A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Naval Aviation
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

British Aviation Part 1: Better than the U.S.?



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Prev Previous Post   Next Post Next
  #10  
Old September 23rd 03, 01:48 AM
Chuck Johnson
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Jim" wrote in :

"Rob van Riel" wrote in message
om...
Chuck Johnson wrote in message

.165.241...
tornado bashing snipped
Combat record: Dismal. Gulf War I. Losses incurred attacking
third world air base defended by aging Soviet Air Defense systems.


Precisely. Losses incurred while flying missions that the usually
very confident US F-15E pilots went on record admitting would be
virtual suicide in their super jets, and that they would be scared
****less to fly if ordered to do so, but which were none the less
deemed necessary. An impossible job for most aircraft, but only a
highly dangerous one in the tornado.

I can't directly counter you other arguments for lack of references
to back me up, but I doubt you'd be interested anyway.

Rob


Actually for reading what the commander of the air war in the Gulf war
said, they were lost because the Brits stuck to flying at Low Alt
penitration when
everyone else had climed upstairs . From what I read it was a
failure in tactics when the brits climed upstairs the losses stoped.




I don't dispute the courage, professionalism or the training of the RAF; I
don't think anyone would.

My point of contention is that the brass of RAF ('High Command'--high
indeed!) is arrogant to a fault. 'They' are at fault for the mission
failure of the Tornado IDS during Gulf War I.
Let's face it: the Tornado was hopelessly inadequate to deal with the known
mission dangers. But then again, not many aircraft are.
Why on earth would you attempt to attack a well defended target at ultra-
low level-especially during daylight? Because you were brave? Or perhaps
foolish?
The RAF brass were hell bent at throwing perfectly good pilots at a
pointless (read: deadly to pilot) target to prove a point. A point to who?
I would guess (I'm sure you'll find this hard to believe) that they were
trying to out macho the Americans.

Yes, the American pilots thought it awful brave to attack so dangerous a
target. In fact they thought it foolish. In the end, the British
capitulated to the American strategy and altered their tactics by choosing
to attack from a safe altitude. Ultimately effective, but at a tremendous
cost. A terrible waste excellent pilots.
That, my friends, is what really ****es me off. I hope they 'yank' (Ha!
there's a funny one!) the cojones off of the general who authorized the
missions and strategy.
Instead, knowing England all too well, I'm sure they knighted him and
bestowed him with an OBE.




 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
AOPA Stall/Spin Study -- Stowell's Review (8,000 words) Rich Stowell Aerobatics 28 January 2nd 09 02:26 PM
General Aviation Legal Defense Fund Dr. Guenther Eichhorn Home Built 3 May 14th 04 11:55 AM
Here's the Recompiled List of 82 Aircraft Accessible Aviation Museums! Jay Honeck Home Built 18 January 20th 04 04:02 PM
Associate Publisher Wanted - Aviation & Business Journals Mergatroide Aviation Marketplace 1 January 13th 04 08:26 PM
PC flight simulators Bjørnar Bolsøy Military Aviation 178 December 14th 03 12:14 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:18 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2025 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.