This is beginning to look very much like the Sudetenland or Anschluss, all over again. And just as then, nobody is willing to stand up in opposition. 🙁

What exactly do you want either the U.S or NATO to do? No U.S. administration is going to commit U.S. forces in support of Georgia. Neither are they going to supply Georgia with arms and equipment to prolong the conflict. The Russians were hamstrung over any military involvement in Kosovo. The U.S. is also hamstrung over Georgia.

TJ

Regarding Belgrano and stricktly from the military accion that took place , we have the following information , and we would like to know if correct –

Three torpedos fired , two hit belgrano – The third one ? aimed at an escort or missed -?

Were the escorts at any time targeted ?

Escorts did they ever had the oportunity to detect the HMS Conqueror , or was it an imposible –

After achiving the mission , HMS Conqueror remains in site or departs to other areas ?

Thank you
Regards Enrique

This document should assist you, Enrique.

It would appear that the escorts did not detect the Conqueror at any stage. The Conqueror detected no active transmissions from the escorts. Apparently one of the 3 torpedos fired at the Belgrano possibly hit one of the escorts.

http://www.mod.uk/NR/rdonlyres/CB3BCDD7-EFC8-45AD-959D-548E866B0962/0/op_corporate1982_belgrano_sinking_keydocs.pdf

‘Page 146
B-68
1813
START EVENT 02/01 – ATTACK ON TG 79.3 – G BELGRANO

CO COMMENT

In positon 55 23.1S 61 21.0W.
I am on the port quarter of TG 79.3 and my target, the Cruiser G BELGRANO, is on the left wing. My intention is to close to a firing position such that I shall fire a salvo of 3 x Mk 8 Mod 4’s from 1800 yds on a Torpedo Track Angle of 100 degrees and a zero gyro angle. I shall then evade to the SE leaving the datum between me and the destroyers for as long as possibel to assist my escape.’

Reference the Bouchard. In the book ‘Sink the Belgrano – Mike Rossiter’. It reveals that Conqueror received a signal containing an intelligence update from Northwood. Apparently the Argentine communications were not too secure. The radio traffic cyphers could be easily read by UK intelligence. One of the signals received from Northwood was the report sent by the Bouchard to the mainland after the Belgrano had been attacked. The signal detailed that the third torpedo had hit the keel of the Bouchard, damaging its sonar and starting leaks, although the warhead hadn’t exploded.

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Sink-Belgrano-Mike-Rossiter/dp/0593058429

According to detailed interviews the agreement was that if either the Bouchard, Buena or Belgrano was hit by a torpedo then the surviving vessels should exit the area as quickly as possible. It was revealed that both the Bouchard and Buena moved 30 miles to the north at high speed after the attack on the Belgrano. The book reveals that their training was against conventional subs. Against an SSN there was no scenario that produced any success rate.

In the report it reveals that explosions could be heard after the Belgrano was hit. Initially this was suspected to be anti-sub ops by the Bouchard and Buena. Even the survivors from the Belgrano reported hearing explosions after the Belgrano sank. It seems likely that this was the boilers, etc blowing under pressure. The explosions were monitored on the Conqueror for some time as she moved away from the site of the attack. The next day the Conqueror moved back to the site of the attack to monitor the rescue operations.

Regards

TJ

I stand corrected…I knew that! :o:o:o

BTW: I saw a brief item on it being retired…where did it go?
I hope some of the Hs are preserved since I don’t think many Gs were…all the bases that wanted a B-52received Ds back in the 80s.

I believe that the 18 retired airframes will end up at Tinker AFB.

TJ

A lot of early jets had structural issues when they were tasked with the low level route…Valiant and the B-47 to name two. (Anyone know if any Soviet bombers had the problem?)

The B-47’s needed the “milk bottle” wing modification after six of the bombers were lost in a one month (!!!) period (Mar-Apr 1958) due to fatigue cracks brought about by LABS toss-bombing. The “bottle pins” that held the wings to the fuselage were eventually replaced during 1958.

The B-52’s weak point seemed to be the tall tail on early (A-F) aircraft. Even the shorter, stronger tail of the B-52G didn’t hold up on one occasion, as witnessed in that famous photo of one flying with about 80% of its tail gone, a victim of CAT over the Midwest.

If the B-52 hadn’t worked, I don’t see the B-47 continuing on.
SAC wanted a longer range bomber…so it probably would have gotten one sooner or later.
Perhaps the B-70 (and skip a generation in performance).

Not a G model, but an H that lost its tail. Tail number 61-023

http://www.barksdale.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123024862

61-023 was recently in the news as the first B-52H to retire.

http://www.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123108767

TJ

What is that flying with the Gliders & their tug?

Hi Rob,

The aircraft is a Silence Twister.

http://www.swiftteam.airshows.org.uk/aircraft.html

From

http://www.swiftteam.airshows.org.uk/

TJ

The one living in a dream world is the one that thinks Americans would accept a potential adversary gathering intellignce routinely flying off the coast of the continental US even if its over international waters. Americans would consider that an act of hostile intentions. Again if the Pentagon goes all paranoid over the possibility of China just building one aircraft carrier that would probably never go anywhere on the eastern 2/3rds of the Pacific, how would they react to routine military flights by spy planes off the coast of the US? And I never said anything that there would a be definite shootdown except that avergae joe American would want one. The US will do what it takes to stop it even if it’s over international waters. Notice you didn’t comment on the ship that was illegally boarded by the US Navy on international waters based on bad intelligence. The US violated international law on that one. Sort of stifles your argument there.

Hostile intentions! Please get real. The U.S. sees it as fair game for any nation to gather intelligence in a similar fashion as it does to other nations. The distance involved is the only thing that precludes such flights by the PRC. The Russian military regularly conducted periphery intelligence collection flights against the US, and the US did the same to Russia. Where was the big problem over that? None at all.

Russian intelligence collection vessels regularly sat off the coast of the U.S. in international waters. Where was the big problem over that? None at all. It was expected and regarded as fair game by the U.S.

The US will do what it takes to stop it even if it’s over international waters.

Absolutely ridiculous. Why would they endanger their own intelligence collection flights by interfering with those of say the PRC? It is fully expected by US forces, wherever they are that, that nations will conduct recce and int against those forces. It is part of the game that has been going on for decades.

What has boarding a civilian vessel in international waters got to do with military forces gathering intelligence on each other? (What PRC merchant vessel are you talking about? Was this the ‘Milkl Way’ back during the early 1990s?) It has absolutely nothing to do with it.

Again, what do you think happens when a Chinese MPA/Int collection aircraft takes an interest in a U.S. battle group? In international waters the Chinese aircraft can approach and legally make a visual run on the group. The Russians recently conducted a similar run against a U.S. carrier battle group.

You are under the strange assumption that gathering intelligence from international waters or airspace is some sort of hostile action. It is not. It isn’t illegal and is tolerated and seen as fair game by all sides.

TJ

You do know the US has skirted and violated international law recently in regards to the war on terror? And you can say that’s up to interpretation. And that’s why Americans will demand action if Chinese spy planes were to be able to routinely fly off the coast of the US. So agreements, laws, and rules are only conveniences. International laws are meaningless when one thinks on special cases they can be broken. Everyone who breaks international laws thinks it’s a special case.

No they wouldn’t. It is a perfectly legitimate action and has been going on for decades. The PRC has routinely been subject to periphery intelligence collection flights for years. It isn’t illegal and the Chinese leave them alone. They have no jurisdiction to harrass them in international airspace. The same applies if the Chinese were to mount say Tu-154 int collection flights down the western seaboard of the US. Totally hypothetical as the PRC has no need or desire to do so and the range would be a bit of a struggle.

Absolutely nothing would happen apart from internationally agreed interceptions by fighter aircraft. For anything else to occur would result in a tit-for-tat occurrence against U.S. flights off the PRC coast. The US doesn’t want any of its flights interfered with, so why would they interfere with any nation conducting intelligence missions from international airspace?

The Russians fly strategic nuclear capable bombers upto the periphery of North American airspace so why should an intelligence collection flight generate any different reaction?

TJ

If China flew spy planes off the coast of the US over international waters, it woud be considered an act of war.

You have answered your own question. It is international airspace! The agreement is the 12 nautical mile limit. No different to the Soviet Union and Russia flying off the coast of North America. Where is the act of war when Chinese MPA aircraft take an interest in U.S vessels in internatonal waters?

TJ