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

"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.

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.


From what I understand they were using the runway interdiction weapon which is
only capable of being used at low altitude.
I don't care what you say about the mission anyone who flew it would be scared
****less.

Don't forget that we lost 2 A-6's the second night of the war on a low altitude
attack. I personally saw part of the debrief words like "walls of fire" were
used to describe the fierce AAA they encountered. I was busy escorting the
Brits doing the low altitude runway denile thing. You can't believe the shear
joy and excitement in my cockpit when they all checked in off target with all
chicks accounted for.

I do not think they did any of the low altitude stuff in the daylight like one
post suggests.

Sparky

Seems to me that a similar argument started with Patton and Montgomery.

Magnificent *******s!