Sea Skua in the Falklands War

[Navaleye]

Here's a small site showing the effects of Coventry's and Lynx flights Sea Skua attack on the Alferez Sobral in May 1982. 3 out of 4 hits at 8 miles.

Not bad (http://www.nafts.org/sobral.htm)

[anotherthing]

Naval eye -

not bad is a fair point, however, it was not exactly a 'warship', and it took at least 2 Lynx (4 Skuas) to do it.

Imagine trying that against the old Soviet Navy (as per the Tac Man). Sitting in a hover, waiting for the firework to reach a Soviet Cruiser or whatever, unable to manoeuvre much due to restrictions in the weapons ability, coupled with a longish run in time and a radar burning and turning with a very distinctive PRF etc.

Glad we never had to try it for real!!

[WE Branch Fanatic]

I thought that Sea Skua was developed to deal with the threat of fast attack craft with anti ship missiles? I thought larger vessels were the intended target of Sea Eagle? Launched from the Sea Harrier (http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?t=98152)?

Does anyone have any details on the engagements with Iraqi Navy vessels in 1991? Wasn't a Lynx badly damaged by hostile fire?

PS According to Admiral Sandy Woodward's One Hundred Days and the book about the conflict by Martyn Middlebrook (my 2nd edition copy is titled Task Force, the first edition was called Operation Corporate) two Argentine vessels were engaged........one of which was sunk.

Yes, I've checked. Coventry launched her Lynx first, investigating a surface contact wihich opened fire. The Lynx replied with a Sea Skua and a larger than expected explosion was seen, suggesting the the vessel may have been a Corvette, with a missile canister being struck.....?

Another interesting site here (http://www.vectorsite.net/avlynx.html).

[Jimlad1]

WEBF - are you pathologically incapable of posting anything without referring to the Sea Harrier?

[WE Branch Fanatic]

I struggle to not mention in it passing. Mild OCD perhaps? Not organised enough for full blown OCD. But since I'm posting again, why wasn't either Sea Skua or Sea Eagle ever fitted to Sea King?

Back to Sea Skua........

[Toxteth O'Grady]

But since I'm posting again, why wasn't either Sea Skua or Sea Eagle ever fitted to Sea King?

Sea Eagle = Indian Navy Sea King Mk42B

Sea Skua = German Navy Sea King Mk41

:cool:

TOG

[anotherthing]

WEBF -

that as may be, but there were still kill plans in the tacman for major soviet vessels, using sea skua

[Pontius Navigator]

not bad is a fair point, however, it was not exactly a 'warship', and it took at least 2 Lynx (4 Skuas) to do it.

Warships might have efficient BDR but I would have thought an ATA, even an old one, would have had rather more metal work and be rather more robust than a greyhound of the seas.

[vecvechookattack]

You could also ask .....

"Why was the Sea Eagle never fitted to the Sea Harrier?"

[vecvechookattack]

WEBF -

that as may be, but there were still kill plans in the tacman for major soviet vessels, using sea skua


Thats because it had the capability......nobody ever said it was a good idea....a bit like the old DIDTAC.......remember them ?

[Wrathmonk]

Sea Eagle on Sea Harrier.

Shouldn't this thread (or indeed any thread that discusses Sea Harrier) be in the Aviation History and Nostalga forum?:E

[Navaleye]

Shouldn't this thread (or indeed any thread that discusses Sea Harrier) be in the Aviation History and Nostalga forum?

Both still in front line service, so its not really appropriate.

[NURSE]

Why did we phase out Sea Eagle? couldn't it have been used from Nimrod or as in the old EF2000 Game from Typhoon?

[anotherthing]

vecvechookattack

yes, it did have the capability, but often meant tying up 4 Lynx for an attack on one vessel, and the survivability rate of those A/C given the manoeuvring parameters whilst the Skua was in flight would have been pretty poor. i.e. lose a large proportion of air assets to take out one ship. (though in war, sometimes needs must). As you say; it was a capability and as such, had to be written up in the manuals, but it was not very practical!!

Pontius navigator -

it's the ability of the soviet warships to defend themselves that was the problem, not their thickness of metal, especially as to have a successfull missile run, the Lynx ws severely limited in its ability to move, and also had to have radar lock throughout!

[Navaleye]

A scenario which was often replayed was an attack on the Belgrano group without the aid of an SSN. This would have resulted in the RN surface attack group closing to within circa 35 miles of the Argentine force and launch Sea Skua attacks on her accompanying DDs in order to disable them, repeated if necessary. The SAG would then close on the Belgrano and attack with Exocet using OTH data provided by the Lynx. Additional Lynx sorties would then be flown to mop up any surviving Argentine assets. The Sea Skua was a handy beast in its day. Needs a longer range, active seeker, GPS guidance and a proximity fuse.

[Jimlad1]

"
Why did we phase out Sea Eagle? couldn't it have been used from Nimrod or as in the old EF2000 Game from Typhoon?"

It was due an expensive refit around the time of the SDR - the realistic assessment was made that neither Tornado nor SHAR would be likely to do much open water anti ship strikes in the near future, and we had various variants of Harpoon to do the job anyway. It went primarily as a cost cutting measure.

[Navaleye]

I'm not sure if the "It needed an expensive refit" really stacks up here, but it gets trotted out everytime something needs to get canned. The Indians used it for a further 10 years quite happily Here. (http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/IAF/Aircraft/Missiles/Sea-Eagle.html)

[vecvechookattack]

Why did we phase out the Sea Eagle...???? we never phased in the Sea Eagle .....

[Navaleye]

That's not exactly correct. Sea Eagle was only ever intended for the Shar and Tornado GR1a in UK service. It was deemed surplus to requirements when the cold war ended. It strikes me as a very expensive development programme for a weapon which only had two customers no matter how good it was.

[L J R]

Navaleye, who said it was good? (the Sea Eagle I mean)

[Jimlad1]

"
I'm not sure if the "It needed an expensive refit" really stacks up here, but it gets trotted out everytime something needs to get canned. The Indians used it for a further 10 years quite happily Here. (http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/IAF/Aircraft/Missiles/Sea-Eagle.html)"

This isn't the place to discuss specifics, but its fair to say that to have continued in service would have required significant expenditure on an item of negligible military value.

[Navaleye]

That sounds like a leading question and if you have first hand knowledge, please share it with us. The Indians seemed to be very happy with it and it generally had a successful record in trials.

[Tilt&Gain]

That's not exactly correct. Sea Eagle was only ever intended for the Shar and Tornado GR1a in UK service. It was deemed surplus to requirements when the cold war ended. It strikes me as a very expensive development programme for a weapon which only had two customers no matter how good it was.


Unless I am sadly mistaken, I think the launch airframe for Sea Eagle in the UK was the Bucc - later replaced by the GR1B?

[Jimlad1]

Naval Eye - there was nothing intrinsically wrong with it, but AIUI at the time of SDR the missiles were approaching the point where they would have required a significant expenditure on refurbishment to maintain OC (as do all missiles) This would have cost a lot of money which we just didn't and still don't have. Given the demise of its target, plus the existence of Sea Skua and Harpoon, it was a no brainer really.