 |
| Mirage F1CR and Rafale over Mali. |
David Cinciotti posted this at his excellent blog, The Aviationist. These are the lessons the French have learnt from the Mali air war, so far.
Here's the gist of it:
- More UAVs are needed for surveillance and occasional strike missions.
- The French lack aerial refuelling and have to rely on American and other foreign tanker assets. This was the same plan in place for Canadian F-35s.
- The Rafale has been quite competent, but it's cost per flight hour is too high, along with the Mirage 2000. The smaller, simpler Mirage F1CR has managed to bring that average down.
- With the majority of targets being "soft", there is little need for large loads of heavy bombs. Simple, unguided 500lb bombs are often all that is needed.
Basically, what France has learned, is that, for situations like Mali, it doesn't need a high-tech, high-cost, heavy fighter. What it needs is a fighter that can do the job cheaply and easily, and support that fighter with UAVs and the proper aerial refuelling assets.
Hmmm... That seems familiar.
[Fun fact: Part of the RAF's contribution to Operation: Serval is the Raytheon Sentinel R1, built on a Canadian made Bombardier Global Express business jet.]
On top of that, France has learned that in order to do anything like Mali, you need a massive amounts of Strategic Airlift such as C-17's. Which France lacks because they banked on the A-400M Atlas.
ReplyDeleteIt does look like that Canada's decision to purchase a mixed force of C-17s and Hercs was a better decision than the one-size-fits-all A400M.
DeleteIt's why it showed the world that France doesn't have the Strategic Airlift capability to conduct operations. That's why France should have brought some C-17's while waiting for the A-400M. If they only knew how much better a C-17 is, then it would have gave Boeing more jobs to build them.
DeleteMy two cents:
ReplyDelete"Basically, what France has learned, is that, for situations like Mali, it doesn't need a high-tech, high-cost, heavy fighter..."
That's not surprising since the opponent has neither airforce nor SAMs. Close air support aircraft such as the A-10 or alpha jet could also do the job.
France does not lack airplanes for airlift. Dozens of transall and C-130 are still in service in the French air force. The A400M is due this year.
Finally, air refueling. "2) There’s a problem with tankers. Even if only a few combat planes are involved in the air strikes, the French Air Force is not equipped with a tanker force capable to sustain a limited amount of attack sorties. That’s why the U.S. has dispatched some of its KC-135s from RAF Mildenhall and other nations have offered aerial refuelers."
France possesses 14 KC-135. The fact that France is taking advantage of allied refueling and air lift capacities does not mean that these are lacking in the French air force. This is just burden sharing.
Good point. Do you know why France is choosing not to utilize its Alpha Jets or KC-135s in Mali? I understand the Alpha is used primarily as a trainer for France, but it is a light attack platform.
DeleteI wonder if the proliferation of UCAVs like the MQ-9 Reaper will make light attack aircraft like the Alpha obsolete?
I don't know for sure, but I suspect France has chosen to merely use the alpha jet as trainer and in its air demonstration team. Consequently, the personell is not trained to use the jet in close air support.
Delete"I wonder if the proliferation of UCAVs like the MQ-9 Reaper will make light attack aircraft like the Alpha obsolete?"
The short answer is yes. The long answer is: An opponent with decent surface to air missiles can shoot down a reaper easily. USAVs will have to improve their survivability.