I’m currently reading Thunder And Lightning, RAF In The Gulf and it talks about the high number of Tornado losses against Iraqi anti aircraft weapons. Of the 7 aircraft lost 6 were shot down by SAM and one by AAA, as the Iraqi’s were armed with old (outdated?) Russian weaponry and weren’t as well trained as the Russians will no doubt have been how would RAF aircraft have fared against the Russians had WW3 ever have kicked off?
Judging by these losses I would have thought that close to 50% of our aircraft could have been shot down on the first day by the much higher tech SAMs and AAA throughout Russia but also the aircraft launched to intercept the attacker which weren’t a part of the Iraqi defences in ’91.
Am I reading too much into the losses or could things really have turned out this bad if the whoopsie had hit the fan in the 90’s?
By: WP840 - 5th February 2012 at 15:11
Thank you everyone for your input onto this thread, it was nice to read the thoughts of aircrew who would have faced these threats.
By: TEEJ - 4th February 2012 at 08:29
Excellent posts, Baloffski and FoxVC10. Thanks for the input to the thread.
A lot of people are still unaware of the low-level phase of the campaign and what nations were involved. Even B-52s came back with combat damage after low level missions.
http://forum.keypublishing.com/showpost.php?p=1577561&postcount=554
By: pistonrob - 3rd February 2012 at 20:51
anybody with any kind of gun was told to fire into the air when anything flew over Baghdad. especialy at night if the city lights went out it was the signal to let rip and blast metal into the air.
somewhere at some point the Tornado`s were bound to fly into nasty stuff stuffed into the sky in front of them, either aimed or not. they were down in the thick of it so the losses were bound to be quite high over heavily defended area`s.
i remember watching the night attacks on the news and seeing the odd jet give a blast of the afterburners to get the hell out of there once the bombs were dropped. a risky move as it could be seen from miles away
By: superplum - 3rd February 2012 at 19:56
I think there was one medium level loss when the stores detonated soon after dropping.
Stick of Airburst destroyed the ac.
😎
By: FoxVC10 - 3rd February 2012 at 17:54
The use of JP233 wasnt liked by the Aircrew for obvious reason, however the majority of the Tornado losses were aircraft using 1000lbs on laydown or lofting attacks (the one I lost was a 1000lb toss on a radar site when it took a SAM).
When the move from low level attacks took place – not due to the losses but due to the reduction in the Iraqi defence network making it easier and safer to attack targets (more along with the American viewpoint)- a discussion about the possibilty of JP attacks from medium or high level took place. It was very short and the conclusion was that it would of no value what so ever due to the spread pattern of the sub munitions.
Bearing in mind the qty that had been flown out (only three would fit per flight in the AT fleet) and it was pretty pointless flying them back a large number were buried.
TIALD from Tabuk and Paveway with Buccs spiking for the Tornados from Bahrain was first used at this point. The Tornados at that point didnt have the capability nor training to provide the spikeing. I cant remember if ALARM – the loitering grey telegraph poles was used right from the start. I seem to remember that we used 200 Paveway LGB kits flown in from a “colony”(sp?) in three days.
I think there was one medium level loss when the stores detonated soon after dropping.
I know of a least one “raid” during the low level phase that was called off as they where running in on target due to the amount of AAA.
A personal viewpoint (and probably totally inaccurate) was that the losses happened due to a slightly lower training build up and “obvious” distractions of Bahrain and to a lesser extent Dharhan than Tabuk. Only one combat loss at Tabuk (not forgetting the two further mishaps).
If there are inaccuracies its because it was while ago in the mists of my time…. and I became a grandad yesterday!
Jeez Im getting old.
By: baloffski - 3rd February 2012 at 12:05
High, straight and level perhaps? Just as easy a target? Albeit a bit further away from what was being targeted, the Buccaneer was still in a war zone and no less prone than the Tornado…(?)
Kind Regards,
Scotty
By the time the Bucc was used in anger the tactics had changed to Medium level work and the enemy had nothing to touch any air asset at any height. Their C3I was non-existant and most of the Missile/AAA capability was in the hands of troops who were terrified of using them because they knew that it would be signing their own death warrants.
Some would suggest that the only reason the Bucc was used was to try and ring fence it when the planned axe fell on the RAF, post WarPac collapse. Unfortunately the arrival of ‘San and Trace’ the two TIALD pods was the final nail (of many many nails) in the coffin.
By: baloffski - 3rd February 2012 at 11:58
Setting aside the Gulf War for a moment I think we need to examine the doctrine and probable tactics which GR1 would have used in WW3.
We knew what the targets were and had 50 years of intelligence gathering to refine ingress, strike and egress profiles.
There would have been a big build up during what will have been a long drawn out sabre rattling session which would include them and us putting Special Forces and Intel at every major target location ready for the off.
The off would have been the west in a defensive posture against Soviet aggression; and the war plan was entirely based about the notion of failed grain harvest in the satellite nations, starvation in Russia and a military takeover shortly followed by invasion across Germany. Or another Berlin crisis and massive Soviet mobilisation to assert their authority. Thus a reactive war footing was always maintained, as we did not have any need to invade anyone.
We knew that there was a ‘Ring of Steel’ around Moscow which in all probability was a nuclear target anyway when it got a bit tasty. However, the C3I was spread around the country anyway rendering Moscow a lesser value target.
Baghdad had a very similar defensive set up and that is why such a lot of ordnance was used in Suppression of Enemy Air Defence (SEAD) and killing their Command and Control (C3I) systems.
Tornado was designed as an all weather day/night interdiction aircraft and to that end the TFR etc was designed around, leaving Marham, Laarbruch or Bruggen and making best speed to the bridges, railheads and other infrastructure which had to be taken out quickly to prevent the hordes advancing any further across Germany. These would be lightly defended with optical AAA/Manpad at best. The ECM Pod was more than capable of defeating anything radar guided the Soviets had.
When it went hot (conservative estimates anticipated the first tactical nuclear exchange on day 9 or 10) All the remaining Tornado would have had a third tank fitted on one shoulder pylon and a WE177 on the other, for a short trip to Mutually Assured Destruction.
So to use the aircraft’s Sunday name we have Tornado IdS (Interdiction Strike).
Fast forward to ’91 and we have a very short build up to an invasion.
Low quality Int and a battle plan based upon a lot of supposition of enemy force effectiveness and disposition. All really we had to go on was the Iran/Iraq war in the ’80’s which demonstrated a fine air component and reasonable ground forces with high willingness to use Chemical Warfare.
We (UK PLC) were eager to be involved from the get go and show our capability to the world. We did then (and have done since) take on missions which the Yanks would not touch with a smelly stick because of the fear of casualties. These mainly involved taking out the Iraqi Airfields using a combination of JP233 and dumb 1000 lbers. If the jets have no runway to use they cease to be a threat, pick them off later blah de blah.
There was no massive SEAD effort or SF ground troops taking out the SAM Capability and consequently we lost aircraft. The biggest player was ROLAND – a hittile not a missile. Radar guided with a very effective electro optic back up. Highly mobile and therefore SEAD resistant, it, along with MANPAD and radar guided AAA was extremely effective. You can bemoan JP233 and the need to fly straight and level for a long time to get the ordnance out, (and the oft quoted but never really confirmed 3G TFR pull up command). But it was ROLAND which claimed many kills (and as an aside when we went back in 2003, still scared the bejaysus out of me when I heard it on the RWR).
I have rambled on enough for now but I hope that this proves that there should be no comparison made between the Gulf War and WW3 – they were two entirely separate scenarios with very very different plans for prosecution.
By: WL747 - 3rd February 2012 at 11:48
Weren’t they used as a designater in GW.1 though? The mission profile would be different.
High, straight and level perhaps? Just as easy a target? Albeit a bit further away from what was being targeted, the Buccaneer was still in a war zone and no less prone than the Tornado…(?)
Kind Regards,
Scotty
By: pagen01 - 3rd February 2012 at 10:06
I’m thinking Buccaneer here… I note we didn’t lose any of them, nor does the list in TEEJ’s post say any were damaged.
Weren’t they used as a designater in GW.1 though? The mission profile would be different.
By: crl848 - 3rd February 2012 at 09:53
I was under the impression that the Gulf War losses were exacerbated by the use of the JP233 weapon, which required the crews to fly straight and level along enemy runways.
But the ever delightful Wikipedia says otherwise.
By: WL747 - 3rd February 2012 at 05:32
The Tornados went in against the most highly defended sites the Iraqi’s had – losses were inevitable, if in some cases, avoidable.
The Tornado was, and possibly still is, the best low level interdictor in the world. It’ll get you in, under the radar, low and fast, but once over a large flat airfield, a simple SAM has enough time to get lock and do its job.
How many Jags did we loose BTW ? 😉
Ummmm, I’m thinking Buccaneer here… I note we didn’t lose any of them, nor does the list in TEEJ’s post say any were damaged. However, there are a couple of Jags mentioned, albeit FAF examples.
Kind Regards,
Scotty
By: TEEJ - 2nd February 2012 at 17:02
The Iraqi’s also used French Roland SAMs. They also had MANPADS and layered AAA defending those airfields and fixed sites.
The Iraqi’s also employed fighter aircraft in defence during the initial stages and they had one success. One F/A-18 Hornet loss is attributed to an Iraqi MiG-25 Foxbat.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scott_Speicher
Even the F-117s employed were expected to take losses during the conflict.
http://www.f-117a.com/Javaframe.html
List of aircraft that took battle damage or were lost during the conflict.
http://www.rjlee.org/aaloss.html
Overview
http://www.ndu.edu/library/epubs/cpgw.pdf
It was no picnic for those sent to do those missions. A large proportion of the approx 70 A-10s suffering damage were due to enemy action.
Approx 70 A-10 aircraft suffered some type of battle damage during Desert Storm. Many of the damages were undocumented cases of relatively minor problems. Some were even caused by their own aircraft such as a bomb lanyard slapping a wing flap, or a bomb fragment flying up and embedding into it’s engine cowling. But most was caused by small arm fire and surface to air missiles.
By: pagen01 - 2nd February 2012 at 09:05
…but that won’t stop me suggesting that the Tornado would have been the Blenheim of WW3. Rubbish, but the best we had at the start.
I don’t think that in any way the Tornado GRs could be considered rubbish, even if there are very mixed views about the Tornado fighter.
GRs were really down in the brunt of the action in GW.1, I seem to remember that other allies crews were in awe of the Tornados’ and crews capabilities, especially considering the action that they were up against.
Re the original point about losses against the Russians, I would think heavy losses would be factored in right from the start when the aircraft was ordered, it was the nature of the cold-war scenerio that large waves of aircraft would be used at the beginning with a high probablility that many wouldn’t come back, as noted with the V Bombers.
One thing that the MoD (& predecessors) and RAF have been good at from the expansion era to the late ’90s, was ordering large numbers of aircraft beyond what was needed in normal peace time scenerios, and having a very good aircraft storage and dispersal system. In times of war stored aircraft could quickly be readied to bolster initial losses.
By: 12jaguar - 2nd February 2012 at 07:47
How many Jags did we loose BTW ? 😉
And a better serviceability rate too:)
By: Moggy C - 2nd February 2012 at 07:10
Then I am happy to take your word for that Snoopy, despite the losses.
Moggy
By: JagRigger - 2nd February 2012 at 07:02
The Tornados went in against the most highly defended sites the Iraqi’s had – losses were inevitable, if in some cases, avoidable.
The Tornado was, and possibly still is, the best low level interdictor in the world. It’ll get you in, under the radar, low and fast, but once over a large flat airfield, a simple SAM has enough time to get lock and do its job.
How many Jags did we loose BTW ? 😉
By: Snoopy7422 - 2nd February 2012 at 00:12
?
I’m not a great jet fan, and know little of what you speak, but that won’t stop me suggesting that the Tornado would have been the Blenheim of WW3. Rubbish, but the best we had at the start.
Moggy
…and it won’t stop me suggesting that there is NO comparison.
By: Moggy C - 1st February 2012 at 23:33
I’m not a great jet fan, and know little of what you speak, but that won’t stop me suggesting that the Tornado would have been the Blenheim of WW3. Rubbish, but the best we had at the start.
Moggy
By: J Boyle - 1st February 2012 at 23:11
… the only reason the Tonka was hit by AA fire was because they were at a range of feet rather than miles…
But if WP840’s source is correct, most of the losses were due to SAMs, not AA.
I didn’t think SAMs worked that well that low?
By: FoxVC10 - 1st February 2012 at 22:25
Expecting a 20% loss rate If I remember correctly . ’twas a fair while back
Sign In
February 1, 2012 at 8:02 pm