortie breakdowns by country/mission? So far all I’ve found are the breakdowns for NATO and French sorties:

NATO
~40% strike sorties. 58-74 strike sorties/day, out of a total of 155-184 sorties/day.

France
~50% strike / ~10% recon / ~10% CAP (Mirage 2000-5) / ~5% AEW / ~25% refueling.
The French have been averaging 18 strike sorties/day and 35-40 total sorties/day. Yesterday that was increased to 24 strike sorties, which suggests that the French are also increasing their effort to compensate the U.S. departure (as is the RAF). Either way, the French account for ~30-35% of all NATO strike sorties.

Any numbers on other countries?

I presume his buddy was carrying the Damocles pod or were those GBU-49’s (i.e. perhaps intended to be used with GPS-guidance)..?

The Super Etendards are paired whenever possible with Rafale Ms, so the buddy is probably a Rafale M with Damocles designator pod and 4-6 bombs (of course it could also be another Super Etendard, but that’s less likely).

Where do you find all these great shots? I’d like to find some more SEM photos if possible. Perhaps I can come across some and you won’t have to do all the leg work. 🙂

The pics are from the daily French MoD action reports. Just click on any report and then scroll down the right until you see small camera icons. http://www.defense.gouv.fr/actualites/dossiers/operation-harmattan/points-de-sit But I’ll tell you right away, there aren’t many pics of Super Etendards…

On the other positive note, its very good that the Eurofighter partners are going ahead with the AESA radar, very good for export potential and for the Typhoon’s needs and all, & in my view, this AESA radar is the gateway to future upgrade/growth potential.

From reading the article, it doesn’t seem like the Eurofighter nations are “going ahead” with AESA development, let alone committed to buying it. Rather, it seems like they just told industry “as long as it’s on your own dime, we won’t veto it. Come back in 2013 or 2015, but for now you’re on your own.” Which is hardly a ringing endorsement for the future.

Did I read the article correctly?

Doesn’t contradict me. That’s exactly what I said, i.e. that while it is there, a Rafale or other type on a strike raid will be able to help enforce the no-fly zone. :p Doesn’t mean that the primary enforcers of the zone will be the aircraft dropping bombs.

It doesn’t come through in the translation very well, but the French MoD statement was clearly addressing the surprisingly low number of pure air-defense missions flown and implying that this was precisely BECAUSE the Rafales were the primary means of enforcing the no-fly-zone while overflying the area looking for targets.

Now you may want to stick your head in the sand and argue otherwise, but as I’ve stated before EVERY SINGLE AIRFORCE IS TAKING FULL ADVANTAGE OF ITS MULTIROLE AIRCRAFT, UNLESS IT HAS POLITICAL RESTRICTIONS… OR UNLESS IT’S THE RAF. (Apologies for the shouting, but it seems there’s no other way to get the point across)

USAF: F-15Es & F-16CJs
France: Rafales
Canada: F/A-18s
Belgium, Denmark & Norway: F-16s
See anyone flying pure CAP above?

That leaves:
a) the “hollow states” (as Information Dissemination would put it) that want to wave the UN flag without actually taking a side – Italy, Spain, Netherlands, UAE
b) A handful of single role Mirage 2000-5s from Qatar who are there only to show a symbolic Arab presence & are supported by French Mirage 2000-5s which might otherwise not be involved beyond the first few days
c)…The RAF Typhoons

Typhoon isn’t there to drop bombs. It’s there to maintain constant patrols, to enforce the NFZ. The aircraft dropping bombs can’t do that. A Rafale on a strike mission can carry Mica, & shoot down any Libyan aircraft that take off, but it can’t hang around to make sure they don’t just wait until the coast is clear then launch a raid. That’s what the Typhoons (& Rafales & other types flying CAP) are for: to close the windows of opportunity.

A lot of people don’t seem to be getting the point. You can’t carry a load of bombs on CAP, because you need persistence. A Rafale on CAP would carry about the same armament as a Typhoon – or a Qatari Mirage 2000-5, or a USN F-18E, or whatever.

I just heard the French MoD spokesman (Colonel Burkhard) contradict you. But obviously he doesn’t know what he’s talking about. :p

“To recap our missions: Air Defense Missions – 5 patrols of 2 aircraft [Mirage 2000-5, for the 5 days from March 24-28th]. Let me remind you however, that as regards air defense and as you all know, Rafale is a versatile aircraft, and in fact each time you have a Rafale flying over Libya, it is also capable of enforcing the no-fly-zone since it carries not just air-to-ground but also air-to-air weapons.”
http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xhuy48_point-presse-libye-du-28-mars-2011_news

BTW, I understand your point about persistence, but that’s a red herring since a Rafale even loaded with 1 ton of bombs probably can fly just as long as a Typhoon since the Rafale has 2x the external fuel. So maybe what you mean is that the Typhoon can’t carry a load of bombs, missiles and fuel on CAP, in which case you’re arguably right.;)