Don Camsell (Ex-SBS) recounts in his book ‘Black Water’ of an operation in Gibraltar against a Soviet Cruiser in late 1978. The cruiser was on a courtesy visit and they were assigned to photograph the hull on entry and later a physical inspection when moored. As preparation Camsell stated that the team was briefed on “Buster” Crabbs and on other mission against Soviet warships.

Camsell’s team lay attached to a seabed chain that ran from the South Mole to the Detached Mole. They photographed the underside of the cruiser as it passed above them on entrance to the harbour. They later conducted a night hull recce. Camsell recounts that three pairs of divers were used. One pair for the stern, one pair the bows, while another took the amidships. While they were under the cruiser they noted a small boat appear and heard divers entering the water. Camsell said that the team pressed themselves agains the hull so as not to be silhouetted. They watched the two divers swim along the propshafts but they did not come further up the hull. They waited until the Soviet divers had exited the water, completed their hull recce and exited the area.

Anyone read the other links?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/hampshire/6281109.stm

I thought this was well known.
During the Falklands the RAF needed to use our PR.9s for Recce work over S.America and Argentina, under fairly secret conditions at the time, three PR.9s were ‘sold’ to Chile so that the work could be carried out from there, and using their local knowledge and expertise. The aircraft were retained and used by Chile (believed as a thank you). It was all kept pretty quiet until one of the PR.9s crashed, which blew the cover of the operation open (as did a Seaking accident of the time). Hefty embargos were in place and obviously we were not meant to supply any arms to Chile at that time.
Two of the PR.9s, 341 (XH166) and 343 (XH173) are now preserved in Chile.
What I can’t understand is why the MoD didn’t go the safer diplomatic route of operating these Canberras from Belize?

BTW Bex, PR.9s and indeed most Canberras didn’t have inflight refuelling capability

As for the strange situation of similar types on both sides, what about the ex RAF Neptunes that were used by the Argies to gather intelligence of the British fleet.

I believe the Argentine Neptunes, still in service and used during the conflict, were ex-US Navy P2V-7S (SP-2H) airframes. The RAF Neptunes were P2V-5.

Most sources quote serials 2-P-111 and 2-P-112 being used. Possibly there was a third and even another airframe?

http://p2vneptune.com/i01.shtml

‘150280 to Argentine Navy as 0708/2-P-112’

http://home.att.net/~jbaugher/thirdseries19.html

Some larger images

The header is a bit misleading. Although the R.1 is deployed, none of these aircraft mentioned were R.1s.

At that time what i read said they did not have them, the pictures i have seen from the 1980s show MiG-23MS and none shows a MiG-23ML i do not know when they did recieve the MiG-23MLs it might be much later than the gulf of Sidra incident and in that case i was not wrong, but i do not know when they did recieve them. and probably you can not get me a 1988 dated picture of a MiG-23ML with Libyan Markings

The images do exist but in squadron archives. Sorry Flogger but you can’t spin it that the MLs were all delivered post 1989 Gulf of Sidra incident. The Flogger Gs were first noted being used for intercepts back in the 1985/86 time frame. Obviously what stood out on the aircraft was the lack of fin fillet.

nice pictures i really like them

You’ve changed your tune Flogger. Wasn’t it in early 2006 that you were informing us that Libya didn’t operate any ML variants? Only
MiG-23MS and MiG-23MFs you said.

The Libyan MLs were very well known to Allied assets up over the Gulf of Sidra well before the 1989 Gulf of Sidra incident.

More shots of MiG-23 and MiG-21 in flight, plus ground shots of various types.

http://forums.airshows.co.uk/cgi-bin/ukarboard/ikonboard.cgi?;act=ST;f=9;t=40231;st=20