SFO raids four premises in BAE contracts probe
Double Zero:
The figures I have is two Tornados (1x RAF, 1x Italian) on the 18th Jan 91 (first day of the war), 1 on the 20th, 1 on the 23rd and 1 on the 25th. Hardly shot down in in droves is it. The total aircraft losses for all coalition aircraft between the 18th Jan and the 14th Feb was 27, again hardly droves.
as for other lessons, how about being shot down in droves on the first night of GW1
Double Nought (or is it WEBF.....)
You're right - what was I thinking. The GR4s did nothing in GW2. They didn't fly numerous sorties at low level in support of the counter SCUD campaign in the Western Desert, haven't been on constant ops for 15 years, can't land back on with bombs they don't drop....
And of course no SHARs were lost in the Falklands campaign. All propoganda ....
T
r
You're right - what was I thinking. The GR4s did nothing in GW2. They didn't fly numerous sorties at low level in support of the counter SCUD campaign in the Western Desert, haven't been on constant ops for 15 years, can't land back on with bombs they don't drop....
And of course no SHARs were lost in the Falklands campaign. All propoganda ....
T
r
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: West Sussex
Posts: 1,771
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wonder bomber
GR4's during GW2 ?
Yes Seajets were downed by ground fire during the Falklands ; but they had no vaunted ECM suite & were not expressly designed for attacking enemy airfields ( though they did rather well with BL755 & others ).
As to the bring-back point, how about the 'get there in the first place ' ?!!!
Yes Seajets were downed by ground fire during the Falklands ; but they had no vaunted ECM suite & were not expressly designed for attacking enemy airfields ( though they did rather well with BL755 & others ).
As to the bring-back point, how about the 'get there in the first place ' ?!!!
Not that ECM would have helped against bullets in the same way that ECM won't help you against a ballistically launched, non-guided, SAM.
However, your comment ...
... shows your true colours as a Walt who lives in the past.
From here
However, your comment ...
GR4's during GW2 ?
From here
Due to the need, since 1991, to enforce the NFZs over Iraq the RAF already had some 25 aircraft and 1,000 personnel in the Gulf. During Operation TELIC a further 100 aircraft were deployed together with a further 7,000 personnel. This deployment included Tornado GR4s and Harrier GR7s in the offensive role, Tornado F3s for AD, VC10s and Tristars for AAR,Nimrods and Canberras in the recce role, E3-D Sentrys for AEWand control and Hercules and the new C17s for AT. Support Helicopters were also provided, 20 Chinooks and 7 Pumas.
The Tornado GR4s were fitted with the new Storm Shadow stand-off missile. Storm Shadow has a range of over 230 kilometres and can be used day or night in all weathers. It is designed to achieve exceptional precision against high value targets and minimise collateral damage.
Although the first bombs were dropped on 20 March 2003 the air campaign proper began on the 21 March. Precision attacks by both aircraft and cruise missiles were made against several hundred military targets in Iraq. These precision attacks continued for several weeks. As the land battle developed, an increasing number of CAS sorties were flown. Up to 700 sorties a day were flown against Iraqi ground forces and the RAF played a significant part in this effort. RAF aircraft flew 2,519 sorties, 1,353 of which were offensive strike, and released 919 weapons, approximately 85% of these were precisionguided. Operation TELIC also saw the first use of the Stormshadow stand-off precision air-to-ground missile.
The Tornado GR4s were fitted with the new Storm Shadow stand-off missile. Storm Shadow has a range of over 230 kilometres and can be used day or night in all weathers. It is designed to achieve exceptional precision against high value targets and minimise collateral damage.
Although the first bombs were dropped on 20 March 2003 the air campaign proper began on the 21 March. Precision attacks by both aircraft and cruise missiles were made against several hundred military targets in Iraq. These precision attacks continued for several weeks. As the land battle developed, an increasing number of CAS sorties were flown. Up to 700 sorties a day were flown against Iraqi ground forces and the RAF played a significant part in this effort. RAF aircraft flew 2,519 sorties, 1,353 of which were offensive strike, and released 919 weapons, approximately 85% of these were precisionguided. Operation TELIC also saw the first use of the Stormshadow stand-off precision air-to-ground missile.
From the BBC today 7 May 2007, http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/6728773.stm :
"Prime Minister Tony Blair declined to comment on the Panorama allegations.
But he said that if the SFO investigation into BAE had not been dropped, it would have led to "the complete wreckage of a vital strategic relationship and the loss of thousands of British jobs"."
Bliar shoots himself in the foot and shows that his (and Goldsmith's) earlier, well documented, claims that no weight had been given to commercial interests when stopping the SFO investigations have turned out to be the usual bunch of lies! The bloke is a f*****g clown. Does he think we have short term memories? Will somebody shoot the t**t, please?
"Prime Minister Tony Blair declined to comment on the Panorama allegations.
But he said that if the SFO investigation into BAE had not been dropped, it would have led to "the complete wreckage of a vital strategic relationship and the loss of thousands of British jobs"."
Bliar shoots himself in the foot and shows that his (and Goldsmith's) earlier, well documented, claims that no weight had been given to commercial interests when stopping the SFO investigations have turned out to be the usual bunch of lies! The bloke is a f*****g clown. Does he think we have short term memories? Will somebody shoot the t**t, please?
ExRigger
By co-incidence I'm reading the section on the Tornado in the Gulf War in Lewis Page's book and that says -
"Within seven days they (RAF) had lost 5 tornado bombers from a force of 45, all to ground fire in the vicinity of their targets......The RAF's Tornados had thus taken 10% casualities in a week."
The figures I have is two Tornados (1x RAF, 1x Italian) on the 18th Jan 91 (first day of the war), 1 on the 20th, 1 on the 23rd and 1 on the 25th. Hardly shot down in in droves is it. The total aircraft losses for all coalition aircraft between the 18th Jan and the 14th Feb was 27, again hardly droves.
"Within seven days they (RAF) had lost 5 tornado bombers from a force of 45, all to ground fire in the vicinity of their targets......The RAF's Tornados had thus taken 10% casualities in a week."
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
This site has 6 losses:
http://www.dasa.mod.uk/natstats/ukds...4/table47.html
Date
Aircraft type
Service
Casualties
Cause
17 January 1991
Tornado GR1
RAF
2 injured (minor)
Hit by a surface-to-air missile
17 January 1991
Tornado GR1
RAF
2 killed
Undetermined. Possibly hit by Anti-Aircraft-Artillery fire
19 January 1991
Tornado GR1
RAF
2 injured
Shot down by a surface-to-air missile
22 January 1991
Tornado GR1
RAF
2 killed
Undetermined. Possibly hit by Anti-Aircraft-Artillery fire
24 January 1991
Tornado GR1
RAF
2 injured (minor)
Premature detonation of one or more 1,000lb bombs
14 February 1991
Tornado GR1
RAF
1 killed
Hit by surface-to-air missile
1 injured (minor)
http://www.dasa.mod.uk/natstats/ukds...4/table47.html
Date
Aircraft type
Service
Casualties
Cause
17 January 1991
Tornado GR1
RAF
2 injured (minor)
Hit by a surface-to-air missile
17 January 1991
Tornado GR1
RAF
2 killed
Undetermined. Possibly hit by Anti-Aircraft-Artillery fire
19 January 1991
Tornado GR1
RAF
2 injured
Shot down by a surface-to-air missile
22 January 1991
Tornado GR1
RAF
2 killed
Undetermined. Possibly hit by Anti-Aircraft-Artillery fire
24 January 1991
Tornado GR1
RAF
2 injured (minor)
Premature detonation of one or more 1,000lb bombs
14 February 1991
Tornado GR1
RAF
1 killed
Hit by surface-to-air missile
1 injured (minor)
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: UK
Age: 48
Posts: 590
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BAE Systems recently pulled out of one of the most successful aviation projects in the world, Airbus,
Whether or not the Tornado/JP233 acquitted itself well in GW1 is hardly germane to the issue.
Which is whether 't Bungling Baron is actually 't Bent Baron Waste o' Space.
Which is whether 't Bungling Baron is actually 't Bent Baron Waste o' Space.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: wilts
Posts: 1,667
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Can't deny that the Attorney General is a very clever man. When asked to comment on what he knew, he wasn't able to, because "UK national security was at risk". Ha ha, who is head of MI6? Oh yes, that man Scarlett, he of 45 min WMD fame......Wonder what he will get out of this one. At least we know he has a proven track record of working with the Attorney General.
Off with both of their heads I say. Guardian comment today.
"The Guardian's initial revelations gave the Serious Fraud Office little choice but to open an investigation. In 2005, the Saudi government informed Blair it would not lodge another order with BAE (for 72 Eurofighters) unless this case was abandoned. Last December, Lord Goldsmith, the attorney general, instructed the SFO to drop the case. He and the prime minister cited "national security" as the reason for this surrender. Something was being secured all right: but it was BAE's income and the backsides of the ministers - led by Blair - who put the company's interests ahead of the nation's.
This was not the first time Goldsmith intervened to prevent justice from being done. He has come to symbolise everything that is wrong with Blair's government: the cowardice of ministers, lawyers' truths, capitulation to corporations and foreign governments, and the judicial abuses permitted in a nation without a constitution. He represents something very old - the British establishment's closing of ranks - and something new: the corruption of purpose and method that has attended the project of liberal interventionism from its inception."
Off with both of their heads I say. Guardian comment today.
"The Guardian's initial revelations gave the Serious Fraud Office little choice but to open an investigation. In 2005, the Saudi government informed Blair it would not lodge another order with BAE (for 72 Eurofighters) unless this case was abandoned. Last December, Lord Goldsmith, the attorney general, instructed the SFO to drop the case. He and the prime minister cited "national security" as the reason for this surrender. Something was being secured all right: but it was BAE's income and the backsides of the ministers - led by Blair - who put the company's interests ahead of the nation's.
This was not the first time Goldsmith intervened to prevent justice from being done. He has come to symbolise everything that is wrong with Blair's government: the cowardice of ministers, lawyers' truths, capitulation to corporations and foreign governments, and the judicial abuses permitted in a nation without a constitution. He represents something very old - the British establishment's closing of ranks - and something new: the corruption of purpose and method that has attended the project of liberal interventionism from its inception."
Last edited by nigegilb; 8th Jun 2007 at 10:33.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: West Sussex
Posts: 1,771
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Statistics & economical truth
Hi Wrathtype,
it would seem the statistics back me up, and in referring to the GR4 I meant the aircraft as known today, not a GR1 with a new paint job & minor add-ons.
A walt I am not - I do not pretend to be a Tornado driver, just a dismayed observer ( not in the flying sense, though I've done plenty of hours as technical photographer - as in being on flt test teams, not just taking pretty pictures - for BAe & elsewhere).
Everyone else must be bored with this, so I suggest this chat ends now.
it would seem the statistics back me up, and in referring to the GR4 I meant the aircraft as known today, not a GR1 with a new paint job & minor add-ons.
A walt I am not - I do not pretend to be a Tornado driver, just a dismayed observer ( not in the flying sense, though I've done plenty of hours as technical photographer - as in being on flt test teams, not just taking pretty pictures - for BAe & elsewhere).
Everyone else must be bored with this, so I suggest this chat ends now.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: West Sussex
Posts: 1,771
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Treacherous ?
Well if it's me you're on about I don't think I've exactly let slip a huge secret, as the bad guys worked out long ago to park AAA units near runways - one of the reasons JP233 was dumped, I was told by a Tornado avionics chap, the Geneva convention stuff being a nice excuse !
I would think it treasonous to supply less than the best kit we possibly can to the people in the front line - Test Pilots used to think that way - whether it's SA80's ( understand it's a lot better now ) or Tornado's.
I have misgivings about the Harrier's kit too, but I would happily join the men & women in the front of anywhere, with either a camera ( experienced with ) or a gun - not trained for but I don't mind being a target - have no family to support unlike most of the poor sods & soddeses ( ? !).
I'm 45, but indeed still suffer the teenage angst you mention, mainly aimed at bean counters in BAe.
Go on, I'm kicking my heels at the moment playing with yachts, call my bluff & send me to the sandpits !
I would think it treasonous to supply less than the best kit we possibly can to the people in the front line - Test Pilots used to think that way - whether it's SA80's ( understand it's a lot better now ) or Tornado's.
I have misgivings about the Harrier's kit too, but I would happily join the men & women in the front of anywhere, with either a camera ( experienced with ) or a gun - not trained for but I don't mind being a target - have no family to support unlike most of the poor sods & soddeses ( ? !).
I'm 45, but indeed still suffer the teenage angst you mention, mainly aimed at bean counters in BAe.
Go on, I'm kicking my heels at the moment playing with yachts, call my bluff & send me to the sandpits !
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
Double Zero, when weamn thing toured Huntings in 1974 we told 'em then that the damn thing needed wings and a rocket motor. Bit like a Blue Stell actually.
They blanched as they thought we were going to recommend cancellation.
They blanched as they thought we were going to recommend cancellation.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: West Sussex
Posts: 1,771
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Runway denial
Pontius,
I quite fancied the Thompson-Brandt BAP 100 as used by the Indian FRS 51's; they had a lot more penetration effect on runways ( seen first hand ) - though again they required the platform to be much too close to the target.
By the way, I am nothing to do with WEBF, though I think good luck to him generally !
I quite fancied the Thompson-Brandt BAP 100 as used by the Indian FRS 51's; they had a lot more penetration effect on runways ( seen first hand ) - though again they required the platform to be much too close to the target.
By the way, I am nothing to do with WEBF, though I think good luck to him generally !
Forgive the thread creep revisited about this, but... DZ - how, exactly, do the stats back you up? If referring to the loss of GR1s, it was hardly the 'droves' you claimed in your initial post. Losses were expected to be considerably higher, and there was widespread surprise at the low casualty rate.
And your reference to the GR4 is still puzzling. The Tornado GR4 of Op Telic was a rather different beast to the GR1 of Granby and not just a GR1 with minor add ons and new paintwork.
With regard to BAE, is it not the case that the law now causing them such bad PR came in to force in 2002, and that however morally repugnant/ overly entreprenuerial (delete as per opinion) the practice, any monies that may have been advanced to citizens of KSA prior to that date were perfectly legal so long such business transactions were done outside the UK? Or have I misunderstood this?
The other issue in the case - and something that one would have thought anyone of an anti-arms trade disposition would be pursuing if exercised by the idea of corruption in arms dealing - is whether or not other nations were making similar fiscal arrangements in a bid to secure the approval of the Saudi authorities for their products.
And your reference to the GR4 is still puzzling. The Tornado GR4 of Op Telic was a rather different beast to the GR1 of Granby and not just a GR1 with minor add ons and new paintwork.
With regard to BAE, is it not the case that the law now causing them such bad PR came in to force in 2002, and that however morally repugnant/ overly entreprenuerial (delete as per opinion) the practice, any monies that may have been advanced to citizens of KSA prior to that date were perfectly legal so long such business transactions were done outside the UK? Or have I misunderstood this?
The other issue in the case - and something that one would have thought anyone of an anti-arms trade disposition would be pursuing if exercised by the idea of corruption in arms dealing - is whether or not other nations were making similar fiscal arrangements in a bid to secure the approval of the Saudi authorities for their products.
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: firmly on dry land
Age: 81
Posts: 1,541
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Contrary to what PN and BB said,
The Spring 07 Aviate, page 30, says that 8 Tornado were lost in the training leading to GW1 and during operations. Of these 8 50% were due controlled flight into terrain in all probability.
And not all of the other losses were on JP233 attacks -
And not all of the other losses were on JP233 attacks -