Null post. Tornados managed just fine in Libya with the same overall range/endurance on 2 tanks as a Typhoon has on one. It didn’t need 3 tanks to deliver vastly more Storm Shadows than the Rafale did. It also killed vastly more tanks than the Rafale did. The tank-kill rate achieved by each Tornado is Libya was beyond anything ever managed in Desert Storm or by any other aircraft.
What kind of analysis is that ?
You compare the Rafale and the Tornado as if they were tasked with exactly the same range of missions with the same choice of weapons… that’s completly absurd.
For instance, the low number of scalps fired by the Rafale was directly related to the stand off efficiency of the Spectra and ASSM combo against High value Libyan ground assets (including SA-6 and SA-3 SAM sites), hence reducing the necessity for using a more expensive 300+ km range cruise missile in most of these missions.
As for the number of tank kills scored by the Tornado, it was, indeed, very impressive and mainly due to the fact that it was its main role in the conflict thanks to the brimestone, a highly specialized (and effective) anti tank missile which was not used by any other fighter jet.
You must also realise that :
1- Italian and UK A2G missions relied heavily on the Tornado because the typhoon was still a little bit green at the time, while the French were spreading the different A2G tasks more evenly between Rafale, Mirage 2000D/N, F1, SEM, gazelle and Tigers (Helicopters performed a big share of the French tank kills).
2- Therefore, the Rafale were mainly assigned to high value targets (ammunitions depots, command centers, airfields, SAM sites) with consistent Air defenses, not tanks.
3- 45% of the 1900+ Rafale sorties were recce/ISTAR missions.
4- It’s also worth noting that all the Rafale sorties were flown without any external ECM or SEAD support which was not the case for the Tornado.
Sign In
