Attack on Runways
Mark Van Alstine
Shorter) wrote:
> Ever since Operation Desert Storm the media has regularly
> shown "Smart Weapons" destroying targets. What I believe
> has never been shown is the destruction of Iraq's Airfields
> and in particular the actual runway. Has anyone any input on
> this matter please.
>
U.K. Tornados used 106 JP233s for runway denial against Iraqi airfields in
Desert Storm.
"The JP233 is a heavy-weight airfield attack and area-denial submunition
dispenser with 30 concrete-penetrating and 215 are-denial bomblets. The
concrete-penetrating bomblets are parachute-retarded and fall to the
ground in a nearly vertical trajectory. A contact fuze detonates on impact
to open a hole through which a seconf charge is fired to penetrate and
detonate, thus creating a large crater. The area-denial minelets are
fitted with disturbance fuzes and variable self-destruct fuzes to slow
enemy repair teams."
"Gulf War Air Power Survey, Volume V", p.82.
Mark
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Gradually it was disclosed to me that the line separating good and evil passes
not through states, nor between classes, nor between political parties--but
right through every human heart--and all human hearts."
-- Alexander Solzhenitsyn, "The Gulag Archipelago"
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
John Weiss
Ever since Operation Desert Storm the media has regularly
shown "Smart Weapons" destroying targets. What I believe
has never been shown is the destruction of Iraq's Airfields
and in particular the actual runway. Has anyone any input on
this matter please.
repairable damage, when compared with attack of other airfield targets.
Hitting the aircraft themselves, fuel or supply storage, hangars, or barracks
will likely yield more significant, less easily repaired, damage.
----
John Weiss -- jrw...@seanet.com
Kaki Gemmell/Kevin Renshaw
shelters, one at a time with GBU-27 2000 lb laser guided weapons.
A short story told to me by a F-117 pilot:
One night the Air Tasking Orders (ATO) came out late, and the F-117s had
already been loaded with GBU-10 blast/frag guided bombs. It was too late
to change loads, so they went after the shelters anyway. The targets
that night were some newer shelters that the French had built for Iraq,
and the blast/frag warheads only dented them. They Iraqis thought" Hey
those French shelters are bulletproof" and moved 3 and 4 aircraft into
each shelter. A few nights later, the Nighthawks came back with the
right concrete penetrating bombs, and collected some bonus hits. They
didn't know it until the post war inspections.
Kevin R
Mary Shafer
John> Ever since Operation Desert Storm the media has regularly shown
John> "Smart Weapons" destroying targets. What I believe has never
John> been shown is the destruction of Iraq's Airfields and in
John> particular the actual runway. Has anyone any input on this
John> matter please.
That job fell to the RAF Tornados, using Durandals (or whatever
they're currently called). Unfortunately for the purposes of
publicity, these weapons are delivered by flying low and fast, so
there's no good video. You'd need an aft-facing tail camera, at
least--HUDs look the wrong way, for example.
Smart weapons aren't that great at piercing and destroying large
quantities of concrete--vide the "Bunker Buster" that they made out of
a howitzer barrel. A pretty dumb but very effective bomb. If making
it smart would have helped, that would have been the smartest weapon
in the theater. As it is, smartness is a waste if you want to pierce
and destroy concrete.
Now flying down airshafts and blowing up concrete from inside is a
different matter. That's where the smartness helps. The same is true
of the relatively-delicate bridge arches.
--
Mary Shafer NASA Dryden Flight Research Center, Edwards, CA
SR-71 Flying Qualities Lead Engineer Of course I don't speak for NASA
sha...@ferhino.dfrc.nasa.gov DoD #362 KotFR
URL http://www.dfrc.nasa.gov/People/Shafer/mary.html
Steve Sampson
>
>That job fell to the RAF Tornados, using Durandals (or whatever
>they're currently called). Unfortunately for the purposes of
>publicity, these weapons are delivered by flying low and fast, so
>there's no good video. You'd need an aft-facing tail camera, at
>least--HUDs look the wrong way, for example.
I think that's the best answer. The only video or photos would be
done by a recce sortie before and after.
The airbase at Al Salam (spelled wrong probably) was a bit different
though. It was taken out with cluster bombs. The reason being,
that we wanted the base for operations. After the French captured
it, it was cleaned up and used as a forward base. Also the central
AWACS orbit was moved up over the base. It was a great plan, but
it cost a lot of lives. The bomblets were bulldozed into a big
pile which promptly blew up and killed everyone within range. I
think it was the biggest loss of the war, until the SCUD hit the
barracks in Saudi.
Dwayne Allen Day
: Now flying down airshafts and blowing up concrete from inside is a
: different matter. That's where the smartness helps. The same is true
: of the relatively-delicate bridge arches.
On a related note, I recently attended a symposium at Andrews AFB where
they discussed LGBs. The person discussing them mentioned the famous
Than Hoa bridge in Vietnam that was brought down with an LGB. He noted
that an important fact was often left out of the discussion: because of
the long-standing view that bridges were strategic targets, it was always
believed that they would be taken out by nuclear weapons. As a result,
the US didn't have a lot of large heavy conventional bombs sitting around
during the Vietnam War. The bridge had been hit in key spots litterally
hundreds of times--by bombs that were too small to bring it down. The
first LGB was also a much bigger bomb than used before and it was more
the size of the bomb used than the "smartness" of the weapon that brought
down the bridge.
D-Day
--
"It's such a lovely country, France, and there are so few people in it.
I think we should invade again."--Douglas Adams
Ed Rasimus
>On a related note, I recently attended a symposium at Andrews AFB where
>they discussed LGBs. The person discussing them mentioned the famous
>Than Hoa bridge in Vietnam that was brought down with an LGB. He noted
>that an important fact was often left out of the discussion: because of
>the long-standing view that bridges were strategic targets, it was always
>believed that they would be taken out by nuclear weapons. As a result,
>the US didn't have a lot of large heavy conventional bombs sitting around
>during the Vietnam War. The bridge had been hit in key spots litterally
>hundreds of times--by bombs that were too small to bring it down. The
>first LGB was also a much bigger bomb than used before and it was more
>the size of the bomb used than the "smartness" of the weapon that brought
>down the bridge.
>
Not at all true. As strange as it might seem during a period when
SecDef McNamara repeatedly reassured the public that there was no bomb
shortage, the primary weapon of the F-105's, the M-117 750 pound GP
bomb was in extremely short supply. The replacement which was dug out
of the WWII supplies was the M-118, 3000 pound bomb. The 105 was the
only tactical fighter in the inventory which could carry this weapon
due to it's high wing configuration which allowed for ground
clearance. The 3000 pounders were always carried and dropped in pairs.
The Thanh Hoa bridge did indeed survive until the introduction of LGBs
during Linebacker, but it was not because of lack of heavy enough
bombs. The defenses of the area made precise delivery of unguided
munitions extremely difficult. Early attempts with AGM-12B Bullpups
failed due to the small charge of that weapon. A heavier warhead,
AGM-12C bullpup was developed, but never succeeded in bringing down
the bridge.
The bombing cessation in late '68 delayed the dropping of the Dragon
Jaw bridge until Linebacker in April '72. The weapon of choice by that
time was a Pave Knife, 2000 pound LGB delivered by F-4D out of Ubon.
The bridge was not hit "literally hundreds of times" and there was
never a shortage of large conventional bombs.
Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (ret)
Mark Van Alstine
(Dwayne Allen Day) wrote:
> Mary Shafer (sha...@ferhino.dfrc.nasa.gov) wrote:
>
> : Now flying down airshafts and blowing up concrete from inside is a
> : different matter. That's where the smartness helps. The same is true
> : of the relatively-delicate bridge arches.
>
> On a related note, I recently attended a symposium at Andrews AFB where
> they discussed LGBs. The person discussing them mentioned the famous
> Than Hoa bridge in Vietnam that was brought down with an LGB. He noted
> that an important fact was often left out of the discussion: because of
> the long-standing view that bridges were strategic targets, it was always
> believed that they would be taken out by nuclear weapons. As a result,
> the US didn't have a lot of large heavy conventional bombs sitting around
> during the Vietnam War. The bridge had been hit in key spots litterally
> hundreds of times--by bombs that were too small to bring it down. The
> first LGB was also a much bigger bomb than used before and it was more
> the size of the bomb used than the "smartness" of the weapon that brought
> down the bridge.
The Dragons' Jaw bridge bridge at Thanh Hoa was _never_ dropped or put out
of service during the Vietnam war using "dumb" bombs. (A lot of aircrews
were lost trying too.) And the Paul Doumer bridge, another tough nut, was
only temporarily damaged. It wasn't until LGBs were used on the bridges
that they would be dropped. The Paul Doumer bridge was attacked, using
2,000 lb. LGBs, from the 8th TFW on May 10, 1972. The bridge was heavily
damaged. The 8th TFW attacked the next day, again using LGBs, and dropped
several spans into the river. The Dragons' Jaw bridge, by far the nastiest
target of the war, was attacked by the 8th TFW on May 13, 1972, with
3,000 lb. LGBs. The _entire_ bridge was dropped into the river. I don't
think any aircraft were lost in the process. The use of PGMs was a pretty
radical, and successful, development in warfare. Still is too.
In the case of both bridges, it _was_ the "smarts" of the bombs used
rather than their size that mattered. 2,000 lb. were pretty standard fair
against targets like bridges. (The 3,000 lb. bombs used against the
Dragons' Jaw bridge, however, were specially built.) Using PGMs allowed
the (relatively) small number of strike aircraft to dash in and drop
their loads from altitudes above AAA range with greater precision than
lower altitude attacks (which exposed aircraft to AAA) with "dumb" bombs
could achieve. And that too, is still true, as Desert Storm proved.
Maury Markowitz
> The airbase at Al Salam (spelled wrong probably) was a bit different
> though. It was taken out with cluster bombs. The reason being,
> that we wanted the base for operations. After the French captured
> it, it was cleaned up and used as a forward base. Also the central
> AWACS orbit was moved up over the base. It was a great plan, but
> it cost a lot of lives. The bomblets were bulldozed into a big
> pile which promptly blew up and killed everyone within range. I
> think it was the biggest loss of the war, until the SCUD hit the
> barracks in Saudi.
Exactly _when_ did this take place? I knew of the forward bases the US
special forces teams set up, but I've found it very hard to find
comparable information on the SAS and Paras.
Maury
Terra Corp.
: On Sun, 26 Nov 1995 11:33:28 GMT, jsho...@glojo.zynet.co.uk (John Shorter) said:
: John> Ever since Operation Desert Storm the media has regularly shown
: John> "Smart Weapons" destroying targets. What I believe has never
: John> been shown is the destruction of Iraq's Airfields and in
: John> particular the actual runway. Has anyone any input on this
: John> matter please.
: That job fell to the RAF Tornados, using Durandals (or whatever
: they're currently called). Unfortunately for the purposes of
: publicity, these weapons are delivered by flying low and fast, so
: there's no good video. You'd need an aft-facing tail camera, at
: least--HUDs look the wrong way, for example.
The Tornado's weapon of choice (for runway denial) is the HB873 (I think
that's the number.) It's a bomblet dropped from a semi-conformal pod on
the belly of the Tornado as it flys down the runway at 100-200 feet.
The HB873 is a nasty little thing, about the size of a 1 lb. coffee can
with spring "fingers" sticking out. The fingers cause it to turn upright
after landing. About 20% will detonate shortly thereafter, firing a
shaped charge into the runway leaving a 2-3 ft crater. The rest have
random fuze times (up to 3 days, I believe) and a motion trigger. The
random fuzes will keep EOD away and the motion sensor will keep them from
bulldozing them (when tipped over it will fire, blowing a hole through
the dozer.)
The trouble in DS was that the Iraqis put up enough small arms fire that
they brought down 2 or 3 Tornados in the first week. After that they
shifted to high(er) altitude weapons instead.
Gerry
--
_
|_||||||||| > Terra Avionics "Fly the Lights"
= Gerry Caron
= Product Development Engineer | "Unless stated, opinions
= gca...@rt66.com | are mine, not those of
= | my employer."
Terra Corp. |--------------------------
3520 Pan American Fwy NE (505) 884-2321
v Albuquerque NM 87107-4796 FAX: (505) 884-2384
Charles K. Scott
> wayn...@gwis2.circ.gwu.edu (Dwayne Allen Day) wrote:
>
>
> >On a related note, I recently attended a symposium at Andrews AFB where
> >they discussed LGBs. The person discussing them mentioned the famous
> >Than Hoa bridge in Vietnam that was brought down with an LGB. He noted
> >that an important fact was often left out of the discussion: because of
> >the long-standing view that bridges were strategic targets, it was always
> >believed that they would be taken out by nuclear weapons. As a result,
> >the US didn't have a lot of large heavy conventional bombs sitting around
> >during the Vietnam War. The bridge had been hit in key spots litterally
> >hundreds of times--by bombs that were too small to bring it down. The
> >first LGB was also a much bigger bomb than used before and it was more
> >the size of the bomb used than the "smartness" of the weapon that brought
> >down the bridge.
Then In article <30ba377a....@news.rmii.com>
thu...@rmii.com (Ed Rasimus) writes:
> Not at all true. As strange as it might seem during a period when
> SecDef McNamara repeatedly reassured the public that there was no bomb
> shortage, the primary weapon of the F-105's, the M-117 750 pound GP
> bomb was in extremely short supply. The replacement which was dug out
> of the WWII supplies was the M-118, 3000 pound bomb. The 105 was the
> only tactical fighter in the inventory which could carry this weapon
> due to it's high wing configuration which allowed for ground
> clearance. The 3000 pounders were always carried and dropped in pairs.
>
> The Thanh Hoa bridge did indeed survive until the introduction of LGBs
> during Linebacker, but it was not because of lack of heavy enough
> bombs. The defenses of the area made precise delivery of unguided
> munitions extremely difficult. Early attempts with AGM-12B Bullpups
> failed due to the small charge of that weapon. A heavier warhead,
> AGM-12C bullpup was developed, but never succeeded in bringing down
> the bridge.
>
> The bombing cessation in late '68 delayed the dropping of the Dragon
> Jaw bridge until Linebacker in April '72. The weapon of choice by that
> time was a Pave Knife, 2000 pound LGB delivered by F-4D out of Ubon.
>
> The bridge was not hit "literally hundreds of times" and there was
> never a shortage of large conventional bombs.
In the book "On Yankee Station"
- 1 -
Author: Nichols, John B.
Title: On Yankee station : the naval air war over
Vietnam /
John B. Nichols and Barrett Tillman.
Imprint: Annapolis, Md. : Naval Institute Press, c1987.
Location: Baker Stacks DS/558.8/N53/1987
John Nichols makes exactly your point but takes the explanation a step
further. Much of the reason for the bridge withstanding so many
attacks had nothing to do with lack of adaquately sized bombs. The
main problem was that the pilots were not allowed to attack in the most
sensible bomb run. The armchair warriors from Washington dictated the
approach and bomb run direction and because of criticisms of collateral
(ie civilian casualties) the pilots were ordered to attack flying along
the river instead of slightly diagonally across the bridge (in the
direction of the bridge) which is the best attack angle when using dumb
bombs. Since the bridge was important to North Vietnam, and it had
been attacked repeatedly, and the attacking aircraft seemed to be
attacking from the same direction all the time (right along the river)
the North Vietnamese simply lined the river with AAA. They knew that
the target was the bridge so they just sighted the guns along the
approach route and at the first sign of an attack, opened fire and
fired continuously straight up across the flightpath any aircraft must
fly in order to bomb the bridge. Needless to say, many planes were
lost attacking that bridge and because of the approach to bomb, the
bombs had only a tiny fraction of a chance of actually hitting the
bridge and in this case, a close miss was worthless, only a direct hit
really did any damage.
The book mentions a French correspondant who visited the carrier and
told the pilots what it was like living in downtown Hanoi during a
bombing attack. He ran to an air raid shelter and the AAA began
firing. He said the concussion of the nearby AAA was unbelievably loud
and shook him and everyone in the shelter and reached full volume
instantly and continued unabated for 5 minutes. When the last shell
was fired, he got up to go out but was harshly stopped by a security
guard who told him to wait. He began to hear tinkling and thuds
outside which continued in a steady pattern for 5 more minutes. When
he walked outside, every street and building was covered with a grey
layer of shrappnel.
Corky Scott
Matt Clonfero
> The Dragons' Jaw bridge bridge at Thanh Hoa was _never_ dropped or put out
> of service during the Vietnam war using "dumb" bombs. (A lot of aircrews
> were lost trying too.) And the Paul Doumer bridge, another tough nut, was
> only temporarily damaged. It wasn't until LGBs were used on the bridges
> that they would be dropped. The Paul Doumer bridge was attacked, using
> 2,000 lb. LGBs, from the 8th TFW on May 10, 1972. The bridge was heavily
> damaged. The 8th TFW attacked the next day, again using LGBs, and dropped
> several spans into the river. The Dragons' Jaw bridge, by far the nastiest
> target of the war, was attacked by the 8th TFW on May 13, 1972, with
> 3,000 lb. LGBs. The _entire_ bridge was dropped into the river. I don't
> think any aircraft were lost in the process. The use of PGMs was a pretty
> radical, and successful, development in warfare. Still is too.
16 F-4s attacked te Paul Doumer bridge on 10 May 1972; 12 were carrying
LGBs (or was it 11, with one sent up north with a designator but no bombs
due to an admin foul-up - my memory is a bit patchy). The other 4 were
carrying EOGBs. No EOGBs hit the target.
Aetherem Vincere
Matt.
--
===============================================================================
Matt Clonfero (ma...@aetherem.demon.co.uk) | To err is human,
My employer & I have a deal - they don't | To forgive is not Air Force Policy.
speak for me, and I don't speak for them. | -- Anon, ETPS
Mary Shafer
MC> 16 F-4s attacked te Paul Doumer bridge on 10 May 1972; 12 were
MC> carrying LGBs (or was it 11, with one sent up north with a
MC> designator but no bombs due to an admin foul-up - my memory is a
MC> bit patchy). The other 4 were carrying EOGBs. No EOGBs hit the
MC> target.
Those were USAF F-4s; the USN also launched two alpha strikes that
day, with F-4s, A-7s, RA-5 Viggies for recce, etc, also against the
Paul Doumier Bridge. That was the "One Day in a Long War" (Ethell &
Price). Cunningham and Driscoll made their aces and got shot down and
rescued, while Ritchie got his first MiG that day. At least one USAF
F-4 driver got shot down that day; he E&Ed for something like two
weeks (a record for SEA) before they retrieved him. At least one
other pilot was shot down and taken prisoner.
There are two incredibly good photos in the book. One is of an A-7
coming off the target, with the bridge in the background, one span in
the water, AA everywhere. The other is of an exploding SAM, taken
from the Viggie it was chasing and damaged (the shrapnel went through
the Viggie without touching a single vital component).
IAN WATSON
>
>On Sun, 26 Nov 1995 11:33:28 GMT, jsho...@glojo.zynet.co.uk (John Shorter) said:
>
>John> Ever since Operation Desert Storm the media has regularly shown
>John> "Smart Weapons" destroying targets. What I believe has never
>John> been shown is the destruction of Iraq's Airfields and in
>John> particular the actual runway. Has anyone any input on this
>John> matter please.
>
>That job fell to the RAF Tornados, using Durandals (or whatever
>they're currently called).
Are you sure they were Durandals - not JP233's
jsh...@intercenter.net
>The HB873 is a nasty little thing, about the size of a 1 lb. coffee can
>with spring "fingers" sticking out. The fingers cause it to turn upright
>after landing.
If I remember correctly, this is a two part dispenser made by
Hunting in the UK. There is the part you describe (the "coffee can")
and also a strictly anti-personnel bomblet that is intended to prevent
repairs to the runway by threatening the personnel.
Another reason that the Tornados were having a tough time was the fact
that the munition would give best coverage when released along the
length of the runway. That's a high threat target.
John S. Shinal
jsh...@intercenter.net -or- comd...@vnet.net
Matt Clonfero
> The Tornado's weapon of choice (for runway denial) is the HB873 (I think
> that's the number.) It's a bomblet dropped from a semi-conformal pod on
> the belly of the Tornado as it flys down the runway at 100-200 feet.
>
> The HB873 is a nasty little thing, about the size of a 1 lb. coffee can
> with spring "fingers" sticking out. The fingers cause it to turn upright
> after landing. About 20% will detonate shortly thereafter, firing a
> shaped charge into the runway leaving a 2-3 ft crater. The rest have
> random fuze times (up to 3 days, I believe) and a motion trigger. The
> random fuzes will keep EOD away and the motion sensor will keep them from
> bulldozing them (when tipped over it will fire, blowing a hole through
> the dozer.)
This is pretty confused. The Tornado GR.1 uses the JP233 on anti-runway
missions. This is the dispenser mentioned above - though it's pretty far
from conformal. It's a huge boxy weapon, carried in pairs under the
fuselage. It drops two types of munition. First, the runway cratering bomb,
that uses a two stage detonation to heavy up lumps of the surface, making for
a hard repair job. These all go off straight away. Secondly, the area-denial
munition. This is the mine with the spring legs, designed to keep the repair
crews at bay. The weapon was designed so that a six-ship attack could render
measured in days.
> The trouble in DS was that the Iraqis put up enough small arms fire that
> they brought down 2 or 3 Tornados in the first week. After that they
> shifted to high(er) altitude weapons instead.
Arrgh. Stop saying this. Only one Tornado GR.1 was lost on a JP-233 mission.
Aetherem Vincere
Matt.
--
===============================================================================
Matt Clonfero (ma...@aetherem.demon.co.uk) | To err is human,
My employer & I have a deal - they don't | To forgive is not Air Force Policy.
speak for me, and I don't speak for them. | -- Anon, ETPS
Matt Clonfero
> Those were USAF F-4s; the USN also launched two alpha strikes that
> day, with F-4s, A-7s, RA-5 Viggies for recce, etc, also against the
> Paul Doumier Bridge. That was the "One Day in a Long War" (Ethell &
> Price). Cunningham and Driscoll made their aces and got shot down and
> rescued, while Ritchie got his first MiG that day. At least one USAF
> F-4 driver got shot down that day; he E&Ed for something like two
> weeks (a record for SEA) before they retrieved him. At least one
> other pilot was shot down and taken prisoner.
Erm, no. There were three USN strikes on 10 May 1972. The morning strike
was against Haiphong docks, with a secondary strike at Kien An airfield;
the midday strike was against Hai Dong rail yard (this was the action that
led to Cunningham & Driscoll's three kills); and the afternoon strikes were
against the port of Hon Gai and the road and rail bridge at Cam Pha.
Hanoi was in Route Package 6A - part of the USAF's area of responsibility.
USAF losses:
F-4D, 555TFS. Maj Lodge KIA, Capt Locher rescued after 23 days E&E
F-4E, 334TFS. Capt Harris & Capt Wilkinson KIA
The person taken prisoner was Lt Rudloff, a F-4J RIO from VF-92.
> There are two incredibly good photos in the book. One is of an A-7
> coming off the target, with the bridge in the background, one span in
> the water, AA everywhere. The other is of an exploding SAM, taken
> from the Viggie it was chasing and damaged (the shrapnel went through
> the Viggie without touching a single vital component).
The book is excellent - I'd recommend it to anyone with an interest in
the Vietnam War.
Mary Shafer
IAN> In article <SHAFER.95N...@ferhino.dfrf.nasa.gov>, sha...@ferhino.dfrc.nasa.gov
IAN> (Mary Shafer) says:
>
>On Sun, 26 Nov 1995 11:33:28 GMT, jsho...@glojo.zynet.co.uk (John Shorter) said:
>
>John> Ever since Operation Desert Storm the media has regularly shown
>John> "Smart Weapons" destroying targets. What I believe has never
>John> been shown is the destruction of Iraq's Airfields and in John>
>particular the actual runway. Has anyone any input on this John>
>matter please.
>
>That job fell to the RAF Tornados, using Durandals (or whatever
>they're currently called).
IAN> Are you sure they were Durandals - not JP233's
No, I'm not. Actually, I'm pretty sure they weren't Durandals, but
JP-233's. It happens--I probably couldn't have remembered the number
to save my life (I have a terrible memory for numbers--some of it
cultivated when I worked on classified aircraft and found that I
couldn't tell someone something restricted if I couldn't remember it
to begin with) and for some reason I thought that the JP233 was the
Durandal. Of course, about when I hit "send" I realized my error.
But my original point is still valid--the only ways to get video of the
destruction of the concrete would be
1. an aft-facing camera mounted at the back of the aircraft
2. standing by the runway with a camcorder as the ordnance fell.
For some reason, neither happened (actually not having 2 happen proved
that newsfolks were smarter than I'd originally thought).
Mark Van Alstine
(IAN WATSON) wrote:
> Are you sure they were Durandals - not JP233's
They were JP233's.
Paul Jonathan Adam
> The Tornado's weapon of choice (for runway denial) is the HB873 (I think
> that's the number.) It's a bomblet dropped from a semi-conformal pod on
> the belly of the Tornado as it flys down the runway at 100-200 feet.
Close. The munition in question is the JP233, which carries 430 HB.876
area denial mines (I snipped this person's largely-accurate description):
they have a cunning arrangement of sprung fingers to stand them upright
on landing, then they detonate on time or disturbance. Area fragmentation,
plus a self-forming fragment AP element (designed to damage any bulldozer
that tries to just shove it out of the way). It makes cleaning up the
area difficult, as well as damaging any parked aircraft in fragmentation
range.
It also carries 60 SG.357 cratering munitions, which use a smallish HEAT
warhead to drill a hole in the concrete and then fire a follow-through
charge into that hole, creating an area of heaved concrete rather than
a crater (harder to fix).
These are packaged into the JP233 pod, and the Tornado carries two.
Quite a useful weapon.
> The trouble in DS was that the Iraqis put up enough small arms fire that
> they brought down 2 or 3 Tornados in the first week. After that they
> shifted to high(er) altitude weapons instead.
Actually, although several GR.1s were lost in low-level attack, only one
of those was a JP.233 carrier and the problem was - allegedly - the
fact that the Tornados were operating *extremely* low on terrain-following
radar, and sand dunes are not always opaque to TFRs.
--
"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." <R.A. Lafferty>
Paul J. Adam pa...@jrwlynch.demon.co.uk
MARK DONALDSON
>These are packaged into the JP233 pod, and the Tornado carries two.
>Quite a useful weapon.
Only two? Is that adequate coverage or do they drop them one after the other?
I thought they would carry more for some reason, can anyone tell me how much
each unit weighs?
Corsair
__________________________________________________________
CAG of "The Jolly Rogers" Simulation Squadron
__________________________________________________________
Web CAG of The Unofficial "Jolly Rogers" Site
http://www-home.calumet.yorku.ca/mdonalds/www/home.htm
__________________________________________________________
The 3 Rules of ACM:
* Speed is Life
* Lose Sight - Lose Fight
* If You're Not Cheating - You're Not Trying Hard Enough
__________________________________________________________
Anthony de Vries
>In article <SHAFER.95N...@ferhino.dfrf.nasa.gov>, sha...@ferhino.dfrc.nasa.gov
>(Mary Shafer) says:
>>
>>On Sun, 26 Nov 1995 11:33:28 GMT, jsho...@glojo.zynet.co.uk (John Shorter) said:
>>
>>John> Ever since Operation Desert Storm the media has regularly shown
>>John> "Smart Weapons" destroying targets. What I believe has never
>>John> been shown is the destruction of Iraq's Airfields and in
>>John> particular the actual runway. Has anyone any input on this
>>John> matter please.
>>
>>That job fell to the RAF Tornados, using Durandals (or whatever
>>they're currently called).
>
>Are you sure they were Durandals - not JP233's
I'm very sure Tornado's did NOT use Durandals at all in DS, only JP233.
IMO the JP233 is a much more effective weapon than the Durandal,
but is more diffucult to carry it. (Very large and heavy...)
But even in the few airfield attack F-111 missions I've read about, they
used some sort of anti-airfield clusterbomb (don't remember it's name..
was some sort of exotic CBU-number) , and not Durandals.
Anthony.
Mad Dan Eccles
>
> The JP233 is captive during weapon release...it's not dropped like a
> canister type munition. I assume that they bring the empty pods back
> (but I'm no expert).
I think you'll find that they dump the canisters when they're empty.
I read a report from a Tornado pilot (a bit jazzed up admittedly) and he said
he felt the canisters fall away.
Richard
--
Richard P. Grant MA DPhil rpg...@molbiol.ox.ac.uk
Nuffield Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, University of Oxford.
http://sable.ox.ac.uk/~lady0266
"Winds light to variable"
jsh...@intercenter.net
>In article <817674...@jrwlynch.demon.co.uk> Paul Jonathan Adam <Pa...@jrwlynch.demon.co.uk> writes:
>>These are packaged into the JP233 pod, and the Tornado carries two.
>>Quite a useful weapon.
>Only two? Is that adequate coverage or do they drop them one after the other?
>I thought they would carry more for some reason, can anyone tell me how much
>each unit weighs?
I saw a development program photograph years ago in Defense Update
an Israeli magazine that was available for a while in the USA
(published by Eshel Dramit, I think).
It showed the Tornado from below, with the bomblets pouring out of
the JP233s. ejecting from the front and rear of the pods, and being
thrown out in quite a swarm, too. Both pods appeared to be dropping
bomblets at the same time. Both type of munitions were being released
from the pods as well.
The JP233 is captive during weapon release...it's not dropped like a
canister type munition. I assume that they bring the empty pods back
(but I'm no expert).
The JP233 pods are impressive in size when you see them under the
Tornado. I think two of these would pollute most runways rather
badly.
Ron Cocuzzi
>But even in the few airfield attack F-111 missions I've read about, they
>used some sort of anti-airfield clusterbomb (don't remember it's name..
>was some sort of exotic CBU-number) , and not Durandals.
>
Rockeye and APAMs expended. The French used BAP-100 for anti-runway
missions. I've also heard that the US DID use some Durandals??? Any
thoughts???
Ron
Virginia Beach
Erik Svensson
: In article <SHAFER.95N...@ferhino.dfrf.nasa.gov>, sha...@ferhino.dfrc.nasa.gov
: (Mary Shafer) says:
: >
: >On Sun, 26 Nov 1995 11:33:28 GMT, jsho...@glojo.zynet.co.uk (John Shorter) said:
: >they're currently called).
: Are you sure they were Durandals - not JP233's
No, RAF didn't use Durandal, a weapon the RAF doesn't possess AFAIK. They
did use the JP233 with good results. One major problem was that the Iraqi
air bases were so big that the RAF had to attack the runways leading from
the shelters rather than the actual runways used for T/O.
JP233 is rather limited in the attack profile. Does anybody know about the
limitations of Durandal?
cheers
Erik Svensson, Member of DNRC
My employer has no say in this
--
In Memoriam Roger Zelazny, 1937 - 1995
"There's a trapdoor in the Sun..." -- Pearl Jam
Charles Greig
mdon...@calumet.yorku.ca (MARK DONALDSON) wrote:
>In article <817674...@jrwlynch.demon.co.uk> Paul Jonathan Adam
<Pa...@jrwlynch.demon.co.uk> writes:
>
>>These are packaged into the JP233 pod, and the Tornado carries two.
>>Quite a useful weapon.
>
>Only two? Is that adequate coverage or do they drop them one after the other?
>I thought they would carry more for some reason, can anyone tell me how much
>each unit weighs?
You can take this with a grain of salt seeing as how it's from a book 7 years
out of date, but here's the info I have, Mark:
"The RAF Tornado GR.1 carries two JP233 pods under the fuselage, each
containing 30 SG357's and 215 HB876's, and weighing 5150lb (2335kg). The
SG357s are carried in a vertical plane, nose-up at 30 degrees from the
horizontal. They are ejected downwards by individual hot gas systems,
breaking through frangible covers in the base of the pod. They are initially
stabilized by metal fins, then retarded and pitched nose-down by parachutes.
Runway penetration is achieved by means of a tandem warhead (like STABO). The
HB876 submunitions are dispensed downwards through tubes inclined outboard at
15 degrees or 35 degrees from the vertical. They decend on parachutes, and on
landing are turned upright by spring-loaded petals."
From "Aircraft Weaponry of Today" by Roy Braybook ISDN 0-85429-634-4
If I were more awake, I'd have paraphrased it so sorry about a long direct
quote.
Life's short, so what the hell... Drink Jolt! -- Twice the karma!
``Opinions expressed are mine alone, but as soon as I figure out how
to force everyone to accept them, I will.'' - Disclaimer
cs93...@ariel.cs.yorku.ca - www.lookup.com/Homepages/61642/home.html
Paul Jonathan Adam
> In article <817674...@jrwlynch.demon.co.uk> Paul Jonathan Adam
> <Pa...@jrwlynch.demon.co.uk> writes:
> >These are packaged into the JP233 pod, and the Tornado carries two.
> >Quite a useful weapon.
>
> Only two? Is that adequate coverage or do they drop them one after the other?
> I thought they would carry more for some reason, can anyone tell me how much
> each unit weighs?
A pair of JP233 pods weigh about five tons AFAIK. 120 SG.357 and 860 HB.876
mines make a pretty impressive mess. I think they are dispensed simultaneously
(playing DI's Tornado gives a dispense time of four seconds) but don't know
for sure.
Ed Rasimus
>. That was the "One Day in a Long War" (Ethell &
>Price). Cunningham and Driscoll made their aces and got shot down and
>rescued, while Ritchie got his first MiG that day. At least one USAF
>F-4 driver got shot down that day; he E&Ed for something like two
>weeks (a record for SEA) before they retrieved him. At least one
>other pilot was shot down and taken prisoner.
>
The E&E er was Roger Locher.
Damien Burke
|> Mary Shafer (sha...@ferhino.dfrc.nasa.gov) wrote:
|> : On Sun, 26 Nov 1995 11:33:28 GMT, jsho...@glojo.zynet.co.uk (John Shorter) said:
|>
|> : John> "Smart Weapons" destroying targets. What I believe has never
|> : John> been shown is the destruction of Iraq's Airfields and in
|> : John> particular the actual runway. Has anyone any input on this
|> : John> matter please.
|>
|> : publicity, these weapons are delivered by flying low and fast, so
|> : there's no good video. You'd need an aft-facing tail camera, at
|> : least--HUDs look the wrong way, for example.
|>
|> that's the number.) It's a bomblet dropped from a semi-conformal pod on
|> the belly of the Tornado as it flys down the runway at 100-200 feet.
Sounds right to me; the JP233 is the dispensing pod, the HB873 is one of the
two types of munitions it dispenses. Or so it says on that there JP233 pod at
the RAF Museum...
|> The trouble in DS was that the Iraqis put up enough small arms fire that
|> they brought down 2 or 3 Tornados in the first week. After that they
|> shifted to high(er) altitude weapons instead.
Hmmm... I don't think too many Tornados were lost to 'small arms fire'! Ruddy
great missiles and shitloads of anti-aircraft cannons maybe! The RAF has
always maintained that the switch to higher altitude bombing occurred because
the low-level missions were no longer necessary; either they were satisfied
with the damage already done or the continued non-appearance of the Iraqi
air force meant further JP233/dumb bomb low-level missions weren't necessary.
--
[ Damien Burke | Software Engineering | Email: D.M.Burk...@cs.bham.ac.uk ]
[ My world wide web home: | http://www.cs.bham.ac.uk/~dmb ]
[ Sinclair Spectrum page: | http://www.cs.bham.ac.uk/~dmb/speccy ]
[ European military aircraft page: | http://www.cs.bham.ac.uk/~dmb/hangar ]
Terra Corp.
: IAN WATSON (IAN.W...@Sunderland.Ac.UK) wrote:
: : In article <SHAFER.95N...@ferhino.dfrf.nasa.gov>, sha...@ferhino.dfrc.nasa.gov
: : (Mary Shafer) says:
: : >
: : >That job fell to the RAF Tornados, using Durandals (or whatever
: : >they're currently called).
: : Are you sure they were Durandals - not JP233's
: No, RAF didn't use Durandal, a weapon the RAF doesn't possess AFAIK. They
: did use the JP233 with good results. One major problem was that the Iraqi
: air bases were so big that the RAF had to attack the runways leading from
: the shelters rather than the actual runways used for T/O.
: JP233 is rather limited in the attack profile. Does anybody know about the
: limitations of Durandal?
The Durandal does have a wider, though not great, delivery envelope. The
real drawback to it is that it is a unitary warhead-it takes a whole bunch
to render a runway unusable, and since the number an a/c can carry is
limited, it takes a more sorties to be effective. More sorties means
greater attrition and less opportunity to go after other targets.
The US releys mostly on the Combined Effects Munition and Gator cluster
bombs. They don't do a lot of runway damage, but they make life
miserable for anybody trying to use the field.
BTW, the CEM was the US weapon of choice for 'soft' targets. They dropped
something like 11,000 of them in DS.
(Oh, and thanks for the clarifications on the JP233 and Tornadoes. I was
at Eglin during DS, and we got good feedback from our troops, but data
from our partners was spotty.)
Mary Shafer
AP> What is E&E ????????????
Escape and Evasion. Sorry about slipping into jargon and acronyms.
BUFFIRN
so a Tornado back-seater told me. That was a problem, because the
training pod never did that. It was a surprise to feel them drop off.
Jim Williams
Crusty old BUFF guy
"I speak for no one!"
BUFFIRN
the mining of the airfields. B-52's out of Diego Garcia dropped CBU-87
Gator mines and 1000 lb class mines on the airfield. They don't destroy
alot, but they sure do make it tough to get around.
rick...@phxonline.com
> The bombing cessation in late '68 delayed the dropping of the Dragon
> Jaw bridge until Linebacker in April '72. The weapon of choice by that
> time was a Pave Knife, 2000 pound LGB delivered by F-4D out of Ubon.
A good friend of mine and former squadron mate is a guy named Steve Baker.
Steve is now a captain for Southwest Airlines. In 1972 he was in the F-4
squadron at Ubon that had the Pave Knifes and dropped the LGBs. I think
that was the only squadron in SEA that had them. Steve is THE guy who
actually lased the bridge on the mission they dropped the spans in the water.
I can't remember if he did the Thanh Hoa or the Paul Doumer. It was one
of the two. Steve has a great huge size black and white picture taken by
an RF-4 after the raid that showed the spans in the water. A 3 star
general signed it with something like "To Lt. Steve Baker, Congratulations
for a job well done."
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Rick Keyt, Sysop | Phoenix Online
rick...@phxonline.com \__[O]__/ | Phantoms
602-678-5776 (BBS) \__[O]__/ Forever
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Anders Pettersson
> sha...@ferhino.dfrc.nasa.gov (Mary Shafer) wrote:
>
> >. That was the "One Day in a Long War" (Ethell &
> >Price). Cunningham and Driscoll made their aces and got shot down and
> >rescued, while Ritchie got his first MiG that day. At least one USAF
> >F-4 driver got shot down that day; he E&Ed for something like two
> >weeks (a record for SEA) before they retrieved him. At least one
> >other pilot was shot down and taken prisoner.
> >
>
> The E&E er was Roger Locher.
>
>
> Fighter Pilot (ret)
What is E&E ????????????
/Anders
email:Anders.P...@eua.ericsson.se
Urban Fredriksson
> The JP233 is captive during weapon release...it's not dropped like a
> canister type munition. I assume that they bring the empty pods back
> (but I'm no expert).
No, they're dropped automatically from the aircraft as soon
as they're empty.
--
Urban Fredriksson u...@icl.se To get rid of an enemy, make him a friend.
Damien Burke
|> In article <817674...@jrwlynch.demon.co.uk> Paul Jonathan Adam <Pa...@jrwlynch.demon.co.uk> writes:
|>
|> >These are packaged into the JP233 pod, and the Tornado carries two.
|> >Quite a useful weapon.
|>
|> Only two? Is that adequate coverage or do they drop them one after the other?
|> I thought they would carry more for some reason, can anyone tell me how much
|> each unit weighs?
From what I'd read before the Gulf war, standard practice was to use around
four Tornadoes all hitting the runway at slightly different angles so as to
make sure at least one of the JP233 spreads was along the runway. Having seen
video of a single Tornado using its 2 pods, I'd say they'd be quite good
enough for the job!
Anyone know if JP233 attacks during the Gulf war were multiple like that, or
just single or double a/c attacks?
e8425654
>From: mdon...@calumet.yorku.ca (MARK DONALDSON)
>Subject: Re: Attack on Runways
>Date: Thu, 30 Nov 1995 08:32:53 GMT
>In article <817674...@jrwlynch.demon.co.uk> Paul Jonathan Adam <Pa...@jrwlynch.demon.co.uk> writes:
>>These are packaged into the JP233 pod, and the Tornado carries two.
>>Quite a useful weapon.
>Only two? Is that adequate coverage or do they drop them one after the other?
AFAIK, they do not drop "two bombs" but the JP233-container releases the
runway-cratering and AP-submunitions on each side. I think this is the
difference to CBUs where the whole thing is dropped and splits up in the air,
releasing the submunitions.
Joe
Urban Fredriksson
>JP233 is rather limited in the attack profile. Does anybody know about the
>limitations of Durandal?
It's more limited than JP233, because the minimum release
altitude is higher, 60 m. At 195 kg, it's heavier than most
other anti-runway munitions, but I can't recall reading that beeing
a factor permitting a lower release altitude. It's supposed
to be released while crossing the runway at 30 degrees, so
that one or two bombs are sure to fall on it.
20 years ago, it was the hot thing in anti-runway missions,
but now the trend seems to be smaller bombs. The BAP-100
weighs only 34 kg, so you can carry more of them, and I
think the French air force has used them more often
operationally than Durandals. (And then there's the BAT-120
of similar weight and apperance, but of the area denial
type.)
--
Urban Fredriksson u...@icl.se "That afternoon it rained on Earth."
hhutc...@cornell-iowa.edu
>>limitations of Durandal?
>
> It's more limited than JP233, because the minimum release
> altitude is higher, 60 m. At 195 kg, it's heavier than most
> other anti-runway munitions, but I can't recall reading that beeing
> a factor permitting a lower release altitude. It's supposed
> to be released while crossing the runway at 30 degrees, so
> that one or two bombs are sure to fall on it.
>
> 20 years ago, it was the hot thing in anti-runway missions,
> but now the trend seems to be smaller bombs. The BAP-100
> weighs only 34 kg, so you can carry more of them, and I
> think the French air force has used them more often
> operationally than Durandals. (And then there's the BAT-120
> of similar weight and apperance, but of the area denial
> type.)
parachute-deployed system which would fire a rocket motor to propel it
INTO the concrete runway, and as such, it would probably spew out a
TON of fragments, which could hit your plane, cut wires, puncture fuel
tanks, as well as maybe even give you a case of FOD, all of which are
Really Bad Things (tm).
Harold Hutchison
--
"No weapon in the arsenals of the world is as powerful as the will and
courage of a free people."
"We will always remember. We will always be proud. We will always be
prepared, so we may always be free."
"History teaches us that wars begin when governments believe the price
of aggression is cheap."
"All the way into the hangar."
- Ronald W. Reagan, 40th President of the United States.
God bless him, and God Bless AMERICA!
Eddie Snell
<stuff snipped>
> From what I'd read before the Gulf war, standard practice was to use around
> four Tornadoes all hitting the runway at slightly different angles so as to
> make sure at least one of the JP233 spreads was along the runway. Having seen
> video of a single Tornado using its 2 pods, I'd say they'd be quite good
> enough for the job!
>
> Anyone know if JP233 attacks during the Gulf war were multiple like that, or
> just single or double a/c attacks?
>
It was my understanding that few attacks were made on the runways, rather
on the taxiways near the HAS cutting them off from the runway.
Flying down the runway was considered to predictable (and ineffective
given the length).
Eddie...@man.ac.uk
http:\\spec.ch.man.ac.uk\~eddie\EddieSnell.html
MARK DONALDSON
>20 years ago, it was the hot thing in anti-runway missions,
>but now the trend seems to be smaller bombs. The BAP-100
>weighs only 34 kg, so you can carry more of them, and I
>think the French air force has used them more often
>operationally than Durandals. (And then there's the BAT-120
>of similar weight and apperance, but of the area denial
>type.)
The Durandals don't have anything to slow down the repair of the runway
either. Other weapons discussed have anti-personelle mines that hamper work.
Once the Duranal creates the hole, that is pretty much it. The crew can work
on it as soon as they want.
Ron Cocuzzi
>20 years ago, it was the hot thing in anti-runway missions,
>but now the trend seems to be smaller bombs. The BAP-100
>weighs only 34 kg, so you can carry more of them, and I
>think the French air force has used them more often
>operationally than Durandals. (And then there's the BAT-120
>of similar weight and apperance, but of the area denial
>type.)
France used the BAP-100 in DS. Isn't the Durandal is supposed to be
export only?
Ron
Paul Tomblin
> My understanding of the Durandal was that it was a
>parachute-deployed system which would fire a rocket motor to propel it
>INTO the concrete runway, and as such, it would probably spew out a
>TON of fragments, which could hit your plane, cut wires, puncture fuel
>tanks, as well as maybe even give you a case of FOD, all of which are
>Really Bad Things (tm).
Weapons designers aren't that stupid. The whole point of the parachute was to
retard the weapon long enough for the delivery aircraft to be well clear
before the weapon hits the concrete.
--
Paul Tomblin, Contract Programmer.
I don't speak for Kodak, they don't speak for me.
(Email that is not work related should go to: ptom...@canoe.com)
"You are in a twisty maze of Motif Widget resources, all inconsistent."
Urban Fredriksson
> My understanding of the Durandal was that it was a
>parachute-deployed system which would fire a rocket motor to propel it
>INTO the concrete runway, and as such, it would probably spew out a
>TON of fragments, which could hit your plane, cut wires, puncture fuel
>tanks, as well as maybe even give you a case of FOD, all of which are
>Really Bad Things (tm).
Not the launching aircraft, as there's a delay while the
parachute orients the bomb (rocket?) vertically, and I
also, I think, a slight delay after having been launched
through the runway. Other, following, aircraft may have
been at risk, but that's just as with any bomb, and you
don't want to follow to far behind anyway, as the defences
are for certain alerted by then.
--
Urban Fredriksson u...@icl.se
http://www.ki.icl.se/urf/ Ferrets; Aircraft; Railways
Weekly military aviation news: http://www.icl.se/%7Eurf/aviation/news/
Donny Chan
MA>Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
MA>Subject: Re: Attack on Runways
MA>Date: Tue, 5 Dec 1995 18:25:57 GMT
MA>Organization: Calumet College, York University
MA>In article <urf.818096869@sw2001> Urban_Fr...@icl.se (Urban Fredriksson)
MA>writes:
MA>The Durandals don't have anything to slow down the repair of the runway
MA>either. Other weapons discussed have anti-personelle mines that hamper work.
MA>Once the Duranal creates the hole, that is pretty much it. The crew can work
MA>on it as soon as they want.
Or not at all. Some Iraqis simply painted cracks on their runways.
---
* DeLuxe2 1.21 #6922 * "Ima wo nayande, asu wo yumemite." - Eve, MZ23
Donny Chan
CM>Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
CM>Subject: Re: Attack on Runways
CM>Date: 5 Dec 1995 17:16:16 GMT
CM>Organization: Vitro Corporation
CM>Urban_Fr...@icl.se (Urban Fredriksson) wrote:
CM>France used the BAP-100 in DS. Isn't the Durandal is supposed to be
CM>export only?
When France offered military assistance to Chad in the early '80s (?),
did the French use BAP-100s against Libyan airbases?
Bob Keeter
describing the Durandel and its terminal effects. The most significant
is the fact that a relatively small explosive charge set off UNDER the
runway will push up and crack the concrete over a large area rather than
dig a small crater. The "bubble" that it forms could be a real mess to
repair (i.e. you would have to dig it out before you could fill it up!)
Damien Burke
> >D.M.Burk...@cs.bham.ac.uk (Damien Burke) wrote:
> >
> >Anyone know if JP233 attacks during the Gulf war were multiple like that, or
> >just single or double a/c attacks?
>
> This is dusty memory and not fact, but from what I remember of a BBC
> TV interview with one of the Tornado pilots who had been downed, the
> initial raids were with eight aircraft. However, this was reduced to
> four after aircraft were lost because everyone was up, out of bed and
> shooting by the time the eighth aircraft had gone by.
Actually yeah, that rings a bell with me too.
> I havn`t read `Tornado Down!` but the facts might be in there.
I have; I don't recall them mentioning anything specific about JP233 attacks.
Ron Cocuzzi
>On Fri, 8 Dec 1995, funkraum wrote:
>
>> >D.M.Burk...@cs.bham.ac.uk (Damien Burke) wrote:
>> >
>> >Anyone know if JP233 attacks during the Gulf war were multiple like that, or
>> >just single or double a/c attacks?
>>
>> This is dusty memory and not fact, but from what I remember of a BBC
>> TV interview with one of the Tornado pilots who had been downed, the
>> initial raids were with eight aircraft. However, this was reduced to
>> four after aircraft were lost because everyone was up, out of bed and
>> shooting by the time the eighth aircraft had gone by.
The attack on Tallil airfield on 16 Jan, was carried out by 12 Tornados
(a group of four and a group of eight), the actual load-outs a attack
patterns are not listed. Al Taqaddum airfield was attacked on 17 Jan by
three all equipped with JP.233. Shaibah and Jarrah airfields were also
hit by foru each, all with JP.233. One specific attack was the one on
Jarrah by four Tornados in a card four formation. The lead closed up to
one mile seperation with the trail 10 secs behind. The formation flew
parallel to the runway with the lead dropping their JPs at one-fifth and
three-fifths the runways length and the trail dropping at two and
four-fifths. Al Asad airfield was hit by 8 Tornados (6 successfully).
Generally, the JP.233s were dropped along the runways and parallel
taxiways which allowed the weapons to spread across the the connecting
taxiway.
Ron
A.Svennevik
tactics' which occured after the first series of Tornado losses. This
term was used on TV at the time and in different books after the Gulf war.
As the JP233 is not precision guided, it requires that the aircraft fly
a predetermined path over the airfield. Iraqi airfields were very heavily
defended with AAA and Roland (also Crotale?) SAM. Once the principles
involved when using the JP233 had been understood/determined by the
Iraqis Tornados were shot down at such a rate that the loss rate became
unacceptable, or so it has been speculated on in different books.
The Americans did not participate in the development of the JP and similar
weapons as these require the aircraft to fly over the airfield. The USAF
wanted/wants a stand-off weapon for anti-airfield and anti-runway duties.
Furthermore the USAF tactics in the Gulf war dictated that all radar guided
AAA and SAM be knocked out first. After this targets were attacked from an
altitude between 20 and 25 thousand feet. Only very large calibre AAA can
reach this height, of these the Iraqis had very few, SAMs were no good really
(jammed or knocked out) and lesser calibre AAA does not have the necessary
range.
It has been suggested, but not confirmed AFAIK, that the 'change in tactics'
meant giving up the low level tactics (common to the RAF and other European
NATO members) and adopting the American strategy of first knocking out
all anti aircraft threats and then bombing 'safely' from altitude. At least
in the Gulf war I feel that the Americans were proven correct.
Hope this has shed some light on what happened (or was believed to have
happened).
Anders
Peter Mackay
Urban_Fr...@icl.se (Urban Fredriksson) wrote:
>However, this was reduced to
>>four after aircraft were lost because everyone was up, out of bed and
>>shooting by the time the eighth aircraft had gone by.
>
>This seems remarkarble considering the Tornados often
>arrived after other aircraft had been pounding the air
>bases for 20 minutes, so the attacks can hardly have been
>surprises, and the Tornado proved to be very hard to shoot
>down at low level anyway.
Ummm, when they talk about "military precision", they aren't talking about
any military outfit I've ever heard of. IMHO, they probably reduced to
four on later missions because they were short of ready aircraft, not for
any tactical reason.
~ m
u U Cheers!
\|
|> -Peter Mackay
/ \ "Put not thy faith in platitudes"
_\ /_
Paul Tomblin
>defended with AAA and Roland (also Crotale?) SAM. Once the principles
>involved when using the JP233 had been understood/determined by the
>Iraqis Tornados were shot down at such a rate that the loss rate became
>unacceptable, or so it has been speculated on in different books.
Once again, with feeling:
ONLY ONE TORNADO HAS EVER BEEN SHOT DOWN WHILE DELIVERING JP223s!
ONLY ONE! IN THE ENTIRE HISTORY OF WARFARE! IN THE ENTIRE HISTORY OF
THE UNIVERSE!
This is not what I'd call "shot down at such a rate that the loss rate became
unacceptable".
Paul Jonathan Adam
> As the JP233 is not precision guided, it requires that the aircraft fly
> a predetermined path over the airfield. Iraqi airfields were very heavily
> involved when using the JP233 had been understood/determined by the
> Iraqis Tornados were shot down at such a rate that the loss rate became
> unacceptable, or so it has been speculated on in different books.
Only one JP233-carrying Tornado was lost, allegedly due to a large sand
dune which did not show up on the TFR rather than ground fire.
> It has been suggested, but not confirmed AFAIK, that the 'change in tactics'
> meant giving up the low level tactics (common to the RAF and other European
> NATO members) and adopting the American strategy of first knocking out
> all anti aircraft threats and then bombing 'safely' from altitude. At least
> in the Gulf war I feel that the Americans were proven correct.
>
> Hope this has shed some light on what happened (or was believed to have
> happened).
British tactics were designed for the Central Front, where the threat
density (not just SAMs but enemy fighters) would forbid medium-level
operations. With the efficient dismantling of the Iraqi IADS (helped
greatly by its failure to integrate: a determined showing by their
Air Force would have delayed matters a few days) this was not the case
and medium-level attack, often with LGBs, became the most effective
tactic.
--
"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." <R.A. Lafferty>
Paul J. Adam pa...@jrwlynch.demon.co.uk
e8425654
> ONLY ONE TORNADO HAS EVER BEEN SHOT DOWN WHILE DELIVERING JP223s!
> ONLY ONE! IN THE ENTIRE HISTORY OF WARFARE! IN THE ENTIRE HISTORY OF
> THE UNIVERSE!
Everybody, please load this down, print it and attach it to your computer
whenever you enter this group!
Joe
Urban Fredriksson
>Once the principles
>involved when using the JP233 had been understood/determined by the
>Iraqis Tornados were shot down at such a rate that the loss rate became
>unacceptable, or so it has been speculated on in different books.
*One* Tornado was lost on a JP233 mission! I can't
understand why this myth continues to live on so long.
Would a FAQ help, do you think?
--
Urban Fredriksson u...@icl.se
"The concept of 'money' isn't without value," Femtowave added, "since it
functions as a sort of rough servo-mechanism for social priority-setting."
-- The Annals of the Heechee, Frederik Pohl
Dean M. Bleess
>> ONLY ONE TORNADO HAS EVER BEEN SHOT DOWN WHILE
DELIVERING JP223s!
>> ONLY ONE! IN THE ENTIRE HISTORY OF WARFARE! IN
THE ENTIRE HISTORY OF
>> THE UNIVERSE!
>
>computer whenever you enter this group!
>
Don't get me wrong, I am a great fan of the Tornado
(don't laugh),
but is there any count of the total number successful
JP.233 runs
that there have been made under actual wartime
conditions? Then,
how many were against actual Military installations?
I don't want
to count any airfield that did not have to have
defences suppressed
before the attack. If it wasn't worth defending
shortly before the
hit, then it probably wasn't worth destroying at the
time of its
demise.
There's times when you can't drag me away from the
Flight Sim of
the Tornado by S/H & D/I. Great fun!! You gotta love
the JP.233
if you can clear out those pesky SAM's and AAA
batteries or sneak
in THROUGH them.
*sarcasm on*
Get out of here!! Someone in NEBRASKA knows what a
TORNADO is that
isn't a meteorological occurrance/annoyance?
*sarcasm off*
You better BELIEVE it buster !! ;-)