Key.Aero Network
Register Free

Page 4 of 102 FirstFirst 123456781454 ... LastLast
Results 91 to 120 of 3034

Thread: Rafale news & discussion part XVI

  1. #91
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    3,016
    but still... you can only fight what's in front of you, and in any case, the F-15 had an advantage that made its kills a lot easier. Just as it did the job it had to do, the Rafale did the same

  2. #92
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    2,722
    Quote Originally Posted by TooCool_12f View Post
    as for the "combat proven" part, the f-15 crowd are boasting about "over 100kills with no losses to enemy aurcraft", considering it faced undertrained, undersupported enemies, would you claim it's a worthless claim?
    I'd call it an irrelevant claim. Its useful for the PR people to put on brochures but not something that should figure into any serious analysis leading to a modern F-15 purchase.

    You can only fight enemies that you have in front of you, Rafale did its job (and very well) in Afghanistan, Libya, Mali and still does it (AFAIK) in Syria
    No one is disputing that the Rafale did what was required of it. However being 'combat proven' against Libya just as irrelevant as the F-15's kills racked up over 40 years.

  3. #93
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    1,977
    Quote Originally Posted by TooCool_12f View Post
    as for the "combat proven" part, the f-15 crowd are boasting about "over 100kills with no losses to enemy aurcraft", considering it faced undertrained, undersupported enemies, would you claim it's a worthless claim?

    You can only fight enemies that you have in front of you, Rafale did its job (and very well) in Afghanistan, Libya, Mali and still does it (AFAIK) in Syria
    Kind of a false claim really. Iraqi pilots might not have been the very best in the world but they had 10 years of war fighting experience and were reasonably competent in evasive manoeuvres like notching. As for Syrian pilots, a reasonable amount of evidence suggests they shot down an F-15 with a MiG-25. The Syrians also had a number of other kills in air-to-air combat. Syria was also equipped with fully up-to-date Soviet SAM systems in 1982.

    Syria
    http://www.acig.info/CMS/index.php?o...d=34&Itemid=47
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...an_flying_aces

    Iraq
    http://www.acig.info/CMS/index.php?o...d=37&Itemid=47
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohommed_Rayyan

    This at least demonstrates some kind of up-to-date lethality, none of which can be said for Gaddafi in 2011.

    Quote Originally Posted by TooCool_12f View Post
    but still... you can only fight what's in front of you, and in any case, the F-15 had an advantage that made its kills a lot easier. Just as it did the job it had to do, the Rafale did the same
    Sure it did but let's not exaggerate the description of the job it did.
    Last edited by lukos; 21st May 2015 at 17:54.

  4. #94
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    2,323
    Quote Originally Posted by Vnomad View Post

    No one is disputing that the Rafale did what was required of it. However being 'combat proven' against Libya just as irrelevant as the F-15's kills racked up over half a century.
    Think you need to read up about some of the F-15 kills. How many times were aircraft fired on over Libya? Over Syria currently?

    In the case of the F-15's combat record, there were some obstacles they faced: mainly in the form of other pilots who wanted to kill them and not to die themselves.

    The combat record of aircraft that fought in GWI or the various conflicts between Israel and it's neighbors are different from the coalition airstrike in Afganistan and Libya in a significant way, there were people capable and willing to mount a defense. However inept those attempts were, claiming the success in combat is "irrelevant" does not hold water.

    Does it show the F-15 was the "best-est of all time"? Of course not, but as losses in Iraq, Kosovo- Bosnia etc. show. Even when the enemy is outmatched, losses happen when they actually have the means to defend themselves.

  5. #95
    Join Date
    Apr 2015
    Posts
    132
    Quote Originally Posted by Vnomad View Post
    - Far from engaging stings, the US would probably expedite supplies to India if tensions rise against China (no similar tilt from France can be expected). As for US-Pak relations, they'll look past the mutual animosity only until the Afghan business is wrapped up (for better or worse).
    Or simply disable their aircraft if they do not want the Indians to use them, as it happened in the UAE prior to the 2014 raids in Libya.

  6. #96
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    2,323
    Quote Originally Posted by EC 5/25 Corsair View Post
    Or simply disable their aircraft if they do not want the Indians to use them, as it happened in the UAE prior to the 2014 raids in Libya.
    You, of course, have a reliable report on this? Because they were deployed for Odyssey Dawn to enforce the no-fly zone. Were the M2000's "shut down" by France as well? Because they were right alongside the UAE F-16's enforcing the no fly zone.
    Last edited by FBW; 21st May 2015 at 18:27.

  7. #97
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    2,722
    Quote Originally Posted by EC 5/25 Corsair View Post
    Or simply disable their aircraft if they do not want the Indians to use them, as it happened in the UAE prior to the 2014 raids in Libya.
    And the US would want to preserve the threatened PLAAF assets because...? (The UAEAF F-16s were disabled remotely? Please share your sources.)

  8. #98
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    2,722
    Quote Originally Posted by FBW View Post
    Think you need to read up about some of the F-15 kills. How many times were aircraft fired on over Libya? Over Syria currently?

    In the case of the F-15's combat record, there were some obstacles they faced: mainly in the form of other pilots who wanted to kill them and not to die themselves.
    None of that is a reason to buy the F-15E over the F-35 today. So its combat record is, practically speaking as irrelevant as the Rafale's in Libya.

  9. #99
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    289
    Combat proven. :which has been proven to operate and perform as advertise in combat situation. Nothing more , nothing less.
    Lybia may not have had the top of the line in term of AD , but performing day in day out CAS deep in country with no CSAR ,while radar and SAM systems are known to be operating in the region does indeed count as a combat operation.
    I do not think ,Gadhafi loyal troops, hammered as they were, restrained themselves from shouting down planes. Both side had demonstrated earlier that those systems were perfectly functional .Fact that they could not do anything worth mentioning against strike ravaging their columns and artillery and ultimately stopping them cold, is rather a testimony to the platform having performed as advertised.

  10. #100
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    156
    You don't understand. Rafale's combat feats have to be put in perspective. F-35's combat powerpoints have to be taken at face value.

  11. #101
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    1,860
    Quote Originally Posted by xman View Post
    Combat proven. :which has been proven to operate and perform as advertise in combat situation. Nothing more , nothing less.
    Lybia may not have had the top of the line in term of AD , but performing day in day out CAS deep in country with no CSAR ,while radar and SAM systems are known to be operating in the region does indeed count as a combat operation.
    I do not think ,Gadhafi loyal troops, hammered as they were, restrained themselves from shouting down planes. Both side had demonstrated earlier that those systems were perfectly functional .Fact that they could not do anything worth mentioning against strike ravaging their columns and artillery and ultimately stopping them cold, is rather a testimony to the platform having performed as advertised.
    Rafale can indeed fly and drop ASSM as advertised, however, it's combat record doesn't show the superiority over any other fighter or any of it's special trick since it didn't really shot down anything or have to do any dangerous SEAD mission , there was no resistance apart from may be some anti air cannon
    Combat record of something like F-16, F-15 are alot more impressive than F-35, F-22, Rafale , EF-2000 but does that mean they are better? the answer should be obvious
    Last edited by mig-31bm; 21st May 2015 at 19:37.

  12. #102
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    France
    Posts
    1,508
    Quote Originally Posted by Vnomad View Post
    I'd call it an irrelevant claim. Its useful for the PR people to put on brochures but not something that should figure into any serious analysis leading to a modern F-15 purchase.


    No one is disputing that the Rafale did what was required of it. However being 'combat proven' against Libya just as irrelevant as the F-15's kills racked up over 40 years.

    So please, enlight us : what is the threshold to be considered "combat proven" according to your standard ? Nuking good old USSR or invading China in 2 weeks ?
    Seriously...
    The Rafale international forum :
    http://rafale.freeforums.org/

    Rafale news blog :
    http://rafalenews.blogspot.com/

  13. #103
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    2,722
    Quote Originally Posted by xman View Post
    Combat proven. :which has been proven to operate and perform as advertise in combat situation. Nothing more , nothing less.
    Lybia may not have had the top of the line in term of AD , but performing day in day out CAS deep in country with no CSAR ,while radar and SAM systems are known to be operating in the region does indeed count as a combat operation.
    I do not think ,Gadhafi loyal troops, hammered as they were, restrained themselves from shouting down planes. Both side had demonstrated earlier that those systems were perfectly functional .Fact that they could not do anything worth mentioning against strike ravaging their columns and artillery and ultimately stopping them cold, is rather a testimony to the platform having performed as advertised.
    By the same logic the F-16 has seen many times more combat than the Rafale, so ought be proportionally more attractive to a customer. While the reality is, just being labelled 'combat proven' doesn't enhance the actual capability of the aircraft.

  14. #104
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    1,977
    Quote Originally Posted by xman View Post
    Combat proven. :which has been proven to operate and perform as advertise in combat situation. Nothing more , nothing less.
    Lybia may not have had the top of the line in term of AD , but performing day in day out CAS deep in country with no CSAR ,while radar and SAM systems are known to be operating in the region does indeed count as a combat operation.
    I do not think ,Gadhafi loyal troops, hammered as they were, restrained themselves from shouting down planes. Both side had demonstrated earlier that those systems were perfectly functional .Fact that they could not do anything worth mentioning against strike ravaging their columns and artillery and ultimately stopping them cold, is rather a testimony to the platform having performed as advertised.
    A lot of platforms did the same.

  15. #105
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    1,977
    Quote Originally Posted by Kovy View Post
    So please, enlight us : what is the threshold to be considered "combat proven" according to your standard ? Nuking good old USSR or invading China in 2 weeks ?
    Seriously...
    Enemy with up-to-date equipment and proven lethality.

  16. #106
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    France
    Posts
    1,508
    Quote Originally Posted by mig-31bm View Post
    Rafale can indeed fly and drop ASSM as advertised, however, it's combat record doesn't show the superiority over any other fighter or any of it's special trick since it didn't really shot down anything or have to do any dangerous SEAD mission , there was no resistance apart from may be some anti air cannon
    Tell that to the pilots who actually flew over Libya during the first day with no SEAD support and did see the sam missiles trails passing by their aircraft.
    The Rafale international forum :
    http://rafale.freeforums.org/

    Rafale news blog :
    http://rafalenews.blogspot.com/

  17. #107
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    2,722
    Quote Originally Posted by Kovy View Post
    So please, enlight us : what is the threshold to be considered "combat proven" according to your standard ? Nuking good old USSR or invading China in 2 weeks ?
    Operating in densely guarded PLAAF air space in... 2020, would be certainly would be concrete evidence of the Rafale doing something that its non-VLO design would suggest its incapable of (doing safely).

    Seriously...
    You've got that backwards boss. This line of debate started with 'combat proven' being tom-tomed as an advantage for the Rafale, NOT by any criticism about lack of real combat experience.
    Last edited by Vnomad; 21st May 2015 at 19:52.

  18. #108
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    France
    Posts
    1,508
    Quote Originally Posted by Vnomad View Post
    By the same logic the F-16 has seen many times more combat than the Rafale, so ought be proportionally more attractive to a customer. While the reality is, just being labelled 'combat proven' doesn't enhance the actual capability of the aircraft.
    As a matter of fact it does confirm that (at least) some of the capabilities advertized actually work in an operational environnement.
    That is quite significant for a customer.
    The Rafale international forum :
    http://rafale.freeforums.org/

    Rafale news blog :
    http://rafalenews.blogspot.com/

  19. #109
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    871
    Quote Originally Posted by Vnomad View Post
    While the reality is, just being labelled 'combat proven' doesn't enhance the actual capability of the aircraft.
    True. But you willingly missed the point. From now on what you say is irrelevant.
    You're welcome to my trolls list

  20. #110
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    2,722
    Quote Originally Posted by Kovy View Post
    As a matter of fact it does confirm that (at least) some of the capabilities advertized actually work in an operational environnement.
    That is quite significant for a customer.
    That's what field trials, EW ranges and (to some extent) combat exercises are for. What the Libyan operation has proven for a FACT, is that the Rafale can function very effectively against sparce 70s & 80s era air defences (without any air element) operated by (at best) semi-professional troops. I'm not saying that's all the Rafale is capable of but certainly all that was proven by that specific war. It says nothing about how it would perform against modern high end threats.

  21. #111
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    3,423
    Quote Originally Posted by EC 5/25 Corsair View Post
    Or simply disable their aircraft if they do not want the Indians to use them, as it happened in the UAE prior to the 2014 raids in Libya.
    Where´s a facepalm smiley in this forum?

  22. #112
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    1,977
    Quote Originally Posted by Kovy View Post
    As a matter of fact it does confirm that (at least) some of the capabilities advertized actually work in an operational environnement.
    That is quite significant for a customer.
    It'd be pretty dire if they didn't don't you think?

  23. #113
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    2,722
    Quote Originally Posted by OPIT View Post
    True. But you willingly missed the point. From now on what you say is irrelevant.
    You're welcome to my trolls list
    You can duck the facts all you like but they will remain unchanged in your absence.

  24. #114
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    France
    Posts
    1,508
    Quote Originally Posted by Vnomad View Post
    That's what field trials, EW ranges and (to some extent) combat exercises are for.
    Testing your fighter in a controled environement, constrained by peace time safety rules, with an optimal logistic chain for maintenance and tactics developed for a theorical ennemy is very different from confronting a real ennemy which will adapt continously (whatever his raw strength), from a foreign airbase.

    The Tornados' achievement at the begining of GW1 comes to my mind as an exemple. The Gripen and Typhons hiccup when they were first engaged in Libya is an other. The combat proven label isn't just about what the aircraft could do, it is more about the objective evaluation of its actual limitations in a real war and knowing how to use the whole system to overcome those limitations or/and financing relevant upgrades to correct them in the future.

    To be fair, I could also give the exemple of the first Rafale deployements in Afghanistan. What was learned about the aircraft during these low intensity war missions was priceless and certainly helped a lot to speed up the maturation of the systems and people using them.
    Last edited by Kovy; 21st May 2015 at 21:23.
    The Rafale international forum :
    http://rafale.freeforums.org/

    Rafale news blog :
    http://rafalenews.blogspot.com/

  25. #115
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    2,722
    Quote Originally Posted by Kovy View Post
    Testing your fighter in a controled environement, constrained by peace time safety rules, with an optimal logistic chain for maintenance and tactics developed for a theorical ennemy is very different from confronting a real ennemy which will adapt continously (whatever his raw strength), from a foreign airbase.
    The controlled environments may not be able to perfectly simulate a high end environment like the China's or Russia's but there's no problem doing the same with Libyan air defences. Testing the aircraft with the pace/tempo of wartime operations can again be done through exercises like Red Flag. Logistics on the other hand are a separate issue that don't impact the performance of the aircraft (only its serviceability).

    The Tornados' achievement at the begining of GW1 comes to my mind as an exemple. The Gripen and Typhons hiccup when they were first engaged in Libya is an other. The combat proven label isn't just about what the aircraft could do, it is more about the objective evaluation of its actual limitations in a real war and knowing how to use the whole system to overcome those limitations or/and financing relevant upgrades to correct them in the future.

    To be fair, I could also give the exemple of the first Rafale deployements in Afghanistan. What was learned about the aircraft during these low intensity war missions was priceless and certainly helped a lot to speed up the maturation of the systems and people using them.
    If in 2007 you'd have been asked which were better choice for customer - the Rafale or the F-15E, would you have said, "Go with the F-15E. Its combat proven." ? Be honest.

  26. #116
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    289
    a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.
    As said Lybia was not top of the line AD, still radar and SAM were operating , more than that , they had proved effective enough earlier. Now thinking that cruise missiles and growlers were engaged to eliminate a few guns, is naïve at best,(but I gather it is something else at play ). Some may chose to confuse successful threats denial, be it via spectra or AASM or both, with an assumed lack of opposition for comfort . Fact remain, the weapon system operated early on , performing CAS ,reconnaissance and raids un challenged in an environment with operational SAM and radar. No one has ever pretended it was WWIII like type of AD threats, but reducing it to mere guns is ludicrous, not to mention disrespectful to those who flew those missions.
    Combat proven does not remove anything nor pretend any hierarchy compared to other combat proven platforms, it only shade shadow to non yet combat proven ones.
    Anyway beyond mere combat and threat level , it is the whole mission set being exercised , with the full logistic of operating over long period at higher tempo in more challenging and demanding conditions, at combat range with combat effective loitering and combat loads in combat conditions that gives credence to the combat proven stamp.

  27. #117
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Posts
    198
    combat proven mean something for the people that are able to understand what it means. For the others, no surprise again the non smart proven trolls

  28. #118
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    France
    Posts
    1,508
    Quote Originally Posted by Vnomad View Post
    The controlled environments may not be able to perfectly simulate a high end environment like the China's or Russia's but there's no problem doing the same with Libyan air defences. Testing the aircraft with the pace/tempo of wartime operations can again be done through exercises like Red Flag. Logistics on the other hand are a separate issue that don't impact the performance of the aircraft (only its serviceability).
    Again you are missing the point. Being Combat proven is about knowing how to use your aircraft (including how to support it) outside the comfort zone of peacetime operations. As usefull and realistic as Red Flags type exercices may be, you don't have real missiles or small calibers trying to kill you and everything is perfectly prepared and scheduled months before for a known and limited period of time. BTW, Nellis is certainly the worst base to test your Aircraft availability in a degraded environment.

    The fuel issue that the Gripen faced when Sweden decided to participate in Libya operations is a perfect example of that. This is not the kind of unexpected sh*t you can experience at Redflag.

    Now, if you insist on twisting the basic definition of "combat proven" as "combat proven against Russia" or "combat proven against China" then yes, you are right... and not a single jet will be combat proven until WW3.

    Quote Originally Posted by Vnomad View Post
    If in 2007 you'd have been asked which were better choice for customer - the Rafale or the F-15E, would you have said, "Go with the F-15E. Its combat proven." ? Be honest.
    The combat proven factor is just one factor among many to consider. A custormer should not base its choice on one single factor, for sure.
    But If you intend to use your brand new aircrafts in combat immediatly after you receive them, I would certainly recommand to buy a proven one... So F-15E in your example (excluding politic factors)
    Last edited by Kovy; 21st May 2015 at 23:38.
    The Rafale international forum :
    http://rafale.freeforums.org/

    Rafale news blog :
    http://rafalenews.blogspot.com/

  29. #119
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Cataclysm
    Posts
    8,767
    Quote Originally Posted by Vnomad View Post
    Operating in densely guarded PLAAF air space in... 2020, would be certainly would be concrete evidence of the Rafale doing something that its non-VLO design would suggest its incapable of (doing safely).
    I got my popcorn ready and would love to see how long the F-35 in such environment, for a change..

  30. #120
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    2,722
    Quote Originally Posted by Kovy View Post
    Again you are missing the point. Being Combat proven is about knowing how to use your aircraft (including how to support it) outside the comfort zone of peacetime operations. As usefull and realistic as Red Flags type exercices may be, you don't have real missiles or small calibers trying to kill you and everything is perfectly prepared and scheduled months before for a known and limited period of time. BTW, Nellis is certainly the worst base to test your Aircraft availability in a degraded environment.
    The pilots participating at Red Flag by design know nothing about the opposition they're going to face on any particular sortie, which can consists of networked fighters, SAMs, radars, UAVs and EW systems. Its designed to be as dynamic and unpredictable as possible. In fact, I recall one Gulf War veteran calling his Red Flag experience more challenging the real thing. The only difference is that no actual missiles are fired. Not a minor difference to be sure, it'll perhaps never 'harden' the crew like actual combat would, but the aircraft will be pushed to its limits all the same.

    With regard to Nellis, its one of the few (hot) desert airbases in the West (not unsimilar to the majority of IAF bases), has a truly massive amount of airspace available for training and arguably the most advanced EW training range of its kind in the world.

    The fuel issue that the Gripen faced when Sweden decided to participate in Libya operations is a perfect example of that. This is not the kind of unexpected sh*t you can experience at Redflag.
    I'd say this is precisely the kind of thing you can expect to face and have to address at Red Flag and similar joint exercises. The USAF & USN train together all the time, you can bet the JP-5/JP-8 compatibility didn't come only in wartime. In fact, even non-US aircraft like the IAF's Su-30MKI would have needed some solution to participate at Red Flag, and vice versa for Cope India.

    Now, if you insist on twisting the basic definition of "combat proven" as "combat proven against Russia" or "combat proven against China" then yes, you are right... and not a single jet will be combat proven until WW3.
    Indeed it wouldn't. Let me put it a different way - it is 'combat proven' but that label provides no evidence of how well it would perform against Russia or China. The best measure of a jet's 'real world' capability still comes from advanced training exercises.

    The combat proven factor is just one factor among many to consider. A custormer should not base its choice on one single factor, for sure.
    Well in India's case (which was what the OP was referring to), the fighter has serve for the next 40 years and is very unlikely to be pushed into combat before 2020.

    But If you intend to use your brand new aircrafts in combat immediatly after you receive them, I would certainly recommand to buy a proven one... So F-15E in your example (excluding politic factors)
    Let me extend that further then - what if France had chosen not participate in the Afghan war and Gaddafi had abdicated his position. Would you still recommend the F-15E over the Rafale in 2017, if the brand new aircraft is to be employed immediately? Would the Rafale F3R be less capable in any way, by not having participated in the Libyan operation?

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

- Part of the    Network -

KEY AERO AVIATION NEWS

MAGAZINES

AVIATION FORUM

SHOP

 

WEBSITES