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?

Brimstone ?

Working on a theoretical PK rate of 100%!

Just The Beancounter Graphical Squadron showing Joe Public and the Mil that cutbacks really do work :sad: :sad: :sad: :sad:



TW

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."

What a load of misguided 4rse

Surely the 21 aircraft, dropping a thousand pounder each, would have been ONE Vulcan/Victor in 1970?:confused:

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?:confused:

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 :ugh:

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:oh:

I find this propaganda quite insulting to our past aircrew.

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?"

Well if you'd said Apache, I'd have to had said don't be stupid! The tail will be off after the first salvo:\

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

[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.

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!

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:ugh:

Horse Shoes and Hand Grenades
 

Now I would reckon a B-52 could carry a few of these dis'tings and accomplish the job. A 2,000 pound GBU-31 within three meters might take care of business.:ok:

Actually, it looks quite easy if you can get the enemy to tightly gaggle all his tanks in one location like in the graphic! :ok:

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

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?

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

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

As long as you accept that the bad guys have no anti-air capability and that they know nothing about decoys, jamming and deception! And assuming that Biggles can make uninterrupted runs over the target area - oh, and a PK of 100%

Still confident foldingwings?

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.