TopHatter

Well, I was somewhat close

__________________
If your actions inspire others to dream more, learn more, do more and become more, you are a leader.
~John Quincy Adams

JG73

Not bad. and why is the F-22 called Raptor? Because of Jurassic Park?

__________________
>Facit Omnia Voluntas<

TopHatter

Probably because a raptor is a bird of prey, like the eagle and the falcon.

I'm sure Jurassic Park brought the term raptor more into people's conciousness and that sure didn't hurt.

I saw several different names for the F-22 over the years like Rapier and Lightning II.

kNikS

Protocolary thing that didn't help too much.

__________________
For King and Fatherland ~ Freedom or Death

JG73

??? One of the most important things, if you ask me(and not only me). Or could you explain why it didn't help too much?

kNikS

It was protocolary since capabilities of PVO VJ, outdated as it was, didn’t caused real threat to NATO planes, considering their flight profile. And it didn’t helped too much because VJ remained practically intact.

JG73

Nevertheless you don't send your expensive strike fighters into non save areas.
And the air defence of the Serbs was more a threat than the iraqi air defence in 2003 for example.
That the Serbs switched of their radars as soon as they knew any enemy aircraft was near isn't the NATO's fault.
Back to Tornado: The 14 during Operation Allied Force involved German Tornados alone launched 244 AGM-88 during the conflict. That's not feeble and that's what I meant 'they did their job'.

kNikS

Well, I am The Serb, if you didn’t notice. No doubt that the Serbs did huge variety of improvised and non-improvised procedures to avoid being hit. Of course that it isn’t NATO’s fault because we remained hidden. Goal was to preserve combat readiness and we even managed to scratch few planes. Without exaggerating or sticking to numbers, performance of NATO was less than modest. And Tornados don’t stand out from that. Launching missiles doesn’t mean hitting targets, and they were missing almost all the time. So the statement “They did their job” doesn’t stand well. Thanks for compliments, anyway.

leolover

But remember that SEAD means Suppressing of Enemy Air Defence, not destroying it. If the radar is shut down because a HARM is on the way, than the mission was successful.

It is like ASW: i doesn´t count so much how many enemy subs you sunk, it is more important how many own ships where NOT hit.

fkbello

Huh ?
The Panavia MoU was signed during the Heath government and the Tornado was built and entered service under Maggie's rule.
Are you calling the Tories socialist ? That sounds really hard core

gunnut

No. I was talking about the follow-up to the Tornado. The thread starter expressed his concern about how the MoD not spend more money to improve/replace Tornados in the previous 10 years. I said that probably had more to do with the socialist government in power. Or they don't even have to be in power. Merely the prevailing socialist climate can alter the conservatives to a more socialist stand.

kNikS

My point was that there wouldn’t be too much difference even if those air defences weren’t suppressed. Super-mega-extra protection of the airspace was beyond our capabilities, and we were aware of that. In this case SEAD was scaring the old woman with the big d!ck.

So from our point of view it was practically the same. It wasn’t of some importance to shot down the planes, just to keep them busy while our tanks are doing their job (in addition that AD remained alive too). And the fact that only 14 tanks were killed instantly and probably similar number wasn’t cost effective or possible to repair – is a proof that they did their job well.

Captain Drunk

It's Foxhunter radar can track upto 24 targets simultaneously, thats more than any other 4th gen. fighter I think. It's a long range interceptor / bomber same class of an F-14, F-111 and Su-24.

Bluesman

Uh-huh. That's why y'all won the war, I guess.

Wait a second...y'all LOST the dam' war!

You know that, right? About losing the war? About not causing any Allied casualties? Giving up? Being chased out? By airpower, ALONE?

I mean, nobody has convinced you that your side WON, have they?

And yet...the performance was adequate to defeat your side...without incurring any friendly fatalities in combat. AT ALL.

Hm. I see your point. If I understand you, NOT launching missiles means you NEVER hit your target, and that would've been WAY better, as evidenced by the Serbian Air Force NEVER launching a missile, NEVER hitting their target, and that would've been 'doing their job'.

No, hang on a second...it seems that's a strategy for DEFEAT, complete and total DEFEAT. And if I remember the history that I helped make correctly, NATO airpower - of which the Tornado contingent was a part - utterly thumped the Serbs, and routed them...at no loss to themselves.

Mate, you've got a lot to learn about what does and does not go into 'doing their jobs'.

__________________
"The quickest way of ending a war is to lose it, and if one finds the prospect of a long war intolerable, it is natural to disbelieve in the possibility of victory."
- George Orwell

fkbello

Of course F-16's are nowhere close to the terrain following capabilities Tornados have. That was the single prominent feature of the entire project.

Tornados were designed for in-depth strike, following penetration of WP air defences and not for cherry picking with complete air superiority over some third world nation.