False information - bombs on target?
TAC Int Bloke
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 975
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
False information - bombs on target?
I found this little gem on the MoD website
http://www.mod.uk/NR/rdonlyres/54251.../A4x300dpi.jpg
Perhaps I'm being bit thick but can anyone explain how one aircraft, presumably a Tornado, can destroy 12 tanks in one go without going nuclear?
http://www.mod.uk/NR/rdonlyres/54251.../A4x300dpi.jpg
Perhaps I'm being bit thick but can anyone explain how one aircraft, presumably a Tornado, can destroy 12 tanks in one go without going nuclear?
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: North Yorkshire
Posts: 119
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Royal Gallifrey Air Force
I too saw this propaganda and had to scratch my head. No mention was made of how the single airframe could be in two or more places at once.
So...
I found this useful link for the DPA to follow:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TARDIS
P.S. Did you know...
"Propaganda is a specific type of message presentation directly aimed at influencing the opinions of people, rather than impartially providing information..... Strictly speaking, a message does not have to be untrue to qualify as propaganda, but it may omit so many pertinent truths that it becomes highly misleading."
So...
I found this useful link for the DPA to follow:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TARDIS
P.S. Did you know...
"Propaganda is a specific type of message presentation directly aimed at influencing the opinions of people, rather than impartially providing information..... Strictly speaking, a message does not have to be untrue to qualify as propaganda, but it may omit so many pertinent truths that it becomes highly misleading."
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: The Wonderful Midlands
Age: 53
Posts: 326
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What a load of misguided 4rse
Surely the 21 aircraft, dropping a thousand pounder each, would have been ONE Vulcan/Victor in 1970?
And in the 90's rather than 6 A/C to destroy a HAS, would it not have been at worst, ONE Tornado, and a ONE designator Bucc, to destroy a handful?
Surely it should show how in 1970, we had for example 1 Gp Capt per 200 men
And in 2006 we've progressed to 1 Gp capt per 20
Safety_Helmut,
Perhaps if they could get Brimstone to hit what the Pilot asks for, and not just pop off for a little bimble before it hits what it feels like, it could indeed destroy 12 tanks in one strike
Surely the 21 aircraft, dropping a thousand pounder each, would have been ONE Vulcan/Victor in 1970?
And in the 90's rather than 6 A/C to destroy a HAS, would it not have been at worst, ONE Tornado, and a ONE designator Bucc, to destroy a handful?
Surely it should show how in 1970, we had for example 1 Gp Capt per 200 men
And in 2006 we've progressed to 1 Gp capt per 20
Safety_Helmut,
Perhaps if they could get Brimstone to hit what the Pilot asks for, and not just pop off for a little bimble before it hits what it feels like, it could indeed destroy 12 tanks in one strike
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: ici
Posts: 109
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No, I don't think it's an insult to previous generations.
It is a fact that a Tornado can drop bombs more accurately now than a Vulcan (or Canberra, or Lancaster, or Whitley etc) could in the past. A GR4 is capable of greater accuracy now than it was even 5 years ago.
But to claim that one Tonka with 4 Brimstone weapons can destroy 12 tanks is ridiculous, and the RAF potentially sets itself up for a fall:
"So, Gp Capt, I thought these new weapons of yours couldn't miss? So why did one tank get through and wreak havoc on our infantry?"
It is a fact that a Tornado can drop bombs more accurately now than a Vulcan (or Canberra, or Lancaster, or Whitley etc) could in the past. A GR4 is capable of greater accuracy now than it was even 5 years ago.
But to claim that one Tonka with 4 Brimstone weapons can destroy 12 tanks is ridiculous, and the RAF potentially sets itself up for a fall:
"So, Gp Capt, I thought these new weapons of yours couldn't miss? So why did one tank get through and wreak havoc on our infantry?"
Perhaps I'm being bit thick but can anyone explain how one aircraft, presumably a Tornado, can destroy 12 tanks in one go without going nuclear
As for Brimstone, usually carried on racks of 3, so 4 racks would in theory be capable of hitting 12 tanks. There's just nothing to say WHOSE tanks they would hit ..... theirs or ours! Great cold war weapon against hordes of Ruskies streaming across the German plains into kill boxes. A nightmare now, largely in ROE terms, get yourself a good lawyer if you plan on using them - I certainly wouldn't want to volley fire them into an area
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: South Wales
Age: 63
Posts: 729
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
[QUOTE=passpartout]No, I don't think it's an insult to previous generations.
Oh, I think it is.
In world War 2, many singleton Hurricanes or Mosquitos took out several tanks.
In Aden a single Hunter could take out half a convoy of vehicles.
In the 70's a Phantom could do just about anything - USAF Tombs proved that in Vietnam.
1980,s one aircraft could fly several thousand miles and scare the crap out of the Argies.
1990's - GW1 - Two aircraft could take out a HAS. One Tornado carrying a bomb and one Buccaneer carrying a pod. Several weeks later one Tonka could carry both. Many pics around to prove it.
The above reading is fact. The last two pics in the link have yet to be proved.
YES I do feel the pic is an insult to our previous aircrew.
PS Sorry to "The Rocket" for repeating what you have stated.
Oh, I think it is.
In world War 2, many singleton Hurricanes or Mosquitos took out several tanks.
In Aden a single Hunter could take out half a convoy of vehicles.
In the 70's a Phantom could do just about anything - USAF Tombs proved that in Vietnam.
1980,s one aircraft could fly several thousand miles and scare the crap out of the Argies.
1990's - GW1 - Two aircraft could take out a HAS. One Tornado carrying a bomb and one Buccaneer carrying a pod. Several weeks later one Tonka could carry both. Many pics around to prove it.
The above reading is fact. The last two pics in the link have yet to be proved.
YES I do feel the pic is an insult to our previous aircrew.
PS Sorry to "The Rocket" for repeating what you have stated.
Last edited by SRENNAPS; 31st Mar 2006 at 21:02.
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 345
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Personally I think anyone who fires them in singles as well will need a good lawyer, one of the main tenets of ROE being a visual identification of the target and that just leaves the chances of it going for any old target anyway!
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: The Wonderful Midlands
Age: 53
Posts: 326
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SRENNAPS,
No worries fella, isn't it really frustrating seeing pictures like that, knowing that it's all just a bunch of self congratulating cr4p for the beancounters, who have no real knowledge of the difference between "Paper Capability" and "Actual Capabiltity".
I await the day I see posters telling the youth of tomorrow how it used to take 10 F3's to shoot down one Discus glider, and 8 GR4's to knock out a single AK47 armed Shogun
No worries fella, isn't it really frustrating seeing pictures like that, knowing that it's all just a bunch of self congratulating cr4p for the beancounters, who have no real knowledge of the difference between "Paper Capability" and "Actual Capabiltity".
I await the day I see posters telling the youth of tomorrow how it used to take 10 F3's to shoot down one Discus glider, and 8 GR4's to knock out a single AK47 armed Shogun
Horse Shoes and Hand Grenades
The JDAM product improvement program may add a terminal seeker for precision guidance and other system improvements to existing JDAMs to provide the Air Force with 3-meter precision and improved anti-jamming capability. The Air Force is evaluating several alternatives and estimates that the seeker could be available for operations by 2004. The seeker kit could be used by both the 2,000-pound blast fragmentation and penetrator JDAMs.
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: NOTTINGHAM
Posts: 758
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think you'll find chaps, that during GW1, the Buccs eventually got tired of supporting the Tonkas and eventually took out a number of targets with self-designated PWs.
However, back to the MOD graphic, whilst there is, indeed, an element of artistic licence from a Weapons Effort Planning perspective, the facts stated both historical and contemporary are pretty close to accurate for an unclass depiction.
FW
However, back to the MOD graphic, whilst there is, indeed, an element of artistic licence from a Weapons Effort Planning perspective, the facts stated both historical and contemporary are pretty close to accurate for an unclass depiction.
FW
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 383
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's disingenuous to claim that a smaller military is inherently more capable than a large military. Although we have to accept that there is a dividend to be taken from more accurate weapons, the beancounters have a distinct inability to understand the implications of fewer platforms for those weapons.
I think the single best example is the cut to the surface fleet of the RN. Hands up who thinks 25 destroyers and frigates can do as much as 36? Anyone? No, I thought not. You can fit all the superb weapons you want, but if you don't have enough platforms to conduct all of the missions you need to conduct, you may as well have kept what you had before. Common sense says that if one aircraft can now take out 3 HASs, those 6 in 1990 could take out 18. So why cut back?
I think the single best example is the cut to the surface fleet of the RN. Hands up who thinks 25 destroyers and frigates can do as much as 36? Anyone? No, I thought not. You can fit all the superb weapons you want, but if you don't have enough platforms to conduct all of the missions you need to conduct, you may as well have kept what you had before. Common sense says that if one aircraft can now take out 3 HASs, those 6 in 1990 could take out 18. So why cut back?
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: NOTTINGHAM
Posts: 758
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Clearly a strong grasp of air-delivered weapons that are in our inventory today but that weren't in 1990, Tablet Eraser - I think not.
Now, without going into the depths of classification, and maybe the Mods should close this thread before anybody else does, just think Storm Shadow and Brimstone for a bunker/HAS and a tank respectively and all will come clear.
The graphic, as I said in my earlier post, suffers only in its depiction from artistic licence. Factually and technically it is correct.
I'm afraid it doesn't compare to your analogy, T-E, of warships then and warships now. The facts are, smart weapons cut it, dumb weapons don't! More importantly, very smart weapons that equate to one weapon one target cut it the best.
FW
Now, without going into the depths of classification, and maybe the Mods should close this thread before anybody else does, just think Storm Shadow and Brimstone for a bunker/HAS and a tank respectively and all will come clear.
The graphic, as I said in my earlier post, suffers only in its depiction from artistic licence. Factually and technically it is correct.
I'm afraid it doesn't compare to your analogy, T-E, of warships then and warships now. The facts are, smart weapons cut it, dumb weapons don't! More importantly, very smart weapons that equate to one weapon one target cut it the best.
FW
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: South Central UK
Posts: 254
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Always providing the cost of the 'very smart weapons' is not either prohibitive or limits numbers procured to a level that exhausts the inventory after Wave 2 releases their stores.
lm
lm
TAC Int Bloke
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 975
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The graphic, as I said in my earlier post, suffers only in its depiction from artistic licence. Factually and technically it is correct.
Still confident foldingwings?
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 383
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FW,
The case I was attempting (admittedly clumsily) to make is that the potency of today's weapon systems is limited by the number of platforms we have to deploy them on. I certainly was not claiming that today's weapons are no better than those in the 90s - quite the opposite.
I simply believe we have gone the wrong way by ditching aircraft that could be used to deploy the massive force we have at our disposal with such weapons as Paveway, Brimstone, etc. You're right that the graphic is technically accurate - thank God they didn't include a comparison with the RAF of WWII, when appx 8 out of 1000 bombs fell on-target. I fear, though, that it is trying to make the case that smaller is necessarily better; that is not the case. The fact that we are smaller reflects the accuracy of the weapons. I don't think that is the cause or the aim of last year's defence cuts, though.
The case I was attempting (admittedly clumsily) to make is that the potency of today's weapon systems is limited by the number of platforms we have to deploy them on. I certainly was not claiming that today's weapons are no better than those in the 90s - quite the opposite.
I simply believe we have gone the wrong way by ditching aircraft that could be used to deploy the massive force we have at our disposal with such weapons as Paveway, Brimstone, etc. You're right that the graphic is technically accurate - thank God they didn't include a comparison with the RAF of WWII, when appx 8 out of 1000 bombs fell on-target. I fear, though, that it is trying to make the case that smaller is necessarily better; that is not the case. The fact that we are smaller reflects the accuracy of the weapons. I don't think that is the cause or the aim of last year's defence cuts, though.