Anyone ID the planes or the AF?

in article fginm3-6a1.ln1.TakeThisOut@news.rg-d.com, Richard P. Grant at
rpg14.TakeThisOut@yahoo.co.uk.invalid wrote on 6/21/06 3:09 AM:

> Oh, and by the way Michael, I just looked it up. The RAF lost 6 (six)
> Tornado GR1s (the major low level strike aircraft we used) in GW1. Two
> at most were lost to AAA, three to SAM, one to faulty ordnance. Hardly
> 'eaten alive'.

But IIRC their loss rates on the first couple of days of the campaign, when
they were still using the low-level attacks, were unacceptably high. Once
they gave up using low-level attacks, their losses dropped off to nil.

Michael

rpg14.DeleteThis@yahoo.co.uk.invalid (Richard P. Grant) wrote in
<afhnm3-c91.ln1.DeleteThis@news.rg-d.com>:

>Er, remind me - which is the altimeter, again?

The one instrument always pegged at 0, unless replaced by RVAF-issue high-
resolution instruments.

--
Harro de Jong
remove the extra Xs from xmsnet to mail me

Michael Emrys wrote:

> in article fginm3-6a1.ln1.RemoveThis@news.rg-d.com, Richard P. Grant at
> rpg14.RemoveThis@yahoo.co.uk.invalid wrote on 6/21/06 3:09 AM:
>
>
>>Oh, and by the way Michael, I just looked it up. The RAF lost 6 (six)
>>Tornado GR1s (the major low level strike aircraft we used) in GW1. Two
>>at most were lost to AAA, three to SAM, one to faulty ordnance. Hardly
>>'eaten alive'.
>
>
> But IIRC their loss rates on the first couple of days of the campaign, when
> they were still using the low-level attacks, were unacceptably high. Once
> they gave up using low-level attacks, their losses dropped off to nil.
>
> Michael
>

Again, as I recall most of those initial losses weren't shooting losses
- but CFIT losses. At least that's what the Harrier guys in theater
were telling me.

--
- Rufus

This message is not archived

Richard P. Grant wrote:
> Rufus <srollin2 RemoveThis @mchsi.com> wrote:
>
>>Michael Emrys wrote:
>>
>>>But IIRC their loss rates on the first couple of days of the campaign, when
>>>they were still using the low-level attacks, were unacceptably high. Once
>>>they gave up using low-level attacks, their losses dropped off to nil.
>>>
>>>Michael
>>>
>>
>>Again, as I recall most of those initial losses weren't shooting losses
>>- but CFIT losses. At least that's what the Harrier guys in theater
>>were telling me.
>
>
> Look at the investigation!
>
> That second link I gave gives the sudden deceleration syndrome losses for
> the coalition, and none of those 6 Tornados (well, possibly one) were lost
> to it.
>
> The other thing people are missing is that by the time they switched to
> the medium level tictacs all SAM was essentially suppressed!
>


Hmmnnn...point taken. Both of them.

I know that my USMC Harrier driving pals were expressing a great deal of
concern over RAF losses - particularly amongst the Toronado crews. They
were doing a great deal of the SAM supression, and low leveling across
the desert. I know I still have the impression of Toronado drivers
being low flyers to this day - at least they're certainly prone to it
when they come out my way...

Maybe it's also because I saw that German crew killed...clipped the top
of a trailer.

--
- Rufus

This message is not archived

Richard P. Grant wrote:

> Rufus <srollin2.TakeThisOut@mchsi.com> wrote:
>
>>Good case. Theater dictates tactical requirements. So train for
>>everything.
>
>
> See my point about money.
>

Yup - it's always about the money. Money may limit requirements, but it
doesn't (or shouldn't) drive them in the final event...fall short with
one and you'll probably fall short with the other.

--
- Rufus

This message is not archived

in article th1qm3-9p1.ln1.RemoveThis@news.rg-d.com, Richard P. Grant at
rpg14.RemoveThis@yahoo.co.uk.invalid wrote on 6/22/06 1:38 AM:

> Rufus <srollin2.RemoveThis@mchsi.com> wrote:
>>
>> Yup - it's always about the money. Money may limit requirements, but it
>> doesn't (or shouldn't) drive them in the final event...fall short with
>> one and you'll probably fall short with the other.
>
> You're preaching to the choir, brother.

But then again, there is only so much money in the budget, and it has to pay
for a lot of things besides the armed forces. So we're left with basically
two choices, drastically increase taxes on the wealthy (including wealthy
corporations) or make do with what we have. To bleed a nation's economy
white in order to have everything the generals can dream up would be the
tail wagging the dog.

It's all a calculated risk, isn't it? Armed forces try to prepare for who
they think their next enemy will be and what they think that enemy will be
doing, and always there are a lot of surprises when the balloon does finally
go up.

Michael

Michael Emrys wrote:
> in article th1qm3-9p1.ln1.DeleteThis@news.rg-d.com, Richard P. Grant at
> rpg14.DeleteThis@yahoo.co.uk.invalid wrote on 6/22/06 1:38 AM:
>
>
>>Rufus <srollin2.DeleteThis@mchsi.com> wrote:
>>
>>>Yup - it's always about the money. Money may limit requirements, but it
>>>doesn't (or shouldn't) drive them in the final event...fall short with
>>>one and you'll probably fall short with the other.
>>
>>You're preaching to the choir, brother.
>
>
> But then again, there is only so much money in the budget, and it has to pay
> for a lot of things besides the armed forces. So we're left with basically
> two choices, drastically increase taxes on the wealthy (including wealthy
> corporations) or make do with what we have. To bleed a nation's economy
> white in order to have everything the generals can dream up would be the
> tail wagging the dog.
>
> It's all a calculated risk, isn't it? Armed forces try to prepare for who
> they think their next enemy will be and what they think that enemy will be
> doing, and always there are a lot of surprises when the balloon does finally
> go up.
>
> Michael
>

....I could say the same thing about proping up the poor...whoops...just did.

But I'd also wager that's one reason not to listen to generals...listen
to the guys on the ground. And if a nation doesn't think that those
lives are worth the cost of support, then maybe that nation deserves
what it gets.

--
- Rufus

Richard P. Grant <rpg14 RemoveThis @yahoo.co.uk.invalid> wrote:

> Nice to see you again, PeterLoudTrousers.

I only stick my neck in here to see what version of the truth you're
purveying today.

That sounded nasty, whereas I meant it with deep affection.

--
Pd

This message is not archived

This message is not archived