Why wasn't Nimrod based in Falklands?

[Jimlad1]

Okay, very random question time here which came up over a discussion the other day. I understand the C130 down at MPA was (is?) used in an Maritime SAR / Patrol function and has been for some time.
As far as I can make out, the Nimrod was never permanently deployed into MPA for this, and I'm curious as to why this was the case. MPA has hosted a lot of isolated lodger airframes, so what was the reason for not sticking a Nimrod down there for the long range roles?

[Just This Once...]

Not allowed to base one there permanently and the temporary detachments were subject to close scrutiny; these were frequently waived if it could been seen or viewed as an escalatory measure. Clearly there were plans if the level of tension demanded it.

[Nimblast 1]

Simple reason for not deploying one permanently in the Falklands, lack of 4 star hotel accommodation:).

[Jimlad1]

Thanks - am genuinely curious about this as I would have thought it was a far better capability than the C130 in those roles, so I'm curious as to why it was seen as escalatory (unless people thought it was doing something that its near cousin from 51 was doing?)

[Just This Once...]

I think you have answered your own question:

I'm curious as to why it was seen as escalatory...

...it was a far better capability than the C130...

Having a platform that could challenge all the naval ports of Argentina means that politics (correctly, in this case) comes ahead of capability.

[Clad]

How often was it deployed south apart from the Falklands war itself ? Does anyone know ?

[thing]

How often was it deployed south apart from the Falklands war itself ? Does anyone know ?

While we're asking, does anyone know the patrol locations of Trident...:)

[racedo]

Having a platform that could challenge all the naval ports of Argentina means that politics (correctly, in this case) comes ahead of capability.

Agree as the line been defensive and offensive capability can be very thin.
Why escalate and give rise to misunderstanding and potential conflict when its not required.

[racedo]

While we're asking, does anyone know the patrol locations of Trident...http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/smile.gif

and the firing positions / targets.

I have always been in favour of open Govt as its a check and balance against allowing bureaucrats and politicians assume too much power.

However there are times when secrecy is best option to avoid miscalculations which start a needless conflict.

[thing]

However there are times when secrecy is best option to avoid miscalculations which start a needless conflict.

Before I get the knock at the door from the guys in the unmarked Range Rover may I add that my post was in jest. But you knew that.

[melmothtw]

However there are times when secrecy is best option to avoid
miscalculations which start a needless conflict.

I take your point recedo, but the Nimrod's retired so not sure the comparison to Trident stands up.

Edited to acknowledge thing's comment, re his post being jest.

[racedo]

I take your point recedo, but the Nimrod's retired so not sure the comparison to Trident stands up.

Maybe maybe not . If it was published that UK had sent Nimrods down 27 years out of 30 since war, then Agrentina may conclude that while talking peace UK was actually targeting all their naval bases all of the time.

Now starting negotiations on something different. It starts off on basis that Uk has been lying all the time previously, thereby any agreement made Argentina can break and not trust what UK is saying given past expereiences.

Argentina assume UK lying when its not and act accordingly, 2500 dead later, people realise it was actually a misunderstanding because everybody assummed the worst all the time.

Once mistrust escalates it is difficult to de escalate.

[Whenurhappy]

When it was planned to replace the Tornado with the Typhoon, a lot of diplomatic effort was made to explain this was a like for like exchange. This cunning ruse was exploded - inadvertently - at a Waddington when then AOC 1 Gp enthusiastically described the greatly enhanced capabilities of thje Typhoon to an open audience - which happened to include the ARG Naval Attache. A diplomat demarche ensued, which could have been avoided if a VSO had employed a degree of political discretion.

[charliegolf]

The guys in the

unmarked Range Rover

... are generally humourless b'stards. I'm told.

CG

[mrmrsmith2]

was on said Nimrod as a photog for exercise FIREFOCUS, was ah great 3 weeks , good memories of AAR there and back. think I found all the bars in the Bronx toooo lol was 1987 me thinks

[Pontius Navigator]

I thought that the Trident was no longer pre target ing

[NutLoose]

Thought it was to do with the inability of the UK to the Falklands supply chain to keep up with the supply of pies.

[Fox3WheresMyBanana]

Have met the guys in the unmarked Range Rover once. They are humourless, but were quite reasonable on this occasion.

[QTRZulu]

Clad,

On a personal note, I deployed there a couple of times, but that was under the SAR banner when the F3's were rotated out.

Whilst we did carry out mutual coop with our dark blue colleagues when we had to opportunity to do so, it didn't really amount to a great deal of traditional maritime work. I do seem to recall that we spent most of our time taking the permanent staff down there on trips around the islands, down to South Georgia and out to see the South Atlantic guard ship for a few photo opportunities.

That said, we did take the patrol of the EEZ from the Herc for a week on one occasion and finished in just over half a sortie what the Herc guys achieved in a week.

Most of the Kipper fleet who went down there would have jumped at the chance to fly from there, but as has already been mentioned it was a political hot potato! A shame really as it would have been a great det and we may have got our own dining table in the Mess!

[thing]

Have met the guys in the unmarked Range Rover once. They are humourless, but were quite reasonable on this occasion.

Were they wearing these?...

G.C.H.Q. Always Listening To Our Customers T-Shirt from RedMolotov.com (http://www.redmolotov.com/catalogue/tshirts/all/gchq-always-listening-tshirt.html)

[Icanseeclearly]

If it had been a nimrod deployed rather than a C130 in June 1985 would the mission systems on the aircraft identified the surface contact they were probing as a warship and prevented the midair with the (believe it was an 826) Seaking?

[Yellow Sun]

If it had been a nimrod deployed rather than a C130 in June 1985 would the mission systems on the aircraft identified the surface contact they were probing as a warship and prevented the midair with the (believe it was an 826) Seaking?

The answer to that can only be "very probably", but the reasons lie not only in the better capability of Searchwater. Nimrod crews operated full time in the maritime environment and would be more aware of the vagaries of other units operating procedures. They would also be highly aware of the necessity to ensure deconfliction, this was drummed into you almost from day 1 on the OCU. The C130 crew just did not have the experience to appreciate the potential situation they were in any more that a Nimrod crew would anticipate the problems of a low-level night stream para-drop.

Why was the Nimrod not deployed to the Falklands? Because the task could be adequately accomplished more cheaply with another platform and the Nimrod's capabilities were better employed elsewhere.

Even during Corporate the normal UK tasks were still being carried out. The Soviets didn't cut back on their activity because we had sent a few aircraft down South. I recall a couple of "entertaining" nights in the Outer Clyde Approaches during that period. You couldn't have put any other platform out there to do what we were doing.

YS

[Just This Once...]

Yellow, that is kind of blaming the C130 crew which is a little unfair. If I recall correctly the ship in question reported its operating area as somewhere else and that it would not be conducting helo ops that day. Coordination is everything, but perhaps that is what you were alluding to.

[CathayBrat]

While we're asking, does anyone know the patrol locations of Trident...
But of course, as you asked nicely.
The patrol areas are in the area West of Cornwall, East of Maine, North of St Helena and South of Greenland. :E
Good luck in your hunt, they are v v quiet beasts, the Dark side of the Force, as a surface fleet chap (read target), we could never find them!

[Yellow Sun]

Yellow, that is kind of blaming the C130 crew which is a little unfair.

The failure was systemic and that was clearly spelled out in the report. It is nearly 25 years since I read it and talked to one of the board members about it; I do not recall the details. A Nimrod crew would have had the benefit of IFF on the Searchwater (if the helo was squawking) and ESM information (if either the helo or ship was radiating). Borne of long experience they would also have had a healthy scepticism of surface unit PIMs.

YS

[ksimboy]

Yellow, the C130 on the day in question was one of the tests beds for the Orange Crop fit on Albert. The RN vessels radar was picked up , but as vessel wasn't (a) where it was supposed to be and (b) conducting heli-ops without notification , the C130 crew investigated the radar contact . Another factor for the Nimrod was the runway at MPA had only just been completed and Nimrod wasn't overly keen on AMT matting at Stanley.

[Yellow Sun]

The RN vessels radar was picked up , but as vessel wasn't (a) where it was supposed to be and (b) conducting heli-ops without notification , the C130 crew investigated the radar contact .

This is precisely the point I am attempting to highlight. I feel that I can safely say that every Nimrod crew of that era had on some occasion found a "Blue" unit somewhere it was not expected or failed to find one where it was expected. Because crews had been caught out before we would also tend to assume that a ship capable of operating a helo would be doing until we had established comms and confirmed the situation.

I am not criticising the C130 crew, but they just did not have the depth of maritime role experience to pick up the subtle clues that would have made a Nimrod crew suspicious. Added to that the Nimrod would have had much better sensor derived information available which adds up to my assessment in reply to Icanseeclearly's question of "Probably not"

YS

[middlesbrough]

I was detached to 1312 Flt as a C130 navigator from Dec 1985 to April 1986, after the midair previously mentioned. I had previously been on Shackleton's (1964-1970) and Nimrods (1970-1980). I rewrote a draft of the maritime air procedures, particularly the rules for overflight of surface vessels and IMC altitudes for rotary and fixed wing aircraft. The maritime surveillance carried out in my time at RAF Stanley was mainly fishery protection and ECM monitoring.

[ALTAM]

A bit more info. I was an Observer on 826 in 1983/4 and deployed south with the RN group twice. I knew all 4 who were killed in the Sea King, a number quite well.

The 'RN' ship was a RFA, I forget the name but she was a converted container ship with a US containerised system for operating Sea Kings. The C130 crew was fairly new and was not used to oeprating the the maritime environment, uderstandably.

RN/RFA ships operated in areas, the sea areas out to 200 NM from a central point in the Islands, were divided into 8 equal sectors. Ships did not regularly publish their actual positions for obvious reasons. The RN/RFA flypro was published daily, but tended to be a guide and ships usually their aircraft on alert (15/30/60) for 24 hours. Which allowed them to operate when they wanted to, maintenance dependant.

The RFA had 5 helos embarked and therefore theoretically could operate 24 hours per day and were set up to do so, aircrew and maintaner numbers etc. What was not good in the early days was info disemination it terms of what the RAF was doing and what the RN was doing for flying ops. There were limited rules/processes and procedures, which complicated things further. We used to call Mt Kent radar to ask what else was airborne shortly after launch but this was from experience and not a required procedure.

The accident was caused by the usual chain of: errors, lack of comms, inexperience and probably a confidence in the 'big sky' theory. I am told that, understandably, things changed a lot after the BoI issued its findings, if not before.

It was all very sad and avoidable.

I also understand that it was quite a piloting feat top bring the damaged C130 back to Stanley.

[Davef68]

The 'RN' ship was a RFA, I forget the name but she was a converted container ship with a US containerised system for operating Sea Kings. The C130 crew was fairly new and was not used to oeprating the the maritime environment, uderstandably.
.

RFA Reliant?

[Clad]

I just meant in general/public open terms re nimrods south eg SAR deployments and if anyone had any stories... ? Really interesting remote remote part of the world.. Thanks

[SASless]

Nimrod based in the Falklands.....way too far from sea water of any size perhaps.

[fergineer]

And it could not Give fuel away to the fighters!!!!! Orange crop was not that good either.

[ksimboy]

It was quite a piloting feat , one of the more interesting days in a 4 month tour. The conversations on the R/T that day were slightly non standard on occasion also.

[ksimboy]

Fergie, was the flatbed not a tanker that was involved.

[OKOC]

Does anyone know the spec of an unmarked Range Rover?

[racedo]

Okoc

Sometimes the add or remove gear to act in stealth mode...............so could be disguised as a Tranny.

[camelspyyder]

In 85 or 86, Pete Rosie took a CXX crew down there for a week long SAR looking for a missing Australian civvy aircraft. The other crew sat at Ascension all week U/S, sunburnt and hungover:ok:

[knarfw]

The damaged C130 (XV206 iirc), landed at Mount PLeasant not Stanley.

[fergineer]

KSim you could be right it may have been a flat bed but was certainly Maroc fitted. When I was down there all 3 were tankers.

[Willard Whyte]

When it was planned to replace the Tornado with the Typhoon, a lot of diplomatic effort was made to explain this was a like for like exchange. This cunning ruse was exploded - inadvertently - at a Waddington when then AOC 1 Gp enthusiastically described the greatly enhanced capabilities of thje Typhoon to an open audience - which happened to include the ARG Naval Attache. A diplomat demarche ensued, which could have been avoided if a VSO had employed a degree of political discretion.

I have a tough time believing that anyone would take that 'diplomatic effort' as being truthful, from the outset.