Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Fighters, Bombers and Recon Discussion Board
   Return to Topic Page
Subject: Rafale Proves Itself
SYSOP    8/7/2011 7:59:23 AM
 
Quote    Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
Pages: PREV  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54   NEXT
Aussiegunneragain    GF   9/13/2011 5:12:17 AM
You appear to have responded on the platform vs system debate on the wrong thread, so I'm bringing it back to this one.
 
It appears to me that because your employment obviously revolves around battlefield information systems, that you are a bit one-eyed about these issues. That is a common thing for people with an interest in a particular technology, they think it is the bees knees to the exclusion of everything else.
 
I have no doubt that you know what you are talking about when it comes to those systems matters, but I have equally read posts by a verified ex-F-15 pilot on that other very well run forum we frequent where he talks about the capabilities of platforms all the time. Am I to surmise that because he talks about how fast, how high, how quick turning, how well armed and how well sensor packaged aircraft are that he is an amateur? I certainly don't think so ... that is just his thing as systems are yours and they are both important to winning the fight.
Apart from him I remember an air show in recent years where I heard an F-18 pilot commentating on the comparative performance of the F-18's vs other regional aircraft. At no stage did he say "but none of that really matters, because we are part of a system". I could undoubtedly trawl the web for many quotes by modern pilots talking about the merits of various aircraft, but I think people get the picture.
 
Do force multiplying systems make a big difference? Yup, sure they do and in many instances it makes THE difference, but equally I bet that there isn't a fighter jock out there who wants to be sitting in the second best bird in the battlespace - because that might make the difference too. That's the platform vs platform discussion matters.
 
Quote    Reply

MK       9/13/2011 8:11:52 AM






That's interesting because the F-4 kills were also against red Rafale (but F2 standard this time) simulating Migs with R-27 missiles. Talk about an unfair boasting by the German pilots...

 


Go figure out why the Rafale pilots were keen to leak the ATLC story one year later
(ie spanking typhoon 7 times while they where still simulating Fox1 shooters). They had learnt their lesson and they showed it.. I do think it is fair enough.
 


The point here is that isolated DACT results with little to no information are useless. Concluding that aircraft A is superior to aircraft B because of DACT results is immature and that's the point.
 
Quote    Reply

MK       9/13/2011 8:17:06 AM


You appear to have responded on the platform vs system debate on the wrong thread, so I'm bringing it back to this one.

 

It appears to me that because your employment obviously revolves around battlefield information systems, that you are a bit one-eyed about these issues. That is a common thing for people with an interest in a particular technology, they think it is the bees knees to the exclusion of everything else.

 

I have no doubt that you know what you are talking about when it comes to those systems matters, but I have equally read posts by a verified ex-F-15 pilot on that other very well run forum we frequent where he talks about the capabilities of platforms all the time. Am I to surmise that because he talks about how fast, how high, how quick turning, how well armed and how well sensor packaged aircraft are that he is an amateur? I certainly don't think so ... that is just his thing as systems are yours and they are both important to winning the fight.



Apart from him I remember an air show in recent years where I heard an F-18 pilot commentating on the comparative performance of the F-18's vs other regional aircraft. At no stage did he say "but none of that really matters, because we are part of a system". I could undoubtedly trawl the web for many quotes by modern pilots talking about the merits of various aircraft, but I think people get the picture.

 

Do force multiplying systems make a big difference? Yup, sure they do and in many instances it makes THE difference, but equally I bet that there isn't a fighter jock out there who wants to be sitting in the second best bird in the battlespace - because that might make the difference too. That's the platform vs platform discussion matters.

+1
It's also important to note that a system in such case is the construct of several platforms. How do you want to rate/assess a system when you have no idea about its individual elements. On top of that it's worth noting that the vast majority of airforces around the world lacks a system as employed by the USAF or US military in general. For many of these the capabilities of 
individual platforms are in fact much more important as they don't have such a comprehensive system to back up their units. And what might be a relative small part of a system for one operator could be a major element in the system for another one.
If f.e. an AF lacks adequate radar coverage through EWRs and AWACS the sensing capabilities of a platform are much more important than for an AF which can rely on such support. Just to mention one of many examples, EW support is another matter for example. Which AFs operate dedicated and effective EW aircraft at all? There aren't to many, so the individual protection of a platform becomes even more important with less intel and EW support for example. 
 
Quote    Reply

Eliendhal       9/13/2011 9:31:51 AM
gf :
"What bit about modern force constructs do you not understand - some of us actually do deal with these issues in their daytime job - hint given."
 
I respect the pros as long as they behave as pros . Maybe you should leave your arrogance in the closet and listen to what I say .
 
"The fighter is but one node in the force delivery mechanism, and without e-crows in place, even the F-22 will struggle. "
 
I 've never said otherwise .
 
"The node is another enabler - its not the ultimate enabler except when things go final and it prosecutes its missions. The plane is but one element in the system."
 
This is plain wrong . The entire Air chain works for the plane and not the way around . The main element is the aircraft(s) in charge of the mission at hand , the other nodes are there to ease the process from take off to landing and everything in between .
 
"Eg I have just come off a planning exercise where 22,000 personnel were involved, including 3 squadrons of fighters plus e-crows fleet, plus the trucks. In the scheme of a full theatre event, those fighters had very little contribution to the overall concept of distributed nodes building a full e-crows array."
 
Because from what you describe , the exercise took place on friendly ground and not deep behind enemy lines where there is no more ground support . Behind enemy lines , the true valor of the node (the fighter) is paramount .
So , you are again somewhat wrong when you say :
"The fighter as a platform does not make the node efficient, the fighter is but one contributor to the overall system event."
 
Also :
 
"So yes, your definition of why the platform is paramount is not only ill informed but has no basis on how we plan events and what impact specific platforms have on that event."
 
Or you are biased or you don 't understand your own job (position) . I guess that you 're biased and that just to try to look down on me even if I don 't understand why you would do that . But then , you continue with :
"Again, don't pretend to understand current concepts when its pretty apparent that you don't."
 
At the contrary , from where I stand it is you (and your arrogance) who is making things difficult . I know what I am talking about and I have an open mind .
You wrote :
"The platform contributing to the system event is not a platform centric construct, all the crap going on in this post about AESA, missiles, etc is just lightweight simplistic analysis"
 
No , it is not a lightweight simplistic analysis . It is the spearhead of the entire Air chain , the node who makes the kill(s) .
The e-crows (as you like to call them) are only there to ease and to help the final node to accomplish the mission . The e-crows are the staff behind the "champion" . Don 't turn things around . 
You said :
"The plane is a node in modern TACTICAL-COP concepts, its part of the e-crow array, it is not a single determinant in the event"
 
I have never said that the fighter was a single determinant in the event but it can be in some scenarios like deep strikes . Anyway , if the plane was "just" a node , competitions like MMRCA would not exist , any fighter would do which is far to be the case . So gf , when you 'll understand that the fighter is the most important "node" in the Air chain , things will get easier .
You wrote :
"Again, I suggest that you make the effort to understand what people say rather than create assumptions based around your own flawed misinterpretation of how modern militaries fight."
 
Back to sender .
"Focussing on the fighter as a single capable platform makes kids excited. It doesn't make planners excited."
Correct if the planners don 't have an exciting aircraft . Ah !
Each time an Airforce is using a new fighter , the entire Air chain is modified to accomodate the new capabilities provided by the new fighter . If the fighter is not that important , how do you explain that gf ?
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Quote    Reply

gf0012-aust       9/15/2011 2:21:25 AM

individual platforms are in fact much more important as they don't have such a comprehensive system to back up their units. And what might be a relative small part of a system for one operator could be a major element in the system for another one. If f.e. an AF lacks adequate radar coverage through EWRs and AWACS the sensing capabilities of a platform are much more important than for an AF which can rely on such support. Just to mention one of many examples, EW support is another matter for example. Which AFs operate dedicated and effective EW aircraft at all? There aren't to many, so the individual protection of a platform becomes even more important with less intel and EW support for example. 


MK we are already seeing that other airforces are changing their conops constructs - in fact china is so busy emulating US conops across all her force elements that she is likely to surpass the lead euro nations (France/UK/NATO e-contributor to others) within 5-10 years - she might not be as sophisticated as a euro tier 1, but she sure as hell is making rapid progress in the development and the building of those system elements. This is no longer a US or Israeli centric force development path - every modern force is gripping it up.. So although you are correct at a point in time, that point in time is rapidly shifting left


 
Quote    Reply

gf0012-aust       9/15/2011 2:32:21 AM
I respect the pros as long as they behave as pros . Maybe you should leave your arrogance in the closet and listen to what I say .

You continue to make claims about how contemp forces fight which are incorrect - I can but assume that you are sound biting others and not understanding the minutae involved. show me something that inidcates otherwise and I'll start to believe that you're not just paraphrasing badly bits and pieces you've picked up on the internet.  I'm not seeking your approval so its irrelevant to me whather you accept my statements - which are based on some involvement and direct ivolvement.  If you disagree then present a cogent argument.  You haven't and you make basic mistakes.


This is plain wrong . The entire Air chain works for the plane and not the way around . The main element is the aircraft(s) in charge of the mission at hand , the other nodes are there to ease the process from take off to landing and everything in between .

No it doesn't. track and data management at the system level is the enabler - the plane acts at the direction of every other enabler in the system until cleared to release in finals. The pilot ultimately gets cleared by the JTAC (or equiv) or by the mission planner with the 5000km screwdriver. Only at prosection to they dictate whether to release - and thats after considering that they aren't going to get into the crap with Berne/Hague conventions as what happened with the chinese embassy, and what has happened a few times in Afgh and Iraq

In case you haven't worked it out thye air chain is part of the purple chain - its not in isolation, and hasn't been for close to 20+ years


Because from what you describe , the exercise took place on friendly ground and not deep behind enemy lines where there is no more ground support . Behind enemy lines , the true valor of the node (the fighter) is paramount .
So , you are again somewhat wrong when you say :

really? so this is the only full theatre event run in the world and its run against real and simmed red teams. you have no idea. have you ever even remotely been involved in a multi-service planning events. they're not shifting icecream.  Please point out a red/blue/white exercise which is conducted over red space.  What utter BS


 
Quote    Reply

gf0012-aust       9/15/2011 2:40:54 AM
Or you are biased or you don 't understand your own job (position) . I guess that you 're biased and that just to try to look down on me even if I don 't understand why you would do that . But then , you continue with :

I more than know my job, I'm not stuffing up basic concepts - and you're the one getting things horribly wrong and making it up to cement your argument. Mine are based on real world CONOPS and involvement.  Apart from planning how you get out of bed everymorning please tell me where your planning experience is coming from and demonstrate it by the calibre of your responses.

No , it is not a lightweight simplistic analysis . It is the spearhead of the entire Air chain , the node who makes the kill(s) .

The e-crows (as you like to call them) are only there to ease and to help the final node to accomplish the mission . The e-crows are the staff behind the "champion" . Don 't turn things around .

make the effort to understand that the air chain is not the dominant chain in the prosecution process. you are talking about a service/platform process. air no longer works in isolation. it can't and doesn't. maybe it does in your world where the red team are loin cladded chanting spear throwers, but its not how they're planned for real.  thanks for a definition of e-crows which doesn't exist.  Don't make things up, it just digs you into a deeper hole


I have never said that the fighter was a single determinant in the event but it can be in some scenarios like deep strikes . Anyway , if the plane was "just" a node , competitions like MMRCA would not exist , any fighter would do which is far to be the case . So gf , when you 'll understand that the fighter is the most important "node" in the Air chain , things will get easier .

you do realise that when we evaluate platforms we don't do them in isolation and that the vignettes are inlcuded to demonstrate multiple capability stressers? There are more than a few people in here who know where I work and that I have ACTUALLY been involved in platform and weapons systems evaluations. I'm pretty sure that I might have a clue here. A typical evaluation of a platform/weapon system like a plane literally includes 5 tonnes of documentation and vignettes designed to test the platform against our operational requirements and contructs. You are clueless. Otherwise you would know that we node and platform tests against how that platform plays with the rest of our force structure.

Correct if the planners don 't have an exciting aircraft . Ah !

Each time an Airforce is using a new fighter , the entire Air chain is modified to accomodate the new capabilities provided by the new fighter . If the fighter is not that important , how do you explain that gf ?

You do realise that we actually fit the fighter into our force construct? we plan force structure 30 years out, we factor in that the plane cradle to grave has 20-25 years of full contribution, that means that the fighter contruct fits into force structure - which is no longer service specific. ie thats why they are system focused and why the rapid advances in distributed sensor capability across all services is changing how even the planes fight.

Its not about the platform and its no lomgber about the plane as a single effector, its about capability opportunity, thats why B1's and B52's can do and have done CAS for the last 5-10 years to a level that was previously thought to be the province of the A-10. - and they do it to danger close levels. 

 
Quote    Reply

gf0012-aust       9/15/2011 2:47:07 AM

Seriously sport, stick to world of warcraft, because you know bugger all about how theatre events are planned and prosecuted. you know even less about the importance of ewarfare and how dependant air is on it in complex space.

   The capability requirement has changed, the plane does not define the capability like it used to.  The conops for the F-22 in 1982 barely relfects its conops today.  but, be that as it may, at no point have I said that the fighter is not important, I suggest that you read whats said before auto-responding. force development is not platform centric, its capability centric. its a simple but significant construct. understand it before you come back with more drivel about how fighters fight.    

air centric warfare no longer exists. its a purple event defined by the capability available to the planners. each platform contributes to the picture, be it air, sea, land, subsurface.  its a capability emphasis, not a platform emphasis, and anything in the prosecution chain is but a node in the process, some will be better than others but it doesn't alter the fact of the  change in emphasis 

 
Quote    Reply

MK       9/15/2011 4:19:07 PM

MK we are already seeing that other airforces are changing their conops constructs - in fact china is so busy emulating US conops across all her force elements that she is likely to surpass the lead euro nations (France/UK/NATO e-contributor to others) within 5-10 years - she might not be as sophisticated as a euro tier 1, but she sure as hell is making rapid progress in the development and the building of those system elements. This is no longer a US or Israeli centric force development path - every modern force is gripping it up.. So although you are correct at a point in time, that point in time is rapidly shifting left


Well it's certainly true for China and I agree that many armed forces try to go down that route, but many smaller nations will never be able to establish such a comprehensive warfighting system anytime soon. And even for major players like the US the capabilities of the individual platforms matter, otherwise they would just keep ageing designs in production and improve their sensors and connectivity instead of designing all new platforms (i.e. F-35, PAK FA etc.). Of course they are more seen as a part of the overall system these days, but as said the system is made up by individual platforms and each platform can become a more or less critical force multiplier within that construct. The performance of a weapon system is still as important as it ever was, though its performance and capabilities alone won't win you wars, but they will help to shift the odds a bit. In the end of the day I think that we agree on the importance of the joint aspect and that individual platforms are increasingly regarded as part of an overall force structure.
 
Quote    Reply

Aussiegunneragain       9/15/2011 10:10:18 PM



MK we are already seeing that other airforces are changing their conops constructs - in fact china is so busy emulating US conops across all her force elements that she is likely to surpass the lead euro nations (France/UK/NATO e-contributor to others) within 5-10 years - she might not be as sophisticated as a euro tier 1, but she sure as hell is making rapid progress in the development and the building of those system elements. This is no longer a US or Israeli centric force development path - every modern force is gripping it up.. So although you are correct at a point in time, that point in time is rapidly shifting left

Surely if the playing field is leveling in terms of force multipliers then having an edge in your platforms becomes more important, not less.  The same would surely go for those instances in the future where satellites, AWACS and EW aircraft get belted early in a conflict, leaving the platforms to fight for themselves.
 
It is important to remember that this theory on the relative importance of platform versus systems capability has been built on Western experience in the last 30 years, where we have been fighting on a one way shooting range against opponents outdated technology. It is easy to see how that could lead to complacent thinking, that we can always rely on our force multipliers to win the day. If the field shifts in the way that you say it is then we could be in for a nasty shock in 20 years time. There are heaps of instances in military history of new wars being lost or won less efficiently, because the brass are fighting yesterdays war, we could be seeing another of these instances in the making.
 
Quote    Reply



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics