Why the raf can’t deliver the punch cameron wants in syria
My quick thoughts:
Wrong. Typhoon has this capability and used it in the Libyan conflict. The aircraft did not receive a huge investment to achieve this and had demonstrated the capability ahead of the conflict.
Wrong. Typhoon capability is being used in more than one theatre already and will be joining the latest one. Tornado has not been extended in service due to limitations; SDSR 2010 actually brought forward the OSD and reduced the number of squadrons.
Wrong. Precisely zero Tornados have been lost in this conflict to this system. It is not a threat and we do not expect it to be a threat.
Wrong. The enemy we are engaged with has no equipment that requires jamming. Not really sure what an 'A/E-18 Super Growler' is, but probably best to avoid her….
Wrong. Even if we avoid the date issue with SH vs Typhoon or that F-35B is not in service yet the true cost of a UK-content platform is very different to a direct FMS purchase. The RN would not appreciate a cat & trap / land-based platform given the carrier design.
The Tornado is not conducting low-level attack profiles and has not done so for ages. We did not lose 8 Tornados in GW1. Of those we did lose, 2 were confirmed losses to enemy action at low level, 2 lost at medium level (self-frag & SAM) and 2 remain unknown.
There was no mutiny, nobody regarded it as suicidal and we had zero squadrons in Kuwait. Indeed, Iraq had recently invaded the place….
Wrong. The aircraft achieved the same readiness posture, did react to all tasking and, when required, did operate at low-level. Of course, where possible, the aircraft will always operate outside the range of threat systems whilst delivering ordinance. Kinda conflicts with his previous criticism….
Wrong. The Tornado deployment was planned well ahead of SDSR 2010 and, prior to the Afghan tasking, was engaged in operations in Iraq. The Tornado GR Force (IIRC) moved to AFG in mid-2009. The aircraft can indeed fly for hours at high(ish) level, delivering reconnaissance and ordinance in accordance with the operational tasking….
Wrong. Indeed, I doubt the sanity of any ex-military man who thinks we should deliberately fly close enough to an enemy so they have the chance to shoot at us.
Wrong. It has not changed our operations at all and the introduction of extra Patriot systems have not changed Russian actions either. His ramblings over international law and what Syria may do is completely contradicted by the UN, Russia and the Syrian government.
Wrong. There is no effective no fly zone, or indeed any no fly zone.
Wrong. Even if the number of aircraft were correct an ex-military pilot would be expected to know how fleets are rotated, maintained and modified. He may even recall that we have aircraft in the Falklands, supporting NATO in Europe, providing QRA plus training, exercises and development tasks. There is no need to suppress Iraqi AA - they are on our side and invited us to participate!
Wrong. The Tornado has been on near-continuous ops since 1990. Given the size of the force, even at its peak, this 25 years of war-fighting is unprecedented and is an achievement unique to the RAF Tornado GR Force. It must be close to 24 years since we lost a Tornado GR1/4 to enemy action. An old-workhorse it may be, but it remains a highly credible and capable platform. The professionalism and skill of the crews and support personnel make the rest possible.
It is understood that the UK’s Eurofighter aircraft – now dramatically named ‘Typhoons’ – simply lack the necessary independent laser targeting and interdiction ability to destroy the death cult’s ground assets. This was clearly demonstrated during the Libyian conflict – despite a huge investment by the Government to try and give the aircraft a truly multi-role capability.
The Typhoons’ operational limitations leave Britain with the obsolete Tornado as its fighter-bomber. That is also costing the taxpayer huge amounts of money in order to keep some of the airframes operationally capable.
But even more important than wasting taxpayers’ money – and quite another matter – is to deliberately send ill-equipped aircrew “into harm’s way”.
The Tornado would not be able to evade a Russian S-400 surface-to-air missile.
The Tornado would not be able to evade a Russian S-400 surface-to-air missile.
Of course, the risk factor from this and other surface-to-air missile defence systems over contested territory could have been mitigated by the procurement of few A/E-18 Super Growler defence suppression aircraft.
These aircraft are able to identify interrogating enemy air defence radars and blind them by “jamming” and other technologies.
These aircraft are able to identify interrogating enemy air defence radars and blind them by “jamming” and other technologies.
The RAF or Royal Navy could have afforded two of these for the price of one Typhoon or one F35B STOVL aircraft. Such a purchase would have enabled relatively safe operations by Tornado over Syria.
(I hardly dare point out – again – that Britain could have purchased three proven F-18 Super Hornet multi-role fighter aircraft for the cost of one Typhoon or F35.)
(I hardly dare point out – again – that Britain could have purchased three proven F-18 Super Hornet multi-role fighter aircraft for the cost of one Typhoon or F35.)
The vulnerability of the Tornados’ low-level attack profile to air defences was amply demonstrated way back in Desert Storm when eight RAF aircraft were lost, mainly during operations against Saddam Hussein’s airfields.
Some may remember reliable press reports of a near-mutiny by Tornado squadron aircrew in Kuwait because of their high loss rate and the plane’s ‘suicidal’ attack profile. Allegedly one squadron expressed its firm desire to ‘down tools’ en masse and return to the UK.
Some may remember reliable press reports of a near-mutiny by Tornado squadron aircrew in Kuwait because of their high loss rate and the plane’s ‘suicidal’ attack profile. Allegedly one squadron expressed its firm desire to ‘down tools’ en masse and return to the UK.
There was no mutiny, nobody regarded it as suicidal and we had zero squadrons in Kuwait. Indeed, Iraq had recently invaded the place….
Further, both Libya and Afghanistan must be considered operational failures as far as the Tornado is concerned. The aircraft was not reactive to urgent “ground support” tasks, even though it was not opposed by any sophisticated form of air defence – just shoulder-launched missiles and small arms – and it stayed well out of range of these infantry weapons when delivering ordnance.
Indeed, it is little known outside the military that in Afghanistan the original RAF Harrier squadrons would respond to urgent requests for close air support in less than half an hour (wheels off the ground in 15 minutes).
Indeed, it is little known outside the military that in Afghanistan the original RAF Harrier squadrons would respond to urgent requests for close air support in less than half an hour (wheels off the ground in 15 minutes).
But when Tornados took over, just weeks before SDSR 2010, ground forces were informed by the Tornado hierarchy that all requests for “close air support” had to be submitted 24 hours in advance.
Shockingly, I understand that the Tornados flew lengthy sorties at high level, clocking up the hours to create the false impression that they were being effective in that combat theatre.
Shockingly, I understand that the Tornados flew lengthy sorties at high level, clocking up the hours to create the false impression that they were being effective in that combat theatre.
Until now in Iraq, RAF Tornado and Voyager missions have remained well above the range of ground-based small arms and shoulder-launched missiles when attacking IS targets.
Some might say unkindly that they are, in the main, boring holes in the sky (just as they did in Afghanistan) to create the impression of some combat utility.
After all, an occasional pickup truck destroyed by an expensive Brimstone missile can hardly be said to be a game-changer in the war against Islamic State.
Some might say unkindly that they are, in the main, boring holes in the sky (just as they did in Afghanistan) to create the impression of some combat utility.
After all, an occasional pickup truck destroyed by an expensive Brimstone missile can hardly be said to be a game-changer in the war against Islamic State.
However, Russia’s introduction of the S-400 anti-aircraft missile into the Syrian theatre is a major game changer (all targets up to 90,000 feet and within a 250 miles range).
If pressed, Moscow might use the missile and, if in Syrian air-space, gallant RAF aircrew could be lost. I am reminded of Guernica and the Spanish Civil War, when Hitler’s Luftwaffe tested its weapons with impunity. Would Putin do the same?
For example, any Western “coalition” aircraft conducting missions over Syria could be ‘taken out’ by the Russian missile and Putin/Assad would no doubt argue that under international law the coalition aircraft had no right to be using weapons of war in sovereign Syrian territory.
The Russians have already alluded to this by criticising some of the air strikes made by the French following the radical Islamist terror attack in Paris.
If pressed, Moscow might use the missile and, if in Syrian air-space, gallant RAF aircrew could be lost. I am reminded of Guernica and the Spanish Civil War, when Hitler’s Luftwaffe tested its weapons with impunity. Would Putin do the same?
For example, any Western “coalition” aircraft conducting missions over Syria could be ‘taken out’ by the Russian missile and Putin/Assad would no doubt argue that under international law the coalition aircraft had no right to be using weapons of war in sovereign Syrian territory.
The Russians have already alluded to this by criticising some of the air strikes made by the French following the radical Islamist terror attack in Paris.
By default, Putin and the S-400 threat have now ‘created’ a pretty effective no fly zone.
The situation is a complete mess and, as far as Britain’s efforts are concerned, its military is becoming a laughing stock.
The situation is a complete mess and, as far as Britain’s efforts are concerned, its military is becoming a laughing stock.
RAF Akrotiri in Cyprus is only 70 nautical miles from Syria. Britain owns approximately 100 Typhoon and 75 Tornado aircraft. So why has it been unable to do more in Iraq? The answer is that it has the wrong aircraft with the wrong weapon systems and it lacks any vital AA suppression capability.
This state of affairs says little for those in the RAF who plan British air power and provide the Government with such dreadfully partisan advice.
In the light of all the above (and the Tornado’s dreadful track record) is it not extraordinary that the Government’s Ministry of Defence has seen fit to appoint two Tornado officers to take charge of the new Royal Navy carriers and their air groups?
It hardly bodes well for the future of Britain’s global national security and defence.
In the light of all the above (and the Tornado’s dreadful track record) is it not extraordinary that the Government’s Ministry of Defence has seen fit to appoint two Tornado officers to take charge of the new Royal Navy carriers and their air groups?
It hardly bodes well for the future of Britain’s global national security and defence.
OK, Typhoon has yet to get an independent l@ser targeting capability
Last edited by MAINJAFAD; 3rd Dec 2015 at 16:09.
The first Typhoon Litening / LGB drop was in 2007, albeit with an inert weapon.
The first drop of a live self-designated LGB was conducted by a XI(F) Sqn pilot the following year.
The first drop of a live self-designated LGB was conducted by a XI(F) Sqn pilot the following year.
Have you read your answers Just this Once? Are you a politician - ADC to the Marshall of the RAF, PS to David Cameron - if not there is a great job waiting for you outside. Sorry but your 'Wrongs' don't make many 'Rights' unless they are factual or are they what you think or overheard? If one or 2 or even 10 have that capability why aren't they using it? Or maybe you know more than us mortals?
In which case Cmdr Ward has as much right to second guess as you do which is all I am trying to say without the venom on here.
In which case Cmdr Ward has as much right to second guess as you do which is all I am trying to say without the venom on here.
No second guessing from my seat. Typed in haste no doubt, but do try to find the errors you seek.
I would try to answer your question but it makes no sense. How can I explain why Typhoon does not use a capability when I have stated so clearly that it not only has such a capability, but has actually used it in anger and will be doing so again? Indeed, its capability has only increased in the intervening years and no doubt we will see it deliver PWIV on ops in the very near future.
I would try to answer your question but it makes no sense. How can I explain why Typhoon does not use a capability when I have stated so clearly that it not only has such a capability, but has actually used it in anger and will be doing so again? Indeed, its capability has only increased in the intervening years and no doubt we will see it deliver PWIV on ops in the very near future.
MOSTAFA,
Are you Cdr Ward by any chance?
It's difficult to "debate" with anyone, with or without venom, who won't concede anything.
Let's take just one point. Cdr Ward states:
It is understood that the UK’s Eurofighter aircraft – now dramatically named ‘Typhoons’ – simply lack the necessary independent laser targeting and interdiction ability to destroy the death cult’s ground assets. .
First of all an interesting phrase, "it is understood". Anyway, you now have had three different people telling you that the above statement is simply incorrect, one of whom quoted first hand experience from Libya.
Of course, if you prefer the internet links:
RAF - Typhoon FGR4
From 2006:
https://www.flightglobal.com/news/ar...ighter-208048/
So, if we can establish that one of the significant comments on which his premise is based is incorrect, then perhaps you might consider that the rest of his comments might, just might, also be flawed. All this from a 72 year old man who left the British military in 1989 and is therefore how "current" in military tactics?
Do you know what, I really can't be bothered to write more to someone who isn't prepared to listen....
Are you Cdr Ward by any chance?
It's difficult to "debate" with anyone, with or without venom, who won't concede anything.
Let's take just one point. Cdr Ward states:
It is understood that the UK’s Eurofighter aircraft – now dramatically named ‘Typhoons’ – simply lack the necessary independent laser targeting and interdiction ability to destroy the death cult’s ground assets. .
First of all an interesting phrase, "it is understood". Anyway, you now have had three different people telling you that the above statement is simply incorrect, one of whom quoted first hand experience from Libya.
Of course, if you prefer the internet links:
RAF - Typhoon FGR4
From 2006:
https://www.flightglobal.com/news/ar...ighter-208048/
So, if we can establish that one of the significant comments on which his premise is based is incorrect, then perhaps you might consider that the rest of his comments might, just might, also be flawed. All this from a 72 year old man who left the British military in 1989 and is therefore how "current" in military tactics?
Do you know what, I really can't be bothered to write more to someone who isn't prepared to listen....
MOSTAFA,
Sharkey isn't "second guessing" he is just so out of touch. Many of the websites that he has articles on have a closed door policy for comments. This results in his ramblings becoming fact and nobody can challenge them.
Even after Libya he is still ranting on about Eurofighter Typhoon not having an independent laser targeting capability. The question is why?
If you check Sky News or the BBC you will see footage of Typhoons arriving at RAF Akrotiri. On the centre-line they are carrying the Litening pods. The very same designation pods that Sharkey believes that they don't have or can use independently.
The following from 'Typhoon a year on the road' that was published in Air International.
'Typhoon a year on the road' used to be hosted on the following webpage.
Air International | BAE Systems | en - Saudi Arabia
http://bfbs.com/news/raf/typhoon-pil...ike-46743.html
Typhoon with Litening pod and Paveway II taken during 2011 (Op Ellamy)
RAF - Litening III
Now why can't Sharkey do this simple bit of research?
Sharkey isn't "second guessing" he is just so out of touch. Many of the websites that he has articles on have a closed door policy for comments. This results in his ramblings becoming fact and nobody can challenge them.
Even after Libya he is still ranting on about Eurofighter Typhoon not having an independent laser targeting capability. The question is why?
It is understood that the UK’s Eurofighter aircraft – now dramatically named ‘Typhoons’ – simply lack the necessary independent l@ser targeting and interdiction ability to destroy the death cult’s ground assets. This was clearly demonstrated during the Libyian conflict – despite a huge investment by the Government to try and give the aircraft a truly multi-role capability.
The following from 'Typhoon a year on the road' that was published in Air International.
Sqn Ldr Bolton led the first ever Typhoon-only strike mission and a multi-aircraft COMAO at night against a target near Tripoli. Setting the scene Sqn Ldr Bolton told AIR International:
“We were due to fly with some French Rafales, a Growler, and tankers from France and the UK. Very bad weather in Corsica meant the Rafales were unable to safely get airborne or recover to their base leaving us and the Growler to continue the mission.” He added: “Not only did we get airborne and strike our own targets we re-rolled whilst airborne and took out the targets assigned to the other aircraft also.”
“We were due to fly with some French Rafales, a Growler, and tankers from France and the UK. Very bad weather in Corsica meant the Rafales were unable to safely get airborne or recover to their base leaving us and the Growler to continue the mission.” He added: “Not only did we get airborne and strike our own targets we re-rolled whilst airborne and took out the targets assigned to the other aircraft also.”
Air International | BAE Systems | en - Saudi Arabia
The Royal Air Force pilot who carried out the first operational Typhoon aircraft strike on a ground target has been describing the mission.
The first strike was made against a Libyan regime main battle tank during a mission on Tuesday, 12 April.
The pilot said: “I left Gioia Del Colle in a mixed pair with a Tornado GR4.
“We’d been tasked to Misratah in the West of Libya, which is pretty much a city under siege, with significant numbers of attacks against the civilian population from pro-regime forces. We were looking along one of the main supply routes in Misratah when we came across a compound with around 10 – 15 main battle tanks in.
“We reported our findings to the command and control assets we work with and shortly thereafter, were cleared to engage.
“At that point, we generated coordinates for the targets and dropped weapons. Each time we assessed the likely weapon effect and whether there would be any collateral damage implications.
“It was a precision attack from a significant altitude.
“To be honest, I was a little bit nervous but you just revert to the training you’ve done before. I’ve dropped a significant number of weapons from the Typhoon in training. It felt no different from that, only this time I was even more relieved to see the bomb go exactly where it should have done, in the Litening III image displayed in my cockpit.”
“We have proven that the jet can carry weapons a long distance, drop them accurately, land and get pumped full of fuel, reloaded with weapons and go and do it again, day in day out. That makes this capability enduring, and while it may seem like a milestone to some, it’s just a hurdle that had to be overcome at some point. It has been done, and we will drop more over the life of the aircraft. I think people are just pleased we’ve got the first one out of the way.”
The first strike was made against a Libyan regime main battle tank during a mission on Tuesday, 12 April.
The pilot said: “I left Gioia Del Colle in a mixed pair with a Tornado GR4.
“We’d been tasked to Misratah in the West of Libya, which is pretty much a city under siege, with significant numbers of attacks against the civilian population from pro-regime forces. We were looking along one of the main supply routes in Misratah when we came across a compound with around 10 – 15 main battle tanks in.
“We reported our findings to the command and control assets we work with and shortly thereafter, were cleared to engage.
“At that point, we generated coordinates for the targets and dropped weapons. Each time we assessed the likely weapon effect and whether there would be any collateral damage implications.
“It was a precision attack from a significant altitude.
“To be honest, I was a little bit nervous but you just revert to the training you’ve done before. I’ve dropped a significant number of weapons from the Typhoon in training. It felt no different from that, only this time I was even more relieved to see the bomb go exactly where it should have done, in the Litening III image displayed in my cockpit.”
“We have proven that the jet can carry weapons a long distance, drop them accurately, land and get pumped full of fuel, reloaded with weapons and go and do it again, day in day out. That makes this capability enduring, and while it may seem like a milestone to some, it’s just a hurdle that had to be overcome at some point. It has been done, and we will drop more over the life of the aircraft. I think people are just pleased we’ve got the first one out of the way.”
Typhoon with Litening pod and Paveway II taken during 2011 (Op Ellamy)
A RAF Typhoon departs from Gioia del Colle, equipped with Enhanced Paveway II bombs, air to air missiles and a Litening pod in support of the UN sanctioned No Fly Zone over Libya. 16 April 2011 Picture: Sergeant Pete Mobbs RAF, Crown Copyright/MOD 2011
Now why can't Sharkey do this simple bit of research?
Sorry but some of you blokes really need to take your heads out of your arses and no I am certainly not Cmdr Ward or his son, but I do respect and extremely grateful for what he did and so should you be. I think it is really sad to see so many rubbish the contributions of, because it appears to damage RAF ego's, albeit a now a 72 year old ex fighter pilot, who commanded a Sqn at war and was awarded both the Distinguised Service Cross and an Air Force Cross for trying. He shot down a puccara with a canon and a Mirage V on the same day ffs.
I am now outa here
I am now outa here
MOSTAFA,
So still no admission/agreement that he has got his facts wrong then (which is pretty much all anyone has pointed out in the last 3 or 4 posts)!
Which is not "rubbishing" his contributions, in terms of the article which started this thread, merely examining them in the light of day and pointing out the (many) inaccuracies which are what actually destroys his credibility more than anything else.
I don't think anyone on here has anything but respect for what he did in 1982. However, that doesn't make him an expert on all military matters for the rest of his life, nor does it mean that his opinions shouldn't be challenged.
So you're off.... bye!
So still no admission/agreement that he has got his facts wrong then (which is pretty much all anyone has pointed out in the last 3 or 4 posts)!
Which is not "rubbishing" his contributions, in terms of the article which started this thread, merely examining them in the light of day and pointing out the (many) inaccuracies which are what actually destroys his credibility more than anything else.
I don't think anyone on here has anything but respect for what he did in 1982. However, that doesn't make him an expert on all military matters for the rest of his life, nor does it mean that his opinions shouldn't be challenged.
So you're off.... bye!
Last edited by Biggus; 3rd Dec 2015 at 15:09.
Not to argue, but I do seem to recall hearing that Typhoons had to be accompanied by Tornado in Libya. I didn't and don't know why, but if you'd asked me at the time, I'd probably have mumbled something about perhaps the Typhoons not having a working laser designation system.
In April 2011, the Telegraph said "In a further embarrassment, laser targeting pods for the Typhoons, which cost £160 million, have been left in packing crates because the RAF has not been able to pay for its pilots to train to use them."
Reuters said "Some military analysts view the deployment of the Typhoon and the French Rafale in Libya as a move to give the two aircraft battlefield credentials in an effort to win orders."
The RAF response was "The advantage of flying mixed pair is that there are three different types of weapons available for use as well as the fact that Typhoon can use the benefits of the Tornado, whose pilots have huge experience of air-to-ground missions."
The BBC has more recently summarised the situation: "Tornados were used more than Typhoons during Nato air strikes in Libya in 2011 because the former were equipped with Brimstone and the latest 500lb Paveway IV laser and GPS-guided bomb. Typhoons have only been able to use Paveway IV since 2014, and in Libya they had to use the older and larger 1,000lb or 2,000lb Paveway II."
P
In April 2011, the Telegraph said "In a further embarrassment, laser targeting pods for the Typhoons, which cost £160 million, have been left in packing crates because the RAF has not been able to pay for its pilots to train to use them."
Reuters said "Some military analysts view the deployment of the Typhoon and the French Rafale in Libya as a move to give the two aircraft battlefield credentials in an effort to win orders."
The RAF response was "The advantage of flying mixed pair is that there are three different types of weapons available for use as well as the fact that Typhoon can use the benefits of the Tornado, whose pilots have huge experience of air-to-ground missions."
The BBC has more recently summarised the situation: "Tornados were used more than Typhoons during Nato air strikes in Libya in 2011 because the former were equipped with Brimstone and the latest 500lb Paveway IV laser and GPS-guided bomb. Typhoons have only been able to use Paveway IV since 2014, and in Libya they had to use the older and larger 1,000lb or 2,000lb Paveway II."
P
MOSTAFA,
Typhoon during Libya 2011 carrying 4 x Enhanced Paveway II, Litening III pod on centre-line, 2 x ASRAAM and 1 x AMRAAM.
From
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/F...D_45152839.jpg
I fear that it will make no difference. Sharkey and his supporters will still probably be ranting at these current Tornado and Typhoon operations. I bet that it won't be long before we see claims that the Typhoons can't deploy their Paveways without a Tornado GR4 designating the target? No doubt it will be linked back to one of these closed comment Sharkey webpages?
Typhoon during Libya 2011 carrying 4 x Enhanced Paveway II, Litening III pod on centre-line, 2 x ASRAAM and 1 x AMRAAM.
A Royal Air Force Typhoon takes off for Libya from Gioia del Colle, southern Italy.
As RAF Typhoon aircraft play a greater part in deliberate targeting operations, where targets are pre-planned, more are carrying four of the 1000lb Enhanced Paveway II bombs. The aircraft's ability to use its Litening III targeting pod to direct the highly accurate bombs means that a single Typhoon can have a devastating effect on Qadhafi regime targets.
As RAF Typhoon aircraft play a greater part in deliberate targeting operations, where targets are pre-planned, more are carrying four of the 1000lb Enhanced Paveway II bombs. The aircraft's ability to use its Litening III targeting pod to direct the highly accurate bombs means that a single Typhoon can have a devastating effect on Qadhafi regime targets.
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/F...D_45152839.jpg
I fear that it will make no difference. Sharkey and his supporters will still probably be ranting at these current Tornado and Typhoon operations. I bet that it won't be long before we see claims that the Typhoons can't deploy their Paveways without a Tornado GR4 designating the target? No doubt it will be linked back to one of these closed comment Sharkey webpages?
This is something we chose to do and it worked really well. Typhoon pilots went on to prosecute and designate their own targets, with and without cooperation with Tornado crews.
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Far North of Watford
Age: 82
Posts: 535
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I suspect Sharkey is having a very amusing time, every now and then chucking another controversial article into the pond and watching his opponents self destruct in a frenzy of outrage.
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
MOSTAFA, you are clearly had of reading or something.
I said He is clearly a paid up member of the flat earth society
I don't dispute that the missile has the capabilities quoted. First the Tornado will not operate anywhere near the stratosphere. Unless the S-400 uses TPT from the likes of Mainstay or the target is picked up by its remote sensors then earth physics get in the way of its maximum range of 250 miles at 100 feet.
The 9M96E2[35] extended range missile is capable of destroying airborne targets at ranges up to 120 km (75 mi), flying altitude 5 m to 30 km
I said He is clearly a paid up member of the flat earth society
I don't dispute that the missile has the capabilities quoted. First the Tornado will not operate anywhere near the stratosphere. Unless the S-400 uses TPT from the likes of Mainstay or the target is picked up by its remote sensors then earth physics get in the way of its maximum range of 250 miles at 100 feet.
The 9M96E2[35] extended range missile is capable of destroying airborne targets at ranges up to 120 km (75 mi), flying altitude 5 m to 30 km
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: England's green and pleasant land
Posts: 697
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So, to summarise:
MOSTAFA comes on, requests facts in place of statements and, once he gets a very comprehensive expansion on each fact, decides to not listen to what's presented as evidence, cautions everyone to respect the inflated self-propelled achievements of a known offender, and then announces his disappearance.
Troll or a child.
MOSTAFA comes on, requests facts in place of statements and, once he gets a very comprehensive expansion on each fact, decides to not listen to what's presented as evidence, cautions everyone to respect the inflated self-propelled achievements of a known offender, and then announces his disappearance.
Troll or a child.
I have seen the chap himself show absolutely zero respect for military aircrew in the near-continous campaigns that have followed his retirement. Indeed, he has accused them of dishonesty, disobedience to orders, cowardice and complicity in a cover-up conducted by the RAF to disguise its true actions.
We rubbish his articles because he authors absolute rubbish.
Personally, I don't care if folk like whatsisname accuse us of rubbishing ex-Lt Cdr ward because those of us who know, know he is talking utter tripe and I do not have to justify my opinion to anyone.
Many of us on here are professional pilots in both the RAF and other services and we know when we are talking truth or bolleux. If our civilian brethren chose not to listen, that's their problem.
Sorry, but just sick & tired of it.
Many of us on here are professional pilots in both the RAF and other services and we know when we are talking truth or bolleux. If our civilian brethren chose not to listen, that's their problem.
Sorry, but just sick & tired of it.
Well done JTO (and others) for the comprehensive de-bunk. So Mostafa has cleared off and Tourist has gone awfully quiet...
As for respecting Sharky's achievements, the sad thing is that someone who could have been a legend (maybe not Winkle Brown but not too far off) continues to harm himself as well as others with his bitter rants. No doubt he thinks mentioning RAF Transport Command's failings (remember the 'I didn't go to the Falklands anniversary because I knew that Transport Command would use the opportunity to spoil my day'?) give his rambling tirades some factual punch...to me they just make him look sad and outdated.
As for respecting Sharky's achievements, the sad thing is that someone who could have been a legend (maybe not Winkle Brown but not too far off) continues to harm himself as well as others with his bitter rants. No doubt he thinks mentioning RAF Transport Command's failings (remember the 'I didn't go to the Falklands anniversary because I knew that Transport Command would use the opportunity to spoil my day'?) give his rambling tirades some factual punch...to me they just make him look sad and outdated.
If he really has gone we can get back to a grown-up discussion then?
How about Godspeed and Good Luck to all the reinforcements and all those in theatre.
Hilary Benn did them proud.
How about Godspeed and Good Luck to all the reinforcements and all those in theatre.
Hilary Benn did them proud.