Wyvernfan,

Unfortunately the world is a rather messy place and things are rarely clearcut. “Self defence authorised in response to hostile intent” might mean one thing in peacetime but another in time of tension. It was because of the checks and balances that there were relatively few incidents.

May I suggest that you take a look here. After entering the site, select “Operations”, then “Radio Proving Flights” and afterwards a “Spec Operator Remembers”

I am of course unable to vouch for its accuracy but it does have a ring of authenticity, don’t you think?

exmpa

In view of the fact that Russian military aircraft still enter UK airspace unannounced and are regularly intercepted by RAF aircraft we can reasonably assume that similar Rules of Engagement (RoE) are still in force. So, I don’t think that you can really expect a definitive answer to your question.

The RoE are a political tool and their application will depend on many factors, not least whether the government is willing to escalate what might be an already tense situation. So, a single turboprop elint aircraft might even get away with a slight encroachment on territorial waters in peacetime, with the only response being a stiffly worded complaint from the Foreign Office. If the alert state was raised then possibly more positive action would be authorised.

It might be thought that it would be reasonable to assume that, even in peacetime, intercepting aircraft would be automatically permitted to open fire in self defence, but even this scenario is fraught with danger. Consider the case where a pair intercept a Bear shortly after it has turned northwards, away from the UK. The Bear opens fire and hits the lead aircraft as it closes, forcing the crew to eject. The No2 is outside the engagement range (as he should be). Does he now open fire on the Bear? Although the other aircraft has committed a hostile act, does it represent a threat and is the No2 acting in self defence?

Although there exist contingency plans and RoE for varying situations they are all framed to be applied against a wider background. The single aircraft with hostile intent case is unlikely and under conditions that prevailed in the 1960-1990 period. Today of course it could be different.

exmpa

What difference does being quiet mean to a submarine 200ft below the surface?

A great deal, you have obviously never seen an aircraft signature on a LOFAR Gram/display. When you then think about the gain possible in a forward hemisphere submarine sonar array you will see the potential problem. Not the same for TA as you have to think broadband not discrete.

As for the 146 in the maritime role, don’t be silly; and that is roughly what BAe were told!

exmpa

The starting point has to be:

Alfred Price
Instruments of Darkness: The History of Electronic Warfare, 1939-1945 (ISBN: 1853676160 / 1-85367-616-0)

Rgds
exmpa

>>Were you on board for it?<<
Much more sense- ground crew

Well, for someone who was not on board some of the occaisions you describe you appear to know an awful lot about them.

opened up the engines to full power

You can assess that from the ground?

This short sharp display was finished by a max rate turn over the bomb dump

I cannot tell whether an aircraft is in a max rate turn by watching it, how do you do that?

a brilliant aerodynamic landing

A what kind of landing? How did you assess it?

the nose held up until the airspeed had dropped below 125 kts when the chute was popped

You really had me believing that you were on board, how else would you have known the speed?

>>colourful than they actually were.<<

Were you there- I don’t think so!

Although the question was not aimed directly at me, yes I probably was there. Maybe not on exactly the same occaisions, but as an active participant on many similar ones.

exmpa

Ah the joys and delights of standing on Delta dispersal in that long hot summer of 75 watching a 44 sqdn bird practising half rolls at 10,000 feet above us- brilliant.

Interesting, I have not flown a display in the Vulcan since 1972, but even then there was a standard display routine and it did not include anything like a “half-roll”. I am at something of a loss to understand what it was that you saw or why anyone would be doing it. The display routine remained broadly similar until the end of its days but with the substitution of the turning climbout for the straight climb.

Your account of low level fighter affiliation with the F16 is also quite interesting and a very unusual event. Were you on board for it?

exmpa

Dangerous things, still in use in the second half of the 1960s. The night flying brief included the warning to turn onto the runway slowly in order to avoid fuel venting in the vicinity of the them. At least they were reasonably easy to see which is more than can be said for the “glim light” that replaced them. The later L3 portable airfield light was a much more satisfactory piece of kit.

exmpa

(The bombers flight kept their course towards their target and flying almost 5 meters over sea they closed around 50 miles (90km) from it. In that moment I watched a warship silhoutte in the right hand of us. ” I saw it the first, Nogueira remembers, but treated not to alert the others to avoid to worry them until I coud verify if she was an enemy vessel. She was a frigate, probably a type 42, and in an estimated distance of 20 miles in the right, in the way to Falklands sound”)

One of the problems with flying low is that you don’t get much warning of what you are flying into, and the lower you go the less time you have to look out for threats. I suspect that the actual height flown was more like 50 meters or a little higher. Given that was the case then the visual acquisition of a Type 42 size vessel at 20 miles is still extremely unlikely in all but exceptional conditions. That the conditions were less than ideal is clearly stated later on:

(I started my way towards Stanley betwen rains and low clouds

I would suggest that the actual range at which the vessel identified as a Type 42 was acquired was in the bracket 5-10 miles and probably towards the lower end at that.

I have over the years spent many hours trying to reconcile the accounts of different participants in the same event to try and piece together what actually went on. It can be very difficult given the perceptions of the various parties, in some cases it was difficult to imagine that they are even talking about the same incident! That is only under exercise conditions without anyone shooting, no wonder actual combat is even more confusing.

exmpa