Too few RAF aircraft to make a difference in Syria?

[Abingdonboy]

The RAF’s primary attack platform is the Tornado GR4. This example is armed with Paveway IV and Brimstone missiles.

Former Republican presidential nominee John McCain said that British military bombing into Syria would amount to “some token aircraft” that would not make “a significant difference”. Justin Bronk from the Royal United Services Institute considers the point and asks whether the RAF’s cited ‘unique capabilities’ should have contributed to the decision to extend the war.

The necessity or otherwise of RAF strikes in Syria needs to be judged on the political arguments, not operational ones. Whilst the RAF has extremely experienced aircrew and Tornado GR.4 and Reaper in particular are also well suited for the mission, there are simply too few to make a military difference to the realities on the ground. Increasing the RAF striking power from 8 Tornados and 10 Reapers to 10 Tornados, 6 Typhoons and the 10 Reapers represents a significantly greater burden on the RAF without making much of an impact on the total coalition firepower available to hit ISIL. Brimstone is a uniquely accurate and low-collateral missile for destroying vehicles but its tactical utility will not change the strategic calculus in Syria. The same is true for Paveway IV in its class as a PGM. The most useful contribution that the RAF makes to the coalition efforts over Syria is in ISR – with E-3D, Sentinel R.1, Reaper and Airseeker (UK Rivet Joint) all having been providing ISR over Syria long before the vote to authorise strikes. The vote, therefore, only made a small difference to the RAF’s critical contribution of ISR to ops over Syria by allowing Tornado to operate over Syria with the wide area surveillance DB110 RAPTOR pod which remains the finest tactical reconnaissance fast jet capability in the world. In summary – RAF strikes in Syria are welcome but are only politically, not operationally, game-changing.

The RAF’s RC-135 Airseeker is a useful aircraft.

In terms of the claim of zero civilian casualties from RAF strikes against ISIL so far – it is impossible to verify for certain but the claim does stand up to fairly detailed scrutiny. This has a great deal to do with RAF target selection since the vast majority of RAF strikes against ISIL have been against armed vehicles, heavy weapons positions and snipers engaged in firefights with friendly forces. These typically have a much lower collateral damage risk factor than strikes against targets such as training camps, IED factories and command centres which the US has been hitting in large numbers and which by nature tend to look like any other buildings from the air, and are also much more often in the middle of densely populated civil areas.

Justin Bronk is a Research Analyst of Military Sciences at Royal United Services Institute.



Too few RAF aircraft to make a difference in Syria? | Hush-Kit



@mike2000 is back what I have been saying all along

@Steve781 @FrenchPilot @ranjeet @JanjaWeed

 

[C130]

umm if you know where to hit and get the most out of your limited aircraft and weapons that's what UK can be doing.


destroying ISIS infrastructure should be a number 1 priority


Typhoon can carry what 6 Paveways and if you can do 3 or 4 sorties a day you can hit 18 to 24 targets x 6 typhoons that's 108 strikes to 144. of course this assuming all 6 would be operational all the time which they wouldn't

 

[PARIKRAMA]

The RAF’s primary attack platform is the Tornado GR4. This example is armed with Paveway IV and Brimstone missiles.

Former Republican presidential nominee John McCain said that British military bombing into Syria would amount to “some token aircraft” that would not make “a significant difference”. Justin Bronk from the Royal United Services Institute considers the point and asks whether the RAF’s cited ‘unique capabilities’ should have contributed to the decision to extend the war.

The necessity or otherwise of RAF strikes in Syria needs to be judged on the political arguments, not operational ones. Whilst the RAF has extremely experienced aircrew and Tornado GR.4 and Reaper in particular are also well suited for the mission, there are simply too few to make a military difference to the realities on the ground. Increasing the RAF striking power from 8 Tornados and 10 Reapers to 10 Tornados, 6 Typhoons and the 10 Reapers represents a significantly greater burden on the RAF without making much of an impact on the total coalition firepower available to hit ISIL. Brimstone is a uniquely accurate and low-collateral missile for destroying vehicles but its tactical utility will not change the strategic calculus in Syria. The same is true for Paveway IV in its class as a PGM. The most useful contribution that the RAF makes to the coalition efforts over Syria is in ISR – with E-3D, Sentinel R.1, Reaper and Airseeker (UK Rivet Joint) all having been providing ISR over Syria long before the vote to authorise strikes. The vote, therefore, only made a small difference to the RAF’s critical contribution of ISR to ops over Syria by allowing Tornado to operate over Syria with the wide area surveillance DB110 RAPTOR pod which remains the finest tactical reconnaissance fast jet capability in the world. In summary – RAF strikes in Syria are welcome but are only politically, not operationally, game-changing.

The RAF’s RC-135 Airseeker is a useful aircraft.

In terms of the claim of zero civilian casualties from RAF strikes against ISIL so far – it is impossible to verify for certain but the claim does stand up to fairly detailed scrutiny. This has a great deal to do with RAF target selection since the vast majority of RAF strikes against ISIL have been against armed vehicles, heavy weapons positions and snipers engaged in firefights with friendly forces. These typically have a much lower collateral damage risk factor than strikes against targets such as training camps, IED factories and command centres which the US has been hitting in large numbers and which by nature tend to look like any other buildings from the air, and are also much more often in the middle of densely populated civil areas.

Justin Bronk is a Research Analyst of Military Sciences at Royal United Services Institute.



Too few RAF aircraft to make a difference in Syria? | Hush-Kit



@mike2000 is back what I have been saying all along

@Steve781 @FrenchPilot @ranjeet @JanjaWeed

Cameron is doing lip service with token based approach.. Afraid of multiple issues back home with a stagnating economic growth, unable to rein in new investments and most importantly wanting to avoid Paris like situation by not insuanating the Isis ..

We cant deny that Islamic faith is a sizeable chunk in UK.. The efforts so far trying to limit collateral damage kind of undermines and undercuts NATO objective as well as call by France to fight jointly against terror..

It's adequately clear that lip service and just posturing is what Brit gov is doing.. I am sure UK folks won't agree much with Cameron's decisions but then what choice they have..

Deploying higher numbers don't amount to anything

Check sputnik .. Assad talks about why western forces are not able to eradicate terrorisms from Syria and annihilate ISIS. According to him ground troops are needed and is key.. Post Afghanistan's and IRAQ, any more coalition troop is already a big no no issue..

Perhaps having EF in this fight with proven A2G capability may help market better..

then who knows if EFs can be spared or pressed into actions or not....

 

[war&peace]

umm if you know where to hit and get the most out of your limited aircraft and weapons that's what UK can be doing.


destroying ISIS infrastructure should be a number 1 priority


Typhoon can carry what 6 Paveways and if you can do 3 or 4 sorties a day you can hit 18 to 24 targets x 6 typhoons that's 108 strikes to 144. of course this assuming all 6 would be operational all the time which they wouldn't

How can UK attack ISIS, USA will be angry and destroy RAF. The best they are doing is just following USA and dropping bombs on civilian population and/or in desert.

 

[PARIKRAMA]

How can UK attack ISIS, USA will be angry and destroy RAF. The best they are doing is just following USA and dropping bombs on civilian population and/or in desert.

Sir that's classic below the belt hit... KOed with one punch

 

[mike2000 is back]

The RAF’s primary attack platform is the Tornado GR4. This example is armed with Paveway IV and Brimstone missiles.

Former Republican presidential nominee John McCain said that British military bombing into Syria would amount to “some token aircraft” that would not make “a significant difference”. Justin Bronk from the Royal United Services Institute considers the point and asks whether the RAF’s cited ‘unique capabilities’ should have contributed to the decision to extend the war.

The necessity or otherwise of RAF strikes in Syria needs to be judged on the political arguments, not operational ones. Whilst the RAF has extremely experienced aircrew and Tornado GR.4 and Reaper in particular are also well suited for the mission, there are simply too few to make a military difference to the realities on the ground. Increasing the RAF striking power from 8 Tornados and 10 Reapers to 10 Tornados, 6 Typhoons and the 10 Reapers represents a significantly greater burden on the RAF without making much of an impact on the total coalition firepower available to hit ISIL. Brimstone is a uniquely accurate and low-collateral missile for destroying vehicles but its tactical utility will not change the strategic calculus in Syria. The same is true for Paveway IV in its class as a PGM. The most useful contribution that the RAF makes to the coalition efforts over Syria is in ISR – with E-3D, Sentinel R.1, Reaper and Airseeker (UK Rivet Joint) all having been providing ISR over Syria long before the vote to authorise strikes. The vote, therefore, only made a small difference to the RAF’s critical contribution of ISR to ops over Syria by allowing Tornado to operate over Syria with the wide area surveillance DB110 RAPTOR pod which remains the finest tactical reconnaissance fast jet capability in the world. In summary – RAF strikes in Syria are welcome but are only politically, not operationally, game-changing.

The RAF’s RC-135 Airseeker is a useful aircraft.

In terms of the claim of zero civilian casualties from RAF strikes against ISIL so far – it is impossible to verify for certain but the claim does stand up to fairly detailed scrutiny. This has a great deal to do with RAF target selection since the vast majority of RAF strikes against ISIL have been against armed vehicles, heavy weapons positions and snipers engaged in firefights with friendly forces. These typically have a much lower collateral damage risk factor than strikes against targets such as training camps, IED factories and command centres which the US has been hitting in large numbers and which by nature tend to look like any other buildings from the air, and are also much more often in the middle of densely populated civil areas.

Justin Bronk is a Research Analyst of Military Sciences at Royal United Services Institute.



Too few RAF aircraft to make a difference in Syria? | Hush-Kit



@mike2000 is back what I have been saying all along

@Steve781 @FrenchPilot @ranjeet @JanjaWeed

Nope, just like my friend @C130 said, even if we deployed an extra 100 fighter jets in Syria, they wont do anything more than we are already doing at present. To carry out strikes you need precise/good intelligence and where/when to hit. The number of fighter jets is of secondary importance. Even with the dozens we have there, it should be more than enough to carry out strikes on ISIS infrastructure and command centers provided we HAVE GOOD INTELLIGENCE on the ground on where precisely they are. So this news is just another bullshit journalistic talk to attract more viewers. lol
Just like Russian/U.S/France strikes have shown, ISIS and other terror groups in Syria cant be defeated by strikes only, Yes we can disrupt their logistics/operations, but that's it nothing more. Without ground troops they will keep operating and carrying on with their fighting. At present the SAA and other rebel groups in Syria are either too weak/poorly trained or divided to defeat ISIS.

SO WITHOUT WESTERN POWERS/RUSSIAN GROUND INTERVENTION(which i'm sure everybody including you will be against. lol) there is little hope ISIS will be defeated. We will disrupt their operations and ability to operate against us , but we wont be able to deal a decisive blow to them without a proper ground force/intervention. So this article doesn't say anything that we don't already know IMO.

 

[C130]

How can UK attack ISIS, USA will be angry and destroy RAF. The best they are doing is just following USA and dropping bombs on civilian population and/or in desert.

if IS is a pawn that is just some brilliant manipulation on the part of the U.S and it's puppets controlling the lower level rats.

the right hand doesn't know what the left hand is doing type of stuff.

 

[mike2000 is back]

Sir that's classic below the belt hit... KOed with one punch

LOL He is just another butthurt Islamist who hates everything western(never mind he lives in the U.S.lol). Noticed he never mentions Russia dropping bombs on civilians in Syria. LMAO.

 

[war&peace]

LOL He is just another butthurt Islamist who hates everything western(never mind he lives in the U.S.lol). Noticed he never mentions Russia dropping bombs on civilians in Syria. LMAO.

I am a Muslim and proud of it and that is why I hate ISIS a creation of US, KSA and Israel. I am against all civilian loses regardless of whoever causes them. If US and UK are sincere in hitting ISIS, they can start by stop funding them and providing the latest weapons to them, asking Israel to stop helping them and stop buying oil from ISIS via Turkey; their NATO-ally....These air raids are just to fool their own people. Regards

 

[mike2000 is back]

I am a Muslim and proud of it and that is why I hate ISIS a creation of US, KSA and Israel. I am against all civilian loses regardless of whoever causes them. If US and UK are sincere in hitting ISIS, they can start by stop funding them and providing the latest weapons to them, asking Israel to stop helping them and stop buying oil from ISIS via Turkey; their NATO-ally....These air raids are just to fool their own people. Regards

Since you are a Muslim and an 'impartial/neutral' one, how come we have never seen you condemning Russian strikes just like U.S/U.K/France strikes??

Don't worry i know the reason.

 

[PARIKRAMA]

A good question to ask is how come low collateral damage causing missiles or pgms in a crowded population centric place housing infrastructure of ISIS and the stories of underground tunnels match the motive, objective and the results achieved.

I understand the reality of ground troops needed but that's entirely different as coalition forces is a different ball game

Coming back to the point I was making, I read in an article that USA bombs uses in this campaign means its stocks becoming exhausted and replenishments will take 3-5 years.. Now USA PGMs for example are huge in numbers and yet this statement implied very large number being used.. Over last one year plus..
Then how come the logistic and support infrastructure is not damaged to a point that economic sources for ISIS has not dried up...

Can NATO folks believe say an example like turkey or Saudi arabia or some other nation doing the financing part due to which the campaign results are not linear by any proportion.

Another point if all the NATO countries and surrounding nations are trust worthy, then so called actual intelligence on ground , surveillance and tactical inputs.. Are they reliable? Are they able to provide again another linear result versus effort case?

Hope folks can give views so that I can also understand how and why it's so difficult that over a year campaign results are not satisfactory in real

 

[19887]

I am a Muslim and proud of it and that is why I hate ISIS a creation of US, KSA and Israel. I am against all civilian loses regardless of whoever causes them. If US and UK are sincere in hitting ISIS, they can start by stop funding them and providing the latest weapons to them, asking Israel to stop helping them and stop buying oil from ISIS via Turkey; their NATO-ally....These air raids are just to fool their own people. Regards

We buy oil from Iraqi Kurdistan,
And those who receive care here, these people wounded from the Syrian opposition and Syrian civilians who are near our borders.
Isis,al nusra,Assad,Iran and Hezbollah are not sitting on our border,they can't reach our border.dammnn stop blame others for your mistakes,Deal with the truth and do not run away from it because it'll haunt you till the end.

 

[war&peace]

Since you are a Muslim and an 'impartial/neutral' one, how come we have never seen you condemning Russian strikes just like U.S/U.K/France strikes??

Don't worry i know the reason.

I condemn theirs too buddy, if they attack civilians too

 

[TheNoob]

Since you are a Muslim and an 'impartial/neutral' one, how come we have never seen you condemning Russian strikes just like U.S/U.K/France strikes??

Don't worry i know the reason.

The russians came late to the party. thats true.

But ISIS being supported by the US is an older story even before the ruskis stepped in.

 

[mike2000 is back]

I condemn theirs too buddy, if they attack civilians too

Nope,i have never ever seen you condemn Russian strikes EVEN ONCE ON HERE. Even when civilians were reportedly killed (not like Russia deliberately targeted them though, just like western powers don't deliberately target civilians,its just collateral damage). But i have seen you do that on basically every thread that concerns the U.S/U.K and to a lesser extent France. lol

As i said, don't worry i know why. It's far more easier/trendy to blame the 'evil' West than Russia. Everybody is already used to it. Old habits die hard.