Vulcan v SHAR in the Falklands.

to answer your question ‘Why are we still in the Falklands?’
Two reasons :
1) we have only been out of the islands for a short period in 1982 other than that we have maintained a military presence there since 1833. 2( the more important answer is that the Islanders want us to stay. As they put it the islands are commonwelth territory and that’s the way they want to stay.
In view of the second answer I’d say who are we to argue?

The answer, as usual, is probably a little deeper than that.

Initially, having won the islands back we saw an opportunity to sell licences to fish. To enforce licences you need a fisheries inspector.

Now, with the new UN rules on the extension of territorial waters based on the continental shelf, there is the potential oil revenue.

Argentina claims that the continental shelf is an extension of the South American mainland and this includes the undersea portions out beyond the Falklands. OTOH, as you might expect, HMG has a contrary view.

and Anglesey to whoever takes a fancy to it?

Moggy

We tried but no-one wanted it.

I’ve always considered that the entire conflict was down to the Argentine Military Junta.

Previous govenmrents going back to James Calaghan and possibly earlier had always put Argentina’s agressive stance over the Falklands down to sabre rattling. It’s just that they were lucky the sabre rattling never turned into a full blooded charge as it did for Mrs T.

In today’s world (or even 1982) what’s the use of a bomber without AAR?

What could the senior staff have been thinking?

Probably the same as usual-nothing

“Ground”……….. but I concur. Professional Moaners really. But that’s what happens when you spend your professional career couped up in a tiny office where it’s usually very sunny…….with only a squawk box for company!

Far better to be FOBS KID…….Fed On BS, Kept Int Dark ie an engineer!

C6

FOBS KID is really KID FOBS better known as mushroom syndrome:D If you don’t spend most of your life in that condition in the army something’s definitely wrong.

Hellooo,

I’ve just read Commander Sharkey Wards excellent book, “Sea Harrier over the Falklands” and feel urged to put pad to key!

In his engrossing text, Sharkey’s fella’s figure out how much it costs in fuel etc to get 20 bombs near (plus one that clipped the edge) to the runway at Port Stanley airfield.

It took, in his estimation, 1.1 MILLION pounds of fuel to get those first 21 bombs near their intended target (which incidentally) could have been repaired within 24 hours.

He also states that with the same amount of fuel, his Sea Harrier force (801 Sqn) could have delivered 1300 bombs a damn sight more accurately.

What I’d like to know is why (apart from the phsycological effect) did the RAF consider this raid by the Vulcan to be a good idea?

I’m also aware that the RN top brass had no faith in Blue Fox radar, despite the great steps made by 801.

Also, why are we STILL in the Falklands? There is NO way that I can see of us defending the place if Argentina (or other hostile) intended to take it again. Surely it’d be better just to pull our (thinly spread) Forces out of there?

SIGH, When will our defense “Chiefs” stand up to our lame, do gooder government and put some backbone back into our Forces.

Please discuss…… maturely.

C6

to answer your question ‘Why are we still in the Falklands?’
Two reasons :
1) we have only been out of the islands for a short period in 1982 other than that we have maintained a military presence there since 1833. 2( the more important answer is that the Islanders want us to stay. As they put it the islands are commonwelth territory and that’s the way they want to stay.
In view of the second answer I’d say who are we to argue?

On 23 Mar, post 98, I talked about how a Pop-Down attack had actually been practised in the 60s. I have just found, on the back of a Vulcan print the following (abridged) description of the Black Buck sortie which was actually a classic Hi-lo-Hi.

“We levelled at 300 feet over the moonlit sea and listened to the RWR buzzing . . . the RN battle fleet had found us and ‘locked-on’. We prayed they had received the signal announcing the intention of our attack.

Forty miles from the assumed position of the target, the aircraft was pulled into a full power clim to bombing altitude of 10,000 ft (the optimum altitude for a free-fall bomb to penetrate a runway and explode, creating a large crater).

Now selecte ‘on’, our radar took a while to stabilise, but soon confirmed the accuracy of our navigation and the target area identified.

Approaching the target, a lock-on from an enemy radar controlled ant-aircraft system was broken using active ECM, the bomb doors were opened and the bombs released.

After about 11 seconds holding the aircraft steady . . . all bombs had gone.

. . . now full power, hard left and climb for our next RV with another tanker.”

The attack was very similar to very similar to a 2G attack which had been on the books but never practised as the 8000 ft release was in the MEZ for the primary enemy SAM – the SA2 Guideline.

The 2G was just above the lower limit of the Calc 3 Ballistics computer – 7,200 feet and said to be above the light AA ceiling. It was of course suitable against NATO SHORADEZ but of course we were not going to attack a NATO armed country were we?

Interesting letters to ‘The Daily Telegraph’

(Letters – May 5)

The effects of bombing Stanley runway

Sir – I must balance some well-honed RAF myths with facts (“Bombing Argentines with all the lights on ‘just wasn’t cricket’ “, report, April 30).

Bombed or not the Stanley runway was never long enough to accept fast jets. Until the last night of the war Stanley runway was used continually by enemy Hercules aircraft and often by their Pucara ground attack aircraft.

The Argentine Air Force did not move its mainland-based aircraft further north “so they couldn’t take part in the fighting”: further north is closer to Ascension Island, whence the Vulcan bombers operated.

Throughout the war those of us on the ground and at sea continued to suffer the consequences of fast jets operating out of Rio Gallegos, a mere 304 nautical miles from Falkland Sound. I have been to Rio Gallegos: it has a very long runway indeed and would have taken considerably more than a couple of inaccurate Vulcan bombing raids to have closed it.

Immediately after the Argentine surrender, I and a Falkland Islander drove the length and breadth of the Stanley runway looking for signs of damage and repair. There were none and the concrete was in as good condition as when I had been responsible for its security in 1978 and 1979.

My friend and I marvelled, not for the first time, at the inventiveness of the Argentine engineers. Certainly the RAF’s bombing operations against Stanley airport were strategically useful but of little tactical value to us actually in the Falklands.

War is not cricket. Perhaps the RAF of 1982 had not heard Admiral of the Fleet Lord Fisher’s dictum: “The essence of war is violence, and moderation in war is imbecility.”

Lt Col Ewen Southby-Tailyour, Ermington, Devon

(Letters – May 7)

RAF hit the target

Sir – Ewen Southby-Tailyour (Letters, May 5) is wrong in his description of the damage to the Stanley runway.

As Commander, Royal Engineers, I was responsible for its repair immediately after the surrender. There was one large crater caused by a 1,000lb bomb from the RAF Vulcan raid, and four smaller craters resulting from earlier Harrier attacks. (The Argentines had also created dummy craters to confuse our aerial reconnaissance.) Repairing the large crater and the large area of runway took about two weeks and 1,000 square metres of captured Argentine runway matting.

Lt Col Southby-Tailyour is, however, correct in stating that Argentine aircraft were able to continue to use the runway, despite the bombing raids, by temporarily backfilling the craters. This, perhaps, is why his “recce” did not spot the true extent of the damage.

Maj Gen G.W. Field (retd), Sedlescombe, East Sussex

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2007/05/05/nosplit/dt0501.xml

they didn’t use Red Shrimp at all, relying on the pylon-mounted Dash 10 ECM

If you read Pontius’ post again you will see that he is only describing the coverage of the equipment comprising the fixed ECM suite. He is not commenting on its tactical employment on a particular mission.

Red Shrimp was a fairly basic (but powerful) barrage jammer, it had its uses but certainly not against the type of emitters in the Port Stanley area. The I-band jammer (X-band dependent on your age!) certainly covered the spectrum utilised by the AAA FC radars, but it was optimised against Soviet AI radars. The Janus aerial mod Pontius refers to was intended for use at low level against ground based radars Its performance at 10-16000′ against the Superfledermaus would have been questionable. Hence the decision to fit the -10 pod which was far better suited to the operational environment.

exmpa

I hate to disagree with somebody who really knows what he’s talking about, when I’m only reading about it but…

According to Vulcan 607, which I agree is an excellent read, they didn’t use Red Shrimp at all, relying on the pylon-mounted Dash 10 ECM equipment liberated from Honington’s Buccaneers.

At 10000 feet the release, allowing for stick length would have started at abou 2.85 miles until 2.15. Sandy’s 2 miles, more dramatic, would accord with the end of the bomb run.

The jamming suite consisted of 3 red Shrimp, one down in the L-band and the other 2 in E-F. Also an I-band jammer (AKA X-Band jammer). The latter had been fitted with an aft pointing aerial to jam fighter AI.

A later mod was to add a forward facing antenna.

A major threat at low level was the ZSU-23-4 with a J-Band Gundish radar. I do not know if the X-Band jammer had been modified to cover the J-band too. Another threat radar was the Superfeldermaus which was a Swiss I-Band gun radar. This would certainly have been jamable by the X-Band jammer. The jammer was state of the art when it was fitted in 1968.

The attacks were made at about 14000 feet. The time of bomb fall, allowing for bomb drag, would be about 31 seconds and the impact velocity just 880 feet per second.
At 420 kts (I am guessing) the bombs would have been released at just under 4 miles from the target with plenty of turn room so that the aircraft could be well on its way out having turned about 90 degrees and be about 3 miles away before the noise started.
They would have come over the sea and be well away over the sea and out of missile range even before the crews could wake up.

Given your background I imagine you’re right. But just for the record, I’ve seen elsewhere a suggestion (perhaps in Woodward’s “100 Days”) that the bombs were released two miles short of target; and in Middlebrook’s account of the Argentine view of the war, he says they bombed from 10000 feet for optimum accuracy. The latter certainly supports what you say about the Vulcan’s getting away: he suggests that though it ventured (just) within the engagement envelope of the 35mm Oerlikons and the Roland launcher, Vulcan 607 jammed their radars with ECM, and furthermore that only after the bombs hit did the Chinese fire-drill start, with missiles and AAA blazing away blindly, while our chaps were already heading north…
hps

Just to throw in a bit of maths.

The attacks were made at about 14000 feet. The time of bomb fall, allowing for bomb drag, would be about 31 seconds and the impact velocity just 880 feet per second.

At 420 kts (I am guessing) the bombs would have been released at just under 4 miles from the target with plenty of turn room so that the aircraft could be well on its way out having turned about 90 degrees and be about 3 miles away before the noise started.

They would have come over the sea and be well away over the sea and out of missile range even before the crews could wake up.

Read through all of this topic out of interest when I saw the Vulcan connection, ripping stuff, all of it, though to date though times change currently any Uk dependency could be taken and held by a bunch of off watch OAP’s in zimmer frames, Still maybe Browns forcast £400 million hand out to the military will mean they at least have one boat row away in.

Sad thought really that while this country could at least once have put together the means to defend it’s shores and dependencies, today we would be hard pressed to find the money to call anyone about a problem abroad.

ROFL very good point tho Cypherus :diablo: Bex

Now it happens that the head of the Intelligence School at Ashford (1987) was a typical IO and had, as a hobby, observation of aircrew patches.

At the critical time two aircrew – Canberras have two crew – were in Belize flight planning – used by single seat Harriers. The aircrew were not wearing any badges. Their flight suits however were adorned with unfaded cloth and stitched outline where badges had been.

The badges conformed to the shape of a well known Canberra Sqn.

End of story.

What were they doing there? Were they there? Were they a Canberra crews? No idea, sorry.

Now as most people know Im a Cranberry nut, and this particular can of worms is one I have not been able to open. Ive heard rumours about 39 Sqn flying out of Chile, but have not been able to confirm this either way. There are signs of this possibility, 1. Chile being given Canberras paid for by Argentina (again uncomfirmed), 2. Chile using PR9’s, 3. The comments Pontious has made really has me wondering now.

I hope there is no feeling of “Thread Jacking” with this post, but if there is then Im more than happy to open a new thread.

Bex

Read through all of this topic out of interest when I saw the Vulcan connection, ripping stuff, all of it, though to date though times change currently any Uk dependency could be taken and held by a bunch of off watch OAP’s in zimmer frames, Still maybe Browns forcast £400 million hand out to the military will mean they at least have one boat row away in.

Sad thought really that while this country could at least once have put together the means to defend it’s shores and dependencies, today we would be hard pressed to find the money to call anyone about a problem abroad.

Pontious Nav & Creaking Door,
Dont forget our other shortage was also PR, head shed realised that 39 Sqn couldnt do it,

I am not saying this is wrong as I simply don’t know. What I do know is what I am about to relate.

Aircrew wear sqn patches etc either fastened on with velcro, a modern system, or sewn on, to flying suits. Although we used Velco in the 70s there was a ‘revolt’ in Safety Equipment circles that this was an unauthorised modification to the flying suit and a velcroed patch could become a loose article hazard. Strange but true.

In 1982 we were in transition back to velcro.

Now it happens that the head of the Intelligence School at Ashford (1987) was a typical IO and had, as a hobby, observation of aircrew patches.

At the critical time two aircrew – Canberras have two crew – were in Belize flight planning – used by single seat Harriers. The aircrew were not wearing any badges. Their flight suits however were adorned with unfaded cloth and stitched outline where badges had been.

The badges conformed to the shape of a well known Canberra Sqn.

End of story.

What were they doing there? Were they there? Were they a Canberra crews? No idea, sorry.

HP correct, it is mentioned in 607,the build up to the mission but the mission & results are not covered in great detail. Hence the last line of my post. :diablo: Bex

A Victor was used for reconnaissance over South Georgia IIRC. I believe one vertical F-95 camera was mounted, fitted in the nose.

…pinch a Victor, scrounge a camera or two,borrow a PR expert and then keep ya fingers crossed. From what I can gather it worked but I dont know how well. Bex

Where and when was a Victor used for PR? Hadn’t heard this before. Is this referenced in “Vulcan 607”? AFAIK the only PR over the Islands was performed by SHARs, and some maritime surveillance plus ELINT was done by Nimrod off the Argentine coast at least once.
Pontius Nav, if the “gems” to which you refer aren’t brought up anyway, please don’t hold us in suspense… And you might consider writing your own book! With a background on Vulcans + Shackletons et al it sounds as though you have the material… Want a co-writer? Message me..
Regards, hps