[QUOTE=Griffiths911;1084578]No, that’s not what happend. I’m assuming you meant the 14th June 1982.

HMS Cardiff was the only Type 42 involved in this engagement. People think HMS Exeter might have been involved (she has been credited with the kill in some books) ……. The Mirages turned away (we had not fired yet) but the Canberras (or at least one of them) continued to close. We then fired Sea Dart………..I honestly only remember us launching one, the missile went straight to the target (which was tracking straight on our radar). Guys, I am quite sure we fired one missile…….but definitely no more than a single salvo. As for the Mirages evading our Sea Darts, they had turned away before we fired. Now how about this……….could the Mirage pilots have been reacting to what they could see on the ground……lots of flashes, ground engagements?[QUOTE]

Fascinating… You were there and I have to defer to your personal experience. I simply passed on information derived from what I believe to be the best reference sources – though an admission first, I mistakenly wrote “19th June” when I should have written “13th June” – the date recorded in both Salvador Mafe Huertas’ book “Mirage III/V”, and the magisterial “Falklands – The Air War” by Burden et al. Huertas is a highly respected aviation author, who based the considerable Falklands coverage in his Mirage book on personal interviews with pilots in Argentina. OTOH I am aware that some Argentine accounts were highly coloured from the start, right from the first air-air kills when a Mirage pilot seemed to suggest that he had collided with a SHAR rather than being hit by an AIM-9L… Of course, air combat has always produced some accounts that proved subsequently to be wildly mistaken, understandable given the speed with which events occur, and the pressure upon pilots’ senses.
In FTAW, Burden et al write: “Several SAMs were launched at the Canberras..the Mirages (also came under attack) and one missile locked-on to Sanchez’ aircraft…he spiralled down towards it in an attempt to break the lock but the missile suddenly exploded below him at the end of its run..A second missile passed by him at 15k feet…without detonating. The missiles launched at the Mirages had been Sea Darts from Cardiff and those that had brought down the Canberra were from Exeter, both warships having been in the Choiseul Sound area of E.Falkland.”
I’m curious: why would Cardiff have launched only one missile? In similar circumstances, even with only a single target acquired, Sea Dart ships made multiple launches. Was there an awareness that, as Creaking Door (?) suggests, multiple launches could lead to guidance confusion?
hps

Not seen that one before – and not sure if it’s taken during the war. The FAA A4Cs used blue and yellow for ID markings – one theory is the blue replaced the yellow, which tended to blend into the light colours used by the A4Cs (there is a photo of one A-4C with the fin stripe overpainted) – but there are also photos of Daggers with blue bands as well (definitely during the war as both were shot down)

RThe drop tank is interesting because the only Argentine A-4 I cab recall in thiese colours was a CANA A-4B after the war – the drop tanks were painted exactly that way,

FAA A4Bs were painted in green/brown, though there were variations; CANA A4Bs (3 Esc.) were in US light gull grey, though late in the conflict they toned them down with dark camo because they stuck out like the proverbial sore thumb. There was considerable variation in the colour & pattern of tactical markings – yellow, blue, yellow overpainted with blue that looked sort of turqoise… And one can see photos of multiple A4s, Mirages, Daggers, with individual planes showing differences in the size and shape of the applied tactical markings. Drop tanks too seem to have been painted all sorts, and some not at all.
I’ve come late to this thread – very interesting indeed, special thanks to Griffiths911 for the detailed input/personal experience.
I too had wondered about that 707 and how it could possibly have evaded Sea Darts – damn! But the max-range shoot would explain it. Sea Dart had curiously mixed fortunes, bringing down an Argentine Puma early on, and that high-altitude Learjet on June 7th (as well as our own Gazelle…), so it’s clearly a versatile missile. OTOH there were disappointing failures such as 19th June, when two “Baco” flight Canberras and two “Pluton” flight Mirages were fired on after dark over E.Falkland, as described by Huertas in his valuable “Mirage III/V” book (Osprey 1990):
“(Sanchez, Mirage pilot) noted a missile being launched, which was probably defective because it started gyrating wildly…(he) suddenly realised the danger as four or five more SAMs started climbing almost vertically towards them…the missiles seemed to be locked onto the Canberra section – probably Baco 2. (the pilot)… launched several flares and chaff bundles while initiating a series of evasive high G turns. The missiles eventually passed behind him……(Sanchez) almost missed a new volley of missiles. He saw them first with his peripheral vision, much lower, but climbing very fast in his 12 o’clock position. He could distinguish the cluster of bright red exhaust trails perfectly, as the weapons scorched up towards the formation. One of them in particular grew much bigger, seemingly locked onto his Mirage. At that time he was at 30k feet in a wide turn at Mach 0.92. The missile was inside his turn, but somewhat lower. Reducing his engine power, he tightened the turn and began a steep, spiral descent…Then the missile exploded in a brilliant flash and fireball…(he) realised the Mirage had not been hit….but then (another Sea Dart) could be seen climbing rapidly towards him…the missile..passed by on the starboard side.”
This was the mission mentioned earlier, when B-108 was taken out – but two Mirages and the other Canberra escaped what seems to have been a considerable volley of Sea Darts, while certainly well within range.
hps

[QUOTE=King Jester;1083772]The one on the background is a FAA military executive transport (prolly T-23 or T-24), but the wing on the foreground is certainly a civilian plane.QUOTE]
Interesting photos that I haven’t seen previously. Re the Learjet in flight, if (as you imply) this is from sometime before June 1982, it’s neither T-23 nor T-24: it has the dark blue cheat lines, but lacks the integral centre-section recce pod. As far as I know, the other two photo-recce Learjets of Grupo 1 (T-21 and T-22) also possessed this pod. Your plane could be either VR-17 or VR-18, non-recce aircraft also operated by Grupo 1 for calibration purposes – I believe at the time these wore the same livery as their T-cousins, but of course lacked the distinctive fuselage pod. Liveries were changed sometime post-war, with VR planes (and a replacement non-PR T-24, interestingly) in a handsome white & scarlet finish.
(nb subsequent editing: I failed to notice the little Falkland Islands logo on the nose, which suggests it must be either VR-17 or VR-18 during or after the conflict.)
I have an idea the plane from which it was pictured is the same HS.125-700B shown in your first photo, LV-ALW – borrowed for the duration from the Argentine state oil concern YPF. The last two letters certainly look like LW.
Chris asks about pics of impressed Lears – two are pictured on p152 of what is (as ever) my principal source for this kind of thing, “Falklands – The Air War”, by Burden et al, Arms & Armour Press 1986.
hps

[QUOTE=Griffiths911;1082133]How they think it went.
QUOTE]
Interesting – I presume this is some Argentine newspaper’s imaginative depiction, never seen it before. Can you provide the actual reference? AFAIK the pilots/Grupo 4 still claim it was Invincible they hit – too late to back down, maybe. I’m not familiar with the discussion list you mention as having covered this previously – reference details please? Like to see what was written, if it’s still on someone’s server.
hps

Is that the attack the Argies claimed to have hit Invincible?

Yes – though according to the somewhat excitable Argentine news media, Invincible had been sunk several times already…
This was the mission where they expended their last air-launched Exocet (as noted by PhantomII above) but the SuE’s radar-defined target was either Exeter or Avenger, not Invincible – which was around 40 miles from the Exocet launch point at the time, i.e. out of range… After two of the FAA A4C Skyhawks of Grupo 4 (imposed on the Armada’s mission by the Air Force it seems, as the price for providing a KC130H air-refuelling tanker!) were taken out by Exeter’s Sea Darts, the remaining two released bombs at Avenger (they missed), but swore blind it was Invincible… Several times in the conflict, Argentine pilots mistook the heavy smoke from fast-manoevering gas turbine engines for evidence of bomb strikes. As to mistaking a frigate for a carrier, well, who knows. Maybe wishful thinking has something to do with it, or macho pride.
hps

The Sun is very careful to omit the fact that the tape in question dates from March 28, 2003!!! This amounts to deliberate deception.

In this the case, the tabloid press is attempting to make dated information seeming shocking and relevent. Like any friendly-fire incident, this incident was tragic and unneccessary. Is this item news worthy? Only in the eyes of journalists who are too indolent and cowardly to actually investigate and report genuine news items.

Never mind The Sun, this is an important development in an issue of grave concern – which is why it is receiving such extensive coverage in more serious journals, and on Radio Four this evening, for instance.
Your dismissal of it as un-newsworthy is thoughtless and irresponsible.
The deliberate deception in this matter belongs to the Pentagon, and our own MoD.
So, what price the Idaho ANG…
hps

If a Harrier would engage a target on the Argentinian coast and be surprised by Etendards, clearly bad clouds are rising for the Harriers.

I find this an odd suggestion. There was never any likelihood of Harriers approaching the Argentine mainland, and I’ve never seen any hint that raids there were seriously contemplated. But whether Schorsch envisages SHARs maintaining CAPs off the coast, or GR3s assaulting mainland airfields, it is highly unlikely (a) that SuEs would have been vectored against them (even the Argentine F86s might have been more appropriate), (b) that the Harrier pilots might have been “surprised” by intercepting aircraft, or (c) that the nimble Harrier could be out-manoeuvered by such an earlier-generation jet. SHAR pilots demonstrated consistently not only the combat capabilities of their aircraft, but their superiority over pilots whose technical competence and bravery was not matched by tactical awareness.
It is to be regretted that a combination of short range (the bigger tanks came too late), lack of AEW radar (where were those Gannets!), and possibly excessive caution in placing the carriers well east of the Falklands, never gave the SHARs a chance of being close to a SuE during the latter’s relatively few missions.
The SuE was employed in exemplary fashion as an Exocet platform, but would have stood little chance against the SHAR.
Regards, hps