Tornado casualty's in Desert Storm
John Shorter
In Operation Desert Storm the Tornado aircraft appeared to have been
very unlucky loosing quite a number of aircraft. I understand that
the British version had a very unenviable role. What I would like to
know if possible is what ordanance was used to shoot down these
aircraft. The mission and circumstance of each casualty, including
aircraft flown by other countries. I am led to believe the Italian
Tornado's were not used the same way as the British, but they still
lost aircraft.
In anticipation of a reply. Thank you very much.
jsho...@glojo.zynet.co.uk
e8425654
>From: jsho...@glojo.zynet.co.uk (John Shorter)
>Subject: Tornado casualty's in Desert Storm
>Date: Wed, 26 Jul 1995 18:03:10 GMT
There were 8 Italian Tornados in the Gulf War. At their first mission, one had
to abort because of engine troubles, I think. Out of the other 7, 6 were not
able to fill up at the tanker because of bad training, and had to return to
base. The remaining one was shot down when it tried to fulfill the mission.
Against that, the UK Tornados were very, very brave.
Joe
Nick Challoner
> Against that, the UK Tornados were very, very brave.
The RAF Tornado GR1's had the unenviable task of taking out Iraqi
airfields using the Hunting JP233 runway-denial weapon. For this
weapon to be effective the a/c has to fly along the runway/taxiway at
around 500 feet and 500 knots (trying desperately to remember the
exact figures - correct me if i'm wrong!). The weapon works by
chucking out loads of bomblets, and anti personnel mines to hamper
repair efforts.
Obviously flying for 2 miles at a constant speed and heading is not
the best survival tactic over an enemy airfield, but somebody had to
do it! just happened the RAF had the best weapon in the JP233.
...Nick
--
Nick Challoner (Online Sales) PGP public key available
Home: ni...@ladyland.demon.co.uk +44 (0)121 604 0176
Work: ni...@compman.demon.co.uk +44 (0)121 706 6000
Web computer bookstore at http://www.easynet.co.uk/compman.htm
Paul Jonathan Adam
> In Operation Desert Storm the Tornado aircraft appeared to have been
> very unlucky loosing quite a number of aircraft. I understand that
> the British version had a very unenviable role. What I would like to
> know if possible is what ordanance was used to shoot down these
> aircraft.
One loss late in the air campaign was to a medium-range SAM, type
not known to me. The other losses were to IR-SAMs (Nicholl and Peters
were brought down by a SA-16 that ignited one Sidewinder: the AIM-9's
rocket motor burned through a wing spar) and to AAA, although at least
one was said to have been lost to colliding with the ground: sand dunes
can sometimes fail to appear on TFRs.
Basically the losses were due to using low-level attack tactics over
very hotly defended targets, and a large measure of bad luck.
--
When you have shot and killed a man, you have defined your attitude towards
him. You have offered a definite answer to a definite problem. For better
or for worse, you have acted decisively.
In fact, the next move is up to him.
Paul J. Adam pa...@jrwlynch.demon.co.uk
Pegg James Ds.
Nick Challoner <ni...@ladyland.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>The RAF Tornado GR1's had the unenviable task of taking out Iraqi
>airfields using the Hunting JP233 runway-denial weapon. For this
>weapon to be effective the a/c has to fly along the runway/taxiway at
>around 500 feet and 500 knots (trying desperately to remember the
>exact figures - correct me if i'm wrong!). The weapon works by
The correct altitude is 200 ft and 550 kts. According to my copy of TORNADO.
HK
Jonathan Green
jsho...@glojo.zynet.co.uk "John Shorter" writes:
> vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
> In Operation Desert Storm the Tornado aircraft appeared to have been
> very unlucky loosing quite a number of aircraft. I understand that
> the British version had a very unenviable role. What I would like to
> know if possible is what ordanance was used to shoot down these
> aircraft. The mission and circumstance of each casualty, including
> aircraft flown by other countries. I am led to believe the Italian
> Tornado's were not used the same way as the British, but they still
> lost aircraft.
> In anticipation of a reply. Thank you very much.
> jsho...@glojo.zynet.co.uk
>
>
AFAIK it was AAA that was responsible in the majority of cases. Initially the
role of the Tornado was to take out the runways with JP233 dispensers. To
deliver this weapon with any accuracy the plane has to fly the length of the
runway at a constant height and speed. The planes literally flew into a wall of
lead. They would also have been "target practice" for any IR infantry SAM's.
If you have a PC get the Tornado sim, then you'll see what I mean :-)
--
Jonathan Green
E-Mail jgr...@wolves.demon.co.uk
mdonalds
may not have created as much wide-spread damage but they could have
laid a couple fairly deep holes. I'm a little rusty on the delivery
profile but wouldn't plane survivability have been increased with the
different profile?
Corsair
Steven Vincent
Durrandals would have required a pass down the runways at a higher level
than JP233 or a Toss bombing attack. Since as many aircraft were
lost on Toss Bombing attacks as JP233 runs I don't think it would
have made much diference.
Since post war figures showed that only 2 Tornado's were actually lost
while performing JP233 missions and the others just a general mix of
Low level counter air missions I feel the blame could not have been
laid on the JP233 system so much as the disproportionat use of
Tornado's on deep air field attacks. It was probably British stubbonness
at higher levels that delayed the switch to Medium level bombing far
to long. At least one of the later Tornado's was lost due to ground
collisions w/o any enemy activity at all.
The Italian plane was lost after it continued the mission on its
own because its colleages were unable to Air-Air refuel. As a
singleton that early in the War he did not have good odds anyway!
>Corsair
Rob Wheeler
> Why didn't the Tornadoes use Durrandals instead of the dispensers? They
> may not have created as much wide-spread damage but they could have
> laid a couple fairly deep holes. I'm a little rusty on the delivery
AFAIK a couple of holes isn't as good as the whole runway shut.
After all - you can fill in the holes, and if your fighters can cope
with rough ground...
Rob.
--
Home: r...@pypers.demon.co.uk Work: ro...@craysys.co.uk
GE/CS$ d++(--) p? C+ US++++ P+ L- 3- E--- N+(++) !W(---) !V b+++ e-
MONEY TALKS but all mine ever says is GOODBYE!
Paul Jonathan Adam
> Why didn't the Tornadoes use Durrandals instead of the dispensers? They
> may not have created as much wide-spread damage but they could have
> laid a couple fairly deep holes. I'm a little rusty on the delivery
> different profile?
The problem is that the Durandal is old technology: heaved concrete
is a problem to fix, but one that has been extensively worked on. So
you don't close the field for anything like as long as you want to,
because you have a limited number of craters and nothing to impede the
repair crews.
So you use JP233 instead: from memory 57 SG357 runway-craterer bomblets
(shaped charge drills a hole, crater charge fires down into it and
detonates, creating the traditional heaved crater). But also 400 or more
HB876 mines, with EFP penetrators to damage repair equipment and a nasty
fragmentation effect to hurt any soft targets, set for variable time
detonation and with anti-tamper fuses. (Per dispenser... so double that for a
Tornado run...)
It really complicates the job of repair crews :-)
Also, even delivering Durandal pulls you down low: a runway is a hard
target to hit. Witness the Vulcan raid on Port Stanley in 1982: we dropped
21 1000lb bombs at a 30-degree angle across the runway and considered
ourselves lucky to get one hit. Runways are hard targets to hit and damage.
JP233 was designed for a Central Front war: it worked well in the Gulf, in
very different circumstances to what it was intended for.
perry morrison
regarding desert storm tornado losses
> One loss late in the air campaign was to a medium-range SAM, type
> not known to me. The other losses were to IR-SAMs (Nicholl and Peters
> were brought down by a SA-16 that ignited one Sidewinder: the AIM-9's
> rocket motor burned through a wing spar) and to AAA, although at least
> one was said to have been lost to colliding with the ground: sand dunes
> can sometimes fail to appear on TFRs.
I listened to a radio program which interviewed a number of tornado
crews who had been captured. As i recall, one a/c was downed by radar
guided SAM that the crew later believed to have been a Roland,
presumably sold to Iraq before the war. Another crew, still
flying tornados (I believe) ejected after the blast wave from
their bombs danaged their a/c. I think it was a problem with
fusing. However, I am hazy on the specifics.
Perry Morrison
Chris Valentine
(mdonalds) wrote:
> Why didn't the Tornadoes use Durrandals instead of the dispensers? They
> may not have created as much wide-spread damage but they could have
> laid a couple fairly deep holes. I'm a little rusty on the delivery
> profile but wouldn't plane survivability have been increased with the
> different profile?
Durandals require a similar attack profile, ie: along the length of the
runway at more or less constant alt, so that you ripple them off in
sequence. They also need a bit more altitude to allow time for their
parachutes to deploy and for them to face down properly before their
rockets go off. I'd rather be at 200 feet or less, thanks!
JP-233 raids really require good cover from other a/c arriving at the
target around the same time to keep the defenders either busy or dead.
Their biggest advantage are the included mines to prevent immediate
repair.
BTW, the two Johns shot down in their Tornado on their first raid were
toss-bombing taxiiways with 1000lb GPBs, not JP-233, but you already know
that, didn't you ?
Chris.
Multimedia Enabling Technologies,
The Knowledge Media Institute,
The Open University, UK
http://kmi.open.ac.uk/met/METHome.html
Dan Ford
Poignant trivia: among the Tornado pilots killed in the Gulf war was an
officer named Elsdon, the son of "Jimmy" Elsdon of 136 Squadron
(Hurricane) that fought in Burma in the early months of 1942.
- Dan
dan....@unh.edu ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ http://pubpages.unh.edu/~df
Urban Fredriksson
>Durandals require a similar attack profile, ie: along the length of the
>runway at more or less constant alt, so that you ripple them off in
>sequence.
As I recall it, you're actually supposed to fly across the
runway at a 30 deg angle or so. But I agree with you that
lower is better. What's the release altitude for BAP 100s?
>JP-233 raids really require good cover from other a/c arriving at the
>target around the same time to keep the defenders either busy or dead.
I'd assume that surprise would work well too.
--
Urban Fredriksson u...@icl.se Verba volant, scripta manent
Pegg James Ds.
Urban Fredriksson <Urban_Fr...@icl.se> wrote:
>c.p.va...@open.ac.uk (Chris Valentine) writes:
>As I recall it, you're actually supposed to fly across the
>runway at a 30 deg angle or so. But I agree with you that
You are correct about approaching at an angle but 30 deg would take you
outside of the runway pavement. Only a few degrees is needed to
efficiently spread the weapon from one side at one end to the other side
at the other end.
Surprise is definately a factor. The enemy is given about 20 seconds
warning from the time the a/c appears on radar to the time the JP233 is
dispensed. Thats why speed is a great factor. The faster you get in and
drop the ordinance the less time for detection. 550 kts is very fast at
200' or less. WOW!
HK
=========================================================================
WACK EM!
-John Gotti
=========================================================================
prgp...@law.uct.ac.za
were two Tornado pilots shot down on 17-01-1991 by the Iraqis while on a low-
level bombing raid
Mike Stannard
>In article <3v605j$r...@sol.zynet.net> jsho...@glojo.zynet.co.uk (John Shorter) writes:
>>From: jsho...@glojo.zynet.co.uk (John Shorter)
>>Subject: Tornado casualty's in Desert Storm
>>Date: Wed, 26 Jul 1995 18:03:10 GMT
>>vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
>>In Operation Desert Storm the Tornado aircraft appeared to have been
>>very unlucky loosing quite a number of aircraft. I understand that
>>the British version had a very unenviable role. What I would like to
>>know if possible is what ordanance was used to shoot down these
>>aircraft. The mission and circumstance of each casualty, including
>>aircraft flown by other countries. I am led to believe the Italian
>>Tornado's were not used the same way as the British, but they still
>>lost aircraft.
>>In anticipation of a reply. Thank you very much.
>>jsho...@glojo.zynet.co.uk
>There were 8 Italian Tornados in the Gulf War. At their first mission, one had
>to abort because of engine troubles, I think. Out of the other 7, 6 were not
>able to fill up at the tanker because of bad training, and had to return to
>base. The remaining one was shot down when it tried to fulfill the mission.
>Against that, the UK Tornados were very, very brave.
> Joe
British casualties in the gulf are as follows:
1: 17/01/91. ZD791 - hit by flak which set off one of the
aircraft's
own self defence Sidewinders. Both crew ejected; subsequently
beaten and displayed on Iraqi TV
2: 18/01/91. ZA392 - was seen to "hit the ground, 3 minutes
after
weapon release". Both crew killed, including 27 sqn's CO.
3. 19/01/91. ZA396 - hit by Euromissile "Roland" SAM. Both crew
ejected.
4. 22/01/91. ZA467 - shot down while attacking a radar site.
Both
crew killed. No cause listed, SAM or radar guided AAA, your guess
is as good as mine.
5. 23/01/91. ZA403 - downed by premature explosion of it's own
bomb.
Both crew ejected.
6: 14/02/91. ZD717 - hit by 2x SAM2 missiles while on a medium
level
raid. Pilot ejected OK, navigator killed.
Six aircraft lost in combat, although only one (#2) was carrying the
JP233 airfield denial weapon, much criticised in the British press at
the time as the aircraft must fly straight and level over the target.
Most of the early losses were engaged in "Loft Bombing" with iron
bombs. Later in the war, medium level raids with LGB's became more
usual.
Additionally, ZD843 was lost in a flying accident, 20/1/91. Both crew
ejected after it suffered a "control restriction".
Hope this is of interest - the source is "RAF yearbook special -
airwar in the gulf"; published 1991.
MS
jv...@jvoc.demon.co.uk
In article <40o30i$2...@news.dungeon.com>, <St...@madhouse.dungeon.com> writes:
> Path:
news.demon.co.uk!dispatch.news.demon.net!demon!tank.news.pipex.net!pipex!soap.ne
ws.pipex.net!pipex!dish.news.pipex.net!pipex!europa.chnt.gtegsc.com!howland.rest
on.ans.net!EU.net!newsfeed.internetmci.com!news.sprintlink.net!news.azstarnet.co
m!news.cais.net!news.vbc.net!news.vbc.net!dungeon.com!news
> From: St...@madhouse.dungeon.com (Mike Stannard)
> Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
> Subject: Re: Tornado casualty's in Desert Storm
> Date: Tue, 15 Aug 1995 02:03:39 GMT
> Organization: Dungeon Network Systems
> Lines: 69
> Message-ID: <40o30i$2...@news.dungeon.com>
> References: <3v605j$r...@sol.zynet.net>
<e8425654.9...@stud1.tuwien.ac.at>
> Reply-To: St...@madhouse.dungeon.com
> NNTP-Posting-Host: madhouse.dungeon.com
> X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent v0.55
outbreak of hostilities. The aircraft flew into the ground whilst training at
low level over southern Saudi Arabia, no survivors. the second took place at
Tabuk when a Tornado engaged the approach end barrier, (unlit, unmarked and in
the up position) whilst flaring to land. The crew ejected. The aircraft was
totally written off.
>
jv...@jvoc.demon.co.uk
hostilities and occured over southern Saudi when the Gr1 crashed at high speed
and low level. ( Heights/speeds of approx 600 knots and 50 feet were the normal
clearance for sorties). The second occured at Tabuk when a GR1 engaged the
approach end barrier at night whilst flaring to land. The barrier was
(reputedly) unlit, unmarked and up!!). The crew ejected suffering severe
injuries. The aircraft broke it's back and was written off. Additional
casualties included a Jaguar (also high-speed low level) and an F15E which tried
to bounce a formation of Jaguars over Oman at low level. Height above MSL was
over 10K ft. Ht over land was under 5K. F15 did not manage to pull up in time.
>
>
Paul Tomblin
> British casualties in the gulf are as follows:
> 1: 17/01/91. ZD791 - hit by flak which set off one of the
> aircraft's
> own self defence Sidewinders. Both crew ejected; subsequently
> beaten and displayed on Iraqi TV
I know we all assumed they'd had the crap kicked out of them when we saw the
Iraqi's displaying them on TV, but is that really true? I heard other people
saying that they could have achieved that 'just beaten' look by ejecting at
high speed.
--
Paul Tomblin, Contract Programmer, wearer of "The Red Badge of Courage".
I don't speak for Kodak, they don't speak for me.
(Email that is not work related should go to: ptom...@canoe.com)
"It's a Unix system. I know this!"
Gavin Stratford
I read the book TORNADO DOWN and it seems as if the crew did get "a bit
of a kicking".
Gav
Frank Wielbo
>I know we all assumed they'd had the crap kicked out of them when we saw the
>Iraqi's displaying them on TV, but is that really true? I heard other people
>saying that they could have achieved that 'just beaten' look by ejecting at
You should by a copy of the book Tornado Down or see the video. Any
doubts you have about the treament of John Nichols and John Peters will
disappear when you hear about their treament and the treatment of others.
One of my staff, for a period, was the RAF officer allocated to the
family of John Nichols to act as liason officer - and he had a hard time
during the episode.
Our pilots were badly treated - no doubt about that windblast or not
Frank
If my son wants to become a pilot in the RAF he will have to read the
book and watch the film several times.
Alan Cameron
>Mike Stannard (St...@madhouse.dungeon.com) wrote:
>> British casualties in the gulf are as follows:
>> 1: 17/01/91. ZD791 - hit by flak which set off one of the
>> aircraft's
>> own self defence Sidewinders. Both crew ejected; subsequently
>> beaten and displayed on Iraqi TV
>I know we all assumed they'd had the crap kicked out of them when we saw the
>Iraqi's displaying them on TV, but is that really true? I heard other people
>saying that they could have achieved that 'just beaten' look by ejecting at
>high speed.
>--
>Paul Tomblin, Contract Programmer, wearer of "The Red Badge of Courage".
>I don't speak for Kodak, they don't speak for me.
>(Email that is not work related should go to: ptom...@canoe.com)
>"It's a Unix system. I know this!"
The two you speak of wrote a book called Tornado Down. In it they tell
you in graphic detail..Yes they did sustain some injuries on ejection
but they also had the shit kicked out of them by their Iraq hosts.
Alan Cameron
al...@easynet.co.uk