News reports said that France has launched a massive air strike against Islamic State militants in Syria. Then I read that they dropped sixteen bombs and twenty the following day.
Am I missing something here?
Since when are two bombing runs that drop a total of 36 bombs called “massive”?
There must be 100’s of targets in ISL held territory in Syria, but they only drop 36 bombs over a 2 day period???
Is this a joke?
The massive is media hyperbole. The actual tonnage almost certainly reflects the current limitations of French air power in the area.
Sorties might increase in the future, but it will take time to build up assets in the area so limited precision strikes are probably all you’re going to see. Maybe ever, because France has only so much air power the can project overseas. Their medium-sized attack carrier is back on the way ( it was operating in the Persian Gulf earlier in the year ), but it’s not like France has a gigantic air/naval air force in the first place. Few countries do anymore.
So it might be massive for France to do as much as they did with the limited assets in the area…
…but more probably it is just media hyperbole to get your attention to sell more ads.
That’s for public consumption. For all we know, the bombings had been planed for one month. And we didn’t hear about the previous bombings, even in France.
But by publicizing massively these ones, the French government tries to appease the large segment of the population who wants to see something being done. Especially something that involves blood being shed.
Even assuming that the French government would want to (and could) implement a major military response, it would take months for it to take place. And people want something to be done now, not to hear that some options will be discussed at some summit at some point in the future, even though that’s what is going to happen.
So, they turned something which otherwise would have been burried in a sentence of some article about French operations in Irak ("X air raids were launched over the last Y months) on page 16 of the rare papers covering this sort of things into a front page new item.
The US has made about 6,000 bombing raids against ISIS, resulting in Republican critiques that the President isn’t taking their threat very seriously, but every little bit helps, I suppose.
So we are looking at 2 jets carrying 8 bombs each or 8 jets carrying two or what?
What kind of bomb carrying capacity do the French jets have?
Not really GQ question. Moved to IMHO where you can still get factual answers as well as opinions.
samclem, moderator
In this case looks like 12 aircraft ( 10 combat ) dropping 2 a piece, presumably the same laser-guided bombs they used in earlier strikes. So, again - precision strikes at particular targets rather than saturation bombing which they just don’t have the numbers to really do. Honestly probably better for the poor Syrian civilians that way.
Looks like the French air force’s ( very well-regarded ) Rafales have 5 “heavy” hardpoints out of 14 total. Assume in this case two are taken up by xtra fuel tanks, that would leave three for bombs or similar heavy munitions.
It doesn’t take may of those to make a dent.
You drop 16 bombs and whaddaya get?
Another jihadi dead and deeper in debt.
Hollande don’t call me cause I can’t go,
I owe my soul to the Mirage 20-double-O
Sending 12 bombers on a mission together is a “massive air strike”, I don’t care who you are.
Compare it to the initial US bombing of Iraq in operation “shock and awe”, which was carried out by seven B-52 bombers.
Russia just acknowledged today that the downing of their plane in Egypt was by an ISIS bomb, and they responded with what is being called “one of the biggest and most complex heavy bomber missions in modern history”, which was carried out with 25 planes.
So 12 planes from France is a fairly massive strike and those were just the first round of what I’m sure will be many more to follow when they get their aircraft carrier over there.
You’re comparing a pickup truck to a semi-traiker. A B-52 can carry something on the order of 5 times what those French fighter-bombers can. I imagine the same is true if the Russian heavy bombers.
No argument here but nevertheless the 12 they did send was a big strike, not just a big strike “for France” but big for any air force.
Maybe there are, but which ones are suitable for aerial bombing? Remember - Daesh is from east bumfuck, Syria. here’s a map - all the cities in Syria that anyone here ever heard of before the Syrian Civil War?
Not in Daesh’s territory.
Damascus, Aleppo, Daraa, Latakia, Hama, Tartus? None of them are in Daesh territory.
Daesh is willing to kill people, sure, but it’s small - somewhere between 20,000 and 60,000 fighters - by way of comparison, the army of Burundi has about 20,000 soldiers and the army of Ecuador has about 60,000 soldiers.
No cities, no manufacturing infrastructure - the only things to hit are oil infrastructure, command centers, vehicles, and soldiers. There’s just not that much that’s actually worth a bomb that doesn’t move. Don’t expect an air campaign like Desert Storm, because Daesh is a very different opponent. The media just makes it seem bigger than it actually is.
The Air Force used the term decapitation attack for the 19th. It was simply an attempt to hit a target of opportunity (Saddam Hussein) before what was planned to be the start of the main air campaign. March 21st that opened with “Over 1700 air sorties (including 504 TLAM and CALCM cruise missiles)” (cite in pdf). That was shock and awe. 12 sorties is significant given the very slow pace of the air operations in this campaign but it’s nowhere close to massive.
I understand that but the initial strike of 7 bombers was still in itself a massive attack.
I guess we could argue all day about the meaning of massive. If the 12 bombers were aiming at my neighborhood I would consider that attack to be massive.
I wasn’t implying the overall tonnage of bombs dropped by the US in Iraq was even in the same ballpark, just that it isn’t too common for so many bombers to operate in one strike together for any air force. Most US strikes in Syria so far have been 1 or 2 planes at a time. France weighed in with 12. While “massive” is obviously being used by an enthusiastic media, it actually wasn’t a small strike by any standards for a single mission.
As they get their aircraft carrier nearer I’m sure they will pick up the pace flying multiple sorties.
Table comparing France’s bombing on Sunday to mostly US efforts.
France on Sunday:
10 airstrikes
20 bombs
Coalition air campaign every day for over a year:
17 airstrikes
60 bombs per day.
DAESH’s attack in Paris was ultimately a sign of weakness. Their recruitment hinges on claims of victory and they’ve lost about 25% of the territory on net this year. The coalition air campaign has made military progress.
Those Rafales have a payload of 20,900 lbs for both fuel and armament. Let’s say for the sake of the argument that they could carry 15,000 lbs of bombs. If all 10 combat planes were Rafales, that’s 150,000 lbs. By contrast, the seven B-52s used for the opening of the Gulf War have a combined capacity of 490,000 lbs!
And this Russian strike that just occurred is far bigger yet–in terms of tonnage, it’s approximately equal to 20 B-52s.
So don’t go comparing what France did to what the US and Russia can do. France is nowhere near the same league. Yes, France has one of the biggest and most capable militaries in the world–but it’s at best second-class when it comes to projecting power.
Read post #16 again, slowly, because you didn’t understand it the first time.
French air force has about 220 combat aircraft. About half are Rafaels, the rest Mirage 2000.This is actually smaller significantly than some AF of other nuclear power (India about 800 and Pakistan has 491).
Its also an open question as to how much munitions they have and the spares situation. The last two have earlier adversely affected USAF and RAF ops in the last decade.
