- Recon role
- Deep Strike
- SEAD
- CAS with LGBs and PGMs
- Antiship strikes
- Tanker roles
- Air superiority role (was deployed over Libya "before" air defence and air force were taken out!!!)
If you can name a single other fighter that was deployed in so many different roles in Libya, I will addmit that Rafale that is not omnirole proven!
The Tornado -
Vital role for British airpower over Libya | Aviation International News
" In a conflict where it was vital to match striking power to target type, the Tornado offered extra flexibility thanks to its warload of smaller 500-pound Raytheon Paveway IV bombs (with fuzing selectable in flight) and 100-pound MBDA Brimstone missiles. In particular, the laser-guided version of Brimstone became the weapon of choice in urban environments."
Some Tornados also
carried the RAPTOR reconnaissance pod containing the Goodrich DB-110 long focal-length electro-optic camera.
Initial analysis - Libyan No Fly Zone | Aerospace | The Royal Aeronautical Society
Italy, for its part, has deployed its aircraft carrier with Navy AV-8Bs, while the Italian Air Force has flown
SEAD missions with Tornado ECRs. Though the air defences of Libya were not considered first tier (TV footage of one SA-2 site showed extremely rusted missiles) the fact that only Italy and Germany have dedicated SEAD aircraft means once again Europe had to rely on massive firepower of the US.
Libyan Navy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
On 17 August 2011, an
RAF Tornado GR4 struck a moving Libyan Navy patrol boat with Paveway IV bombs. The boat had been observed supporting pro-Gaddafi forces during the Second Battle of Zawiya.[8]
So thats Recon, SEAD, Deep Strike, Anti Ship role - all done very well by a 30 year old fighter - and trust me it could even take on air superiority missions if the britishers weren't too focused on showing off the typhoon. The Libyan air force used decades old equipment - mirage f1 and su 22 - shooting down a couple of those planes can hardly be a proof of air superiority.
Not according to US forces, because they stated that the air defence systems was similar to Iraqis and that's why they prefered to strike them with B2 bombers and cruise missiles, before their fighters entered Libyan air space. If it wouldn't be capable, why would the most powerful air force in the world refuse to use their fighters and take the way more costly way to take out the air defences?
Could Libya's Rusty Air Defenses Challenge a No-Fly Zone? | Danger Room | Wired.com
Here's a report on libyan air defence before the campaign began - and this is the conclusion
*
the Libyan air-defense network “was not capable of repelling an attack over 20 years ago,” O’Connor concluded, “and there is no reason to suspect that it will be capable of such action today.”
Debatable but lower IR signature of the M88 engines, more RAM treatment of the airframe with coatings and sawtooth patterns, smaller size, good jamming capabilities, passive detection and targeting...
...all this adds to beeing less observable like Dassault is calling it.
Thats exactly what I said - The point is debatable - We cant conclude that the rafale is the stealthier than its competitors because the EFT was also called stealthy by some so was the super hornet - the russians claimed they had reduced the RCS of the mig 35 5 times as compared to the mig 29. So no conclusions can be made as to this.
Because one aim of MMRCA was not to be more dependent on Russian fighters and the reliability of Russia clearly helped them in case of all the Migs, MKIs and in future FGFAs don't you think?
My point was that this factor probably did not effect the decision. I hardly think any other european nation is going to put an arms embargo over such a lucrative market any time in the future, especially when their own economies are not doing so well( to put it mildly)
That's wrong, the US didn't offered ToT of critical parts like AESA radars and neither was full ToT or something like that a requirement, nor will be provided by any manufacturer. Only full ToT of certain parts will be provided and while the US might offered full ToT of airframe parts, the Europeans could offer full ToT of AESA radars, or ToT of critical parts like engine or EW systems too. Mig offered similar as well, but these techs hardly were useful for India, since we already get even better Russian techs via MKI and FGFA.
Transfer of technology was a clause in the agreement - The question was extent and while it is true that the US might not have given us the ToT of AESA radar all the rest were willing - so this was not an offer from france alone and hence not a factor in it getting chosen OVER another plane offering the same deal
