Argentine fast jet weapons choice - Falklands

[typerated]

I am sure most of us will remember the Argentine attacks on the Navy in San Carlos. Quite a number of ships were hit by bombs that didn't have time to arm.

I always wondered why did their QWI's not select rockets for the job in the first place?

Less explosive power but much more chance of getting a useful hit - who cares if you sink it - just need it to limp away for the reminder of the conflict and job done.

Heavily damaging a few more destroyers or frigates might have been the margin between losing and winning for them.

If I remember right Buccs used to carry SNEBs for similar circumstances off Norway but they seemed to not get a mention in the last few years of ops?

TR

[Pontius Navigator]

TR, you really raise 2 points:

Why didn't the ARG use SNEB?

Why did the Bucc stop using SNEB?

Last first, probably because there were better ways of attacking in the face of more effective CIWS.

Of course that doesn't answer the first question. Ask Marcantilian.

[MAINJAFAD]

First attack on San Carlos on the morning of 21st May 82 was against HMS Argonaut by an Aermacchi using Cannons and Zuni Rockets. I suspect most of the Zuni's the Argentinians had were on the Islands for the Pucara's and Aermacchis to use and that the only Fast Jet attack aircraft they had that could use them was the Skyhawk. One of the Argentinian forum members like Marcantilan or CAW may know what the reasons were.

FIRST CONTACT: HMS ARGONAUT OFF FANNING HEAD - Maritime Prints (http://www.maritimeprints.com/portfolio/view/first-contact-hms-argonaut-off-fanning-head/)

[MAINJAFAD]

Last first, probably because there were better ways of attacking in the face of more effective CIWS.

PN is quite correct. The Soviet CIWS mount was fitted to almost all soviet warships from small missile boats to the Kirov and Keiv class. The Kirov class had 8 of them per ship alone on top of all the SAM they carried.

[Darvan]

RAF Buccs never planned to attack ships with SNEB. For the ASuW role TV Martel was the weapon of choice in the 70s and early 80s. This was replaced by the fire-and-forget Sea Eagle missile in 1986, which had a longer stand-off range and clever ECCM capabilities to penetrate Ships' defences and CIWS. The weapon of last resort was the 1000 LB bomb, which was tossed unguided from 3.5 miles until 208 Sqn were equipped with Pavespike and Paveway 2s in the late 80s, when laser designation improved the pK from a 6 ship attack.

[Pontius Navigator]

Darvan, the SNEB was in its arsenal in the early days and possibly before BL755 and possibly anti-tank rather than ASuW.

[Scruffy Fanny]

SNEB was not that accurate - fine against tanks but not ships - The match of Martel and Sea Eagle on the Bucc made it the perfect aircraft -weapon fit for the role - says he with 6 hrs total on Buccs ...

[Thelma Viaduct]

What was the accuracy of a toss attack? Sounds like a lottery and within a mile would be good.

[Darvan]

I think the CEP for Medium Toss was about 500 feet; about 1000 feet for Long Toss; and about 1500 feet for 9 Second Varitoss. However, crews regularly achieved better accuracy, particularly with Medium Toss. Long Toss was a fully automatic attack and release (yes, even in a Bucc) that was originally conceived for attacking the Sverdlov class destroyer with a WE 177. Medium Toss was used for tossing 4 x 1000 LB slick bombs from the bomb bay when the Martel missiles had all been expended. And 9 Second Varitoss was used for.......well the less said about that the better!

[typerated]

I remember seeing something about Buccs using SNEBs in the Norwegian Fjords where a Martel would have been unusable due to the proximity of land returns. Mainly intended against soviet amphibious forces. Although google does not back me up with any reference.


I would have thought rockets would have been accurate enough against ships- just a couple of hits would most likely put a frigate or destroyer out of the fight - tanks are far small and harder to see!


Rockets give you a little bit of stand off and certainly more chance of living than trying to do a lay down with 1000 Lbs!!


I remember Pucaras had SNEBS at Goose Green but never heard of any of their fast jets.

[engineer(retard)]

I'm sort of scratching my head about why Martel would be confused by land returns, what variant are thinking of?

[Pontius Navigator]

ER, as a standoff weapon maybe terrain masking?

Though I remember an Avro sales book for the Trykon (sic?) which could be launched down a river and guided around bends until it reached its target bridge. May be a fjord would block data links.

[AndySmith]

Although I am sure my friends Mariano or Christian might pop up here at any moment with an answer, I have just sent an email to one of the A4 pilots that I have contact with, one of the 4 pilots to attack Argonaut on the 21st, to see if he can shed any light on the subject.

[engineer(retard)]

ER, as a standoff weapon maybe terrain masking?

Terrain masking will cause SNEB an issue as well

[Pontius Navigator]

ER, oh come on, remember 633 Sqn with an in-off?

Seriously, SNEB is a short range LOS weapon whereas Martel was supposed to be BVR and theoretically, like the Trykon I mentioned, steerable around a river.

[walbut]

Some years ago I went to an Aero. Soc. lecture given by Graham Pitchfork describing his long working relationship with the Buccaneer. He started with a description of the early days with the RN and the anticipated means of attacking the Sverdlov class vessels. I can't remember his exact words but they were along the lines of " We were not planning to blast a few holes in them with iron bombs, we were going to vaporise the buggers"

Walbut

[ZeBedie]

attacking the Sverdlov class destroyer with a WE 177

Would the Buccaneer not be destroyed by the bomb?

[Roadster280]

Nuclear ordnance for a mere destroyer? Take out the enemy's ASW?

An earlier point - SNEB not that accurate, so good for tanks but less so for ships. Isn't a ship a hell of a lot bigger, less mobile target than a tank? Granted the tank isn't firing back at attacking aircraft, but is a much smaller, more nimble target. How does relative inaccuracy make tanks preferable to ships for SNEB?

[Pontius Navigator]

ZeBedie, why would you think that?

Now a good tactic would have been to sling one about 5-10 miles short then approach through GZ after the plume had fallen and deliver the coup de grace.

[Pontius Navigator]

Darvan made a slip there, Sverdlov was a heavy cruiser, 4inch armour belt, 2 inch deck armour and very much an improved WW2 rather than a modern tin or aluminium can.

In contrast the Belgrano had a 5.5 inch armoured belt and 2 inch deck armour.

[engineer(retard)]

Seriously, SNEB is a short range LOS weapon whereas Martel was supposed to be BVR and theoretically, like the Trykon I mentioned, steerable around a river.

SNEB operational use sounds like Operation Certain Death. TV data link would be stuffed and the AR blind I suppose, damn those laws of physics.

I recall being told that a near miss to a ship with a 1000lb would be good enough as the compression wave would burst bulkheads. No idea if that is true though.

[Pontius Navigator]

The Nimrod was originally designed to carry Martel but only carried the AS12. Now that was fun.

Plan Bluebell required the Nimrod to overfly a suspected FPB at about 5000 feet and illuminate with a stick of 5 inch flares. Having identified the target it would swoop down to low level under the flares and the copilot would fire the missile and fly it to the target.

We only ever practiced in the SIM which was as well because the Sovs unsportingly fitted twin 30 mm CIWS even on OSAs and the flares were never reliable.

[racedo]

The Nimrod was originally designed to carry Martel but only carried the AS12. Now that was fun.

Plan Bluebell required the Nimrod to overfly a suspected FPB at about 5000 feet and illuminate with a stick of 5 inch flares. Having identified the target it would swoop down to low level under the flares and the copilot would fire the missile and fly it to the target.

We only ever practiced in the SIM which was as well because the Sovs unsportingly fitted twin 30 mm CIWS even on OSAs and the flares were never reliable.

Sounds like an IS suicide mission..................

Did those who came up with plans like this Procreate ?
Kind of scary to see genes like that passed on.

[The Claw]

http://i1197.photobucket.com/albums/aa434/paulsphoto1/IMG_0016.jpg

http://i1197.photobucket.com/albums/aa434/paulsphoto1/IMG_0017.jpg

[Lonewolf_50]

I recall being told that a near miss to a ship with a 1000lb would be good enough as the compression wave would burst bulkheads. No idea if that is true though.

Depends on "how near" and the depth of the explosive at time of detonation.

If it blew up underwater it could approximate the explosion of a torpedo warhead. On a small to middle sized warship it could do some serious damage. (What is the weight of explosives in a 1000 pound bomb? How much is iron and how much is explosive charge?)

If it blew up "just right" in terms of where getting more or less underneath the ship as it explodes, it might create that bubble under the keel that submariner's torpedoes can achieve, which could cause severe structural damage to the main strengthening member of the ship's structure.

So "it depends" is the answer.

[Pontius Navigator]

LW, charge weight is about 33%.

[Lonewolf_50]

LW, charge weight is about 33%. Thx. That makes such an explosion about half as strong as a Mk-48 ADCAP. (US Sub wired guided torpedo). Trouble for a frigate or bigger trouble for any corvette or smaller, depending upon where it goes off.

[sandiego89]

Getting back to the original question, perhaps it was you use what you have. Iron bombs were perhaps the best available weapon for ship strike by the Mirages/daggers, Canberras and A-4's. More punch that rockets or cannon, and an effective weapon against a thinner skinned ship.

The problem was delivery profile. Too low and the bomb does not have time to arm, too high and you are much more vulnerable to AAA and missiles.

[Mogwi]

SNEB rockets were not used aboard carriers because of R/F problems with the fuse. The 2" rockets used by the RN were not as stable aerodynamically as SNEB and carried a smaller warhead. They were developed as an A2A weapon but could do damage to upper-works and aerials in the anti-ship rôle.

In '82, we designed an attack against the Arg T42 destroyers using rockets and bombs, which worked very well against our own ships but was never tried against the Arg Navy. It relied on a well choreographed attack with 6 aircraft, exploiting the ZD notch and scanning system of the 909 radars.

First weapons on target were LOFT VT fused 1klb bombs, followed swiftly by 2"rockets, with the coup de grace being lay-down 1klb retard bombs.

Post 82, we got the Sea Eagle which allowed one to be back in the crew-room by the time the enemy went bang - great improvement. And what a war-head!!

Swing the lamp!

[India Four Two]

exploiting the ZD notch and scanning system of the 909 radars.

Mogwi,

Can you expand on that?

[Tourist]

Not convinced that near misses will do anything to a warship. Warships are built strong.

Mines and torpedos that do the under the keel, break the back trick are rather different.

[AR1]

Using the words notch and Radar in the same sentence implies some filtering, I imagine this is clutter with Zero Doppler.

Given they were our Radars I imagine we knew where they performed the worst.

[AndySmith]

There are some pictures in Ian Inskip's excellent book about Glamorgan's war down south that has photos of the indentations left by the presumed explosion of bombs dropped on the 1st May by the Daggers of the Torno flight. However, I believe these bombs were 500 lb Spanish BRP bombs. Unfortunately, I cannot find that photo on the web.

I had a reply from the A4 driver. He will send me a "long" explanation of their choice of weapons. I will post it when I get it, and have translated it.

[Navaleye]

It is doubtful that Argentine Type 42s received the fix that solved the problem of hot diesel exhaust venting on the the aft 909 causing it to fail. In that case I would recommend a low level run in from port and starboard quarters. Although not at the same time!

[Just This Once...]

Not convinced that near misses will do anything to a warship. Warships are built strong.

Well near-misses is pretty much what we aimed at achieving with the first package of aircraft, if only 1000lb GP bombs are available for the attack. Lofted airburst 1000lb bombs have a frag pattern that radars, sensors, antennas exposed weapons, soft structure, cooling systems and exposed people do not appreciate.

The shockwave effects are impossibly complex on a warship as some parts of the structure are incredibly tough, whilst others are not. The shockwave propagation does wacky things when funnelled between hardened surfaces. Hard structure has a bit of a habit of transmitting the shockwave into unintended places on the ship. In equal regard otherwise exposed parts of the ship can suffer relatively little damage.

In the hope that either the systems or the fleshy things are degraded by the airburst effects the next package of aircraft would execute a more accurate delivery profile, with bombs impact-fused at a suitable selection of delays to cause carnage at multiple deck levels. Given the level of ship-saving techniques taught to many navies you may also choose to leave the odd bomb aboard that is fused to go off a little while after the attack. No point leaving anything to chance.

Wrecking warships with 1000lb bombs is easy. Getting to the point of weapon delivery is the challenging bit.

:ok:

[Marcantilan]

Hello,

According to early planning, to attack warships the FAS (Fuerza Aérea Sur - South Air Force Command) recommended Zuni (127mm) rockets and 500lb (and heavier) bombs. To attack landing craft, the recommendation is to employ up to 250lb bombs and FFAR (70mm)rockets.

However, just before ops starting, the FAS realized the bombs gives more bang for the buck, so all antiship missions were armed with bombs (from 500lb and up to 1000lb).

The MB339 Macchi which attacked Argonaut on May 21st, 1982, was configured for armed recon (with rockets and gun pods). In fact, when landed the pilot (Lt. Crippa) asked for a bomb load for a re-run, but the higher echelon rejected another sortie (because the attack waves were en route from the mainland).

Regards!

[Mogwi]

I42,

PM sent

[Tourist]

Wrecking warships with 1000lb bombs is easy. Getting to the point of weapon delivery is the challenging bit.

:ok:

Really?

How many have you wrecked?

Or are you just making assumptions....?

[Just This Once...]

Don't worry, I have plenty of experience when it comes to weapon effects and targeting. Like quite a few on this forum I also got reasonably good at chucking practice bombs at ships by day and by night. So no, no assumptions needed.

Returning back to the thread, the Argentineans did a pretty good job of getting dumb bombs into RN ships, despite rather rustic systems and the RN shooting back. If the 13 bombs that hit but failed to go bang had fused correctly then the outcome of the RN to continue to operate would have been challenged. I'm struggling to think of an occasion where a ship has survived a correctly functioning 1000lb bomb. I guess it must have happened but it would be a pretty rare event.

http://www.naval-history.net/F62-Falklands-British_ships_lost.htm

[Pontius Navigator]

JTO, indeed things certainly improved after Torey Canyon.

I remember watching FA2s practically riding 28lb PB into the target. The trick would have been to avoid being there when they went bang.

I wonder had those dud bombs exploded, would the aircraft have survived?

[parabellum]

Wasn't the Tirpitz eventually rolled over by bomb(s) that landed close by but were not direct hits? (Obviously the direct hits pretty much disabled her!)

[rlsbutler]

Going back to the SNEB rockets, I would question how useful they would be against shipping. As a Canberra pilot in the 1960s I trained with these weapons. I understood that they were for personnel and soft skin vehicles. That would have been with the HE head.

The alternative was a shaped charge head, but I think it was only good for 2" armour. A full pod of these would clearly make a mess on upper parts of a ship, but I would have been surprised if the ship was crippled as a result.

Because SNEB missiles were carried in tubes, the head had only the diameter of the rocket - 68mm I think.

In WWII, Coastal forces used rockets to sink small ships. Those were 3" rockets, so 76mm diameter, but the AP heads were of a greater diameter and therefore heavy. The trick was to place them below the vessel's waterline to cause flooding. Then the head was solid-shot and could achieve this, while the SNEB shaped charge would ejaculate on impact with the water. 3" RP were obsolete in the 1960s, no doubt because they caused so much drag, but I could visualise them as useful weapons on the A-10.

[typerated]

I'm sure you are right RLS with respect to older ships - Most larger WW2 ships had armour - SNEBs would have been useless against those.

I would have thought modern destroyers and frigates would have effectively been soft skinned vehicles with plenty of venerable equipment above deck.

Maybe a QWI can help but I would have thought a pod of SNEBS would have produced enough damage, especially to the equipment such as weapons radar etc above decks to render the ship severely degraded as a fighting machine.

Of course a 1000 lb bomb is more effective - if you can get hit the target and get it to explode - They were big ifs during the Falkland's war. Also a risker profile.

[Tourist]

Don't worry, I have plenty of experience when it comes to weapon effects and targeting. Like quite a few on this forum I also got reasonably good at chucking practice bombs at ships by day and by night. So no, no assumptions needed.


Yes, because everything that people practise in peacetime works perfectly in war.....:hmm:

It is arrogant and naïve to suggest that you have "plenty" of experience when you have never ever bombed a warship for real. You have zero experience until you have actually done it.

What is your plan to deal with goalkeeper knocking the bomb/you out of the air?

Were the practice bombs aimed at ships manoeuvring aggressively?

Were the practice bombs aimed at ships that were actually shooting at you?



I have found that a lot of units in isolation have very inflated opinions of their abilities.

Pilots who say "yes we will kill them before they see us"

Ships who say "we splashed them before they got a chance to release"

The reality is never so simple.

The Falklands is a case in point.
The ship defence systems didn't work as advertised.
Rapier didn't work as advertised.
The bombs didn't go off.

I bet if you had asked the pilots, PWOs and rapier operators pre Falklands conflict, you would have found a few saying things like "I have plenty of experience"

[Tourist]

Wasn't the Tirpitz eventually rolled over by bomb(s) that landed close by but were not direct hits? (Obviously the direct hits pretty much disabled her!)

Nope.

You will note that they were rather bigger bombs than 1000lbs....

Sinking of the Battleship Tirpitz (http://www.bombercommandmuseum.ca/tirpitz.html)



If it were easy to sink warships with 1000lb bombs, then we would go back to building armoured warships impenetrable to 1000lb bombs.

Designers are not stupid.

They have decided that the chances of somebody managing to get close enough to hit you with a bomb are small enough to make armour unnecessary.

[Darvan]

Tourist, I don't think JTO was really being arrogant, just explaining that he has a maritime attack background, perhaps. I know many on the MBW who took their ASuW role very seriously. Although they didn't get a chance to sink a hulk every day, they took weapon effort planning very seriously and certainly understood well the required tactics and munitions types required to disable, neutralise or deter a surface combatant. Notice I didn't use the word 'sink'.;)

[Darvan]

Would the Buccaneer not be destroyed by the bomb?

The ac would likely be only about 6 nm away from the point of detonation. The mach stem effect would in all probability de-stabilise the bomber's recovery resulting in a departure from controlled flight.

Incidentally, the Vulcan planned to drop a WE 177 900 from a laydown profile at 300 feet. Release speed was 300 kts and the weapon safety breaks, drogue and fuzing delayed detonation by only 30 secs. This meant the ac was 2.5 nm away when the bomb detonated. One-way mission really and the crews were briefed to attempt to find a suitable airfield east of the Urals or in Turkey to recover to.

[Pontius Navigator]

Darvan, digressing slightly, the lay down attack would be nearer 415kts, even in training we did 375.

Time of bomb fall was in excess of 5 seconds. Retard delay was 32 seconds. Distance from GZ at detonation should be in region of 4 miles with the aircraft opening range. I estimated the aircraft would be about 5.5 miles from GZ when the blast wave overtook the aircraft with an pressure of less than the critical 1.25 psi.

The variant carried by the Bucc had a much lower yield.

[Tourist]

Although they didn't get a chance to sink a hulk every day, they took weapon effort planning very seriously and certainly understood well the required tactics and munitions types required to disable, neutralise or deter a surface combatant.

Funnily enough, there is an equally valid statement that could be made about PWOs on warships.


Although they didn't get a chance to splash an attacking jet every day, they take ship defence very seriously and certainly understand well the tactics and weapon types required to disable neutralise or deter an airborne combatant.

One of the things I noticed while being on warships, is that they have many differences from "hulks"

They move.
They fight back.
They have countermeasures.

[Darvan]

PN. Post 1978 the delivery profile for the 900 LB WE 177 from a Vulcan was 300 ft and 300 kts. That is what the crews briefed and practised. I guess some crews flew their own profile to expedite their egress but the 'authorised' release speed was 300 kts; QED the ac was 2.5 nm from the point of detonation.

[Skeleton]

A tour at Tain me taught me a Buccaneer flown by a good crew could consistently deliver an accurately tossed bomb. The interesting bit for us was when they were new to it. A call of "No Spot" from one of the quad spotting towers one day, provoked the response of "it's behind you!" from the main Tower, and it was, about 25 yards behind me! I was the man in the spotting tower and it scared the bejesus out of me!! "Off the Plot" didn't really cover it. :)

[Just This Once...]

It is arrogant and naïve

You seem to wear your reputation for aggressive and insulting posts with pride and appear to treat your frequent banning as a badge of honour.

Others take a different view.

If it were easy to sink warships with 1000lb bombs, then we would go back to building armoured warships impenetrable to 1000lb bombs.

Designers are not stupid.

They have decided that the chances of somebody managing to get close enough to hit you with a bomb are small enough to make armour unnecessary.

The statement I responded to, in a nice factual way, was your comment about bombs vs tough warships. I limited my response to actual weapon effects whilst acknowledging that getting to the point of delivery was the tricky bit. You have now shifted the argument to include CIWS and other counter-air techniques not really germane to the era of dumb bombing; but I will endeavour to educate you a little on these points too as I fear there are many in the RN, Army and RAF that are little too comfortable about this risks posed by attacking aircraft. Indeed, it is reminiscent of the attitude of the RN before the Falklands campaign.

Regarding the utility of armouring warships as a method to defeat the threat was pretty much parked decades ago. The USS Arizona was not exactly short of armour when commissioned but it had quite a bit of additional armour added to respond to the growth in power of naval guns. With no dedicated AP bombs and no means of increasing the impact angle the Japanese dropped a converted AP shell from an aircraft to cut through all the layers of armour, to destroy a magazine and the ship. Even a UK 1000lb bomb has much greater ability to penetrate and fuse correctly than the method the Japanese used.

Post WWII warships have little physical protection against any anti-ship weapon. Perhaps the slowest and broadest weapon I have analysed on striking a warship was an instrumented Tomahawk with no warhead. It had no difficult penetrating the midships and exiting on the other side. Quite simply, adding enough armour to a warship so that it can withstand direct hits from typical attack weapons is just not feasible - designers would be stupid to try.

Warship designs moved away from armour and shifted focus to defeating the aircraft, or the inbound weapon. By the 60's the RAF had decided that only a shift to stand-off weapons (eg Martel) would meet the threat posed by warships. By the 70's most aircraft with an anti-ship role were developing sea-skimming missiles of various speeds, sizes and capabilities. By the time of the Falklands campaign the RAF was on its 3rd generation of anti-ship missile in the shape of Sea Eagle.

Somehow the proliferation of anti-ship missiles caught the RN off-guard, even though it also possessed its own range of anti-ship missiles. Worringly, fleet air defence exercises frequently dictated the attack profiles that the opposing force had to use.

It was not uncommon for Buccaneer formations to be tasked to use simulated dumb bomb profiles rather than their preferred weapons. Even post-Falklands I have conducted an attack with 4 aircraft lofting full sticks of airburst 1000lbs, followed by a further 4-ship delivering direct attacks. Somehow the RN would treat a simulated downing of 1 x loft aircraft and 3 x laydown aircraft as a success. At times they were utterly ambivalent that the first 3 aircraft had delivered 24 x 1000lb airburst weapons on them before the next formation had arrived.

Returning to the Falklands and the RN's hope that attacking aircraft would follow their canned exercises - well the RN got lucky. Whilst the opposing force had a limited stand-off capability, which had to be respected, the majority of the opposing air only possessed a rather rustic dumb-bomb capability, with very few of the bells and whistles used by others. Indeed, the attacks profiles were from a different era - very low-level visually aimed direct attacks with impact fused weapons. A shockingly high number of RN warships were hit and if was not for the poor understanding of the rather rustic bomb fuses used it would have been a slaughter. For a navy that had a NATO-declared amphibious capability the shortfalls were suddenly obvious to all. Being hit by a bomb dropped by a converted C-130 just rubbed salt into the wounds.

So skipping to the modern era, with systems such as CIWS and missiles capable of intercepting inbound anti-ship weapons, have the RN remembered the real lessons of the past? Do we still face the same arrogance and indifference to airpower?

Imagine my surprise when the tasking from the RN still dictates the attack profile to be used on the next exercise. But things have moved on and we are told to conduct multi-axis attacks against a Type-23. They want pop-up attacks with simulated subsonic anti-ship missiles (Hawk T1s), stand-off jamming with fast air closing to visual range for further CIWS and visual AA gunning practise. The fast air is duly slaughtered and the arrogant debrief follows.

In the FJ world it is common to cloak yourself in the capabilities of the opposing weapon systems. We imagine a 'bubble' around us that varies in range, altitude and aspects of the respective adversary. We try to keep the opposing system, aircraft or missile out of this bubble whilst we endeavour to bring our own weapons to bear.

So in answer to your question as to how I tackle CIWS or the missiles carried on the Type-23 (and keeping answers unclassified / wiki based) is that I do not let the capabilities of these systems overlap with my aircraft. How far and how high can a Sea Wolf go? How far can a CIWS fire; how many bursts does it get before a lengthy reload; up to what elevation can the gun, radar and tracking systems elevate to? Do I need to ever place my own aircraft at risk?

A lengthy post that deliberately circles back to the beginning. I have no doubt the RN's appreciation for airpower ensures that they are ready for the Argies now, but as for the ancient 1000lb GP bomb, with a cheap LGB kit that has changed little since the 70s, delivered from high-level on a near vertical profile…

[Tourist]

You think me insulting, however I find your assertion that warships are easy targets insulting to their well trained crews.

How entertaining that on one thread we have hysteria because the Russians have installed S400 in Syria and somehow this owns and dominates everything out to hundreds of miles despite the obvious vulnerabilities of a ground based missile system, yet here you would have me believe that you can walk up to a modern warship with your general purpose bomber and plink it at will after defeating it's defences.

I notice, incidentally that you have chosen to attack the T23, an ASW frigate rather than a T45 which would obviously accompany the T23 into any area with an air threat.

That is a bit like me specifying that you are only allowed to attack in a Sentinel.

Good luck with bombing a T45 from above.

Yes, you can swamp any defence system. That has been true since the beginning of time.

The cost can be prohibitive though.

[Pontius Navigator]

Tourist, on one exercise we made an attack on Ticonderoga. I set the radar to simulate a missile lock. She didn't jam me but executed such a tight manoeuvre that she painted a wake circle on the radar screen.

Had we got one bomb near her (AAA not withstanding) we would have been exceedingly lucky.

[Pontius Navigator]

JTO Imagine my surprise when the tasking from the RN still dictates the attack profile to be used on the next exercise. But things have moved on and we are told to conduct multi-axis attacks against a Type-23. They want pop-up attacks with simulated subsonic anti-ship missiles (Hawk T1s), stand-off jamming with fast air closing to visual range for further CIWS and visual AA gunning practise. The fast air is duly slaughtered and the arrogant debrief follows.

What we used to call 'Fighter Rules'. The Bombers ordered to use limited profiles to simulate what the defender, RN or UKADGE, thought was the likely profile used by the enemy.

In the Malta Sunspot series of ADEX the routed planned by Bomber Command often succeeded in penetrating despite the disadvantage of taking off from the joint AD/Bomber base thus rather limiting the vulnerability window.

In one exercise Bomber 'cheated' by sending a squadron of Vulcans direct from UK and penetrating at low level while the resident Vulcans loitered at the edge of radar cover.

Another year, over 3 days, the bomber tracks were varied and included spoof raids etc. Again some bombers got through.

In both cases Fighter Command cried foul saying the Egyptian Air Force was not that clever!

[Just This Once...]

Using the profile of potential adversaries is an absolute must. :ok:

Setting the profile to match your own weapon limitations - not so great.

The RN has a grand total of 6 ships that can shoot at high-level aircraft.

[sandiego89]

Thanks to JTO, PN, Skelton and Darvan and others on this thread for explaining your actual experiences, even while under sniper fire from others on here- it really helps the discussion and is appreciated.

Thanks guys, keep it up. :ok:

[Tourist]

The RN has a grand total of 6 ships that can shoot at high-level aircraft.

To be fair, the current shenanigans has shown that the RAF, sadly, has not that many more that can shoot the other way...

[Pontius Navigator]

The RN has a grand total of 6 ships that can shoot at high-level aircraft.

I suspect that by the time the attacker entered the hi MEZ it would be a little late. Ideally the FEZ at 500 miles should be the boundary line.

[Fg Off Bloggs]

As a Bucc QWI of some vintage a quick read through these pages leads me to conclude that there is an awful lot of BBC journalist-type guess work on this thread with regard to the Buccaneer, its weapons and their capability.

First. Maritime Buccaneers were NEVER fitted with SNEB. The FAA Buccs used 2" Rockets as did those on 12 Sqn in my day during the 70s. However, RAFG Buccaneers used SNEB Rockets but never against ships.

Second. The 2" Rocket had much more power and punch than SNEB - 36 Rx per Pod as oppose to 19 in an Op SNEB Pod. ASuW Buccs did not use Rx against capital ships, they were designed to be used to flood the sea around a flotilla of manoeuvring FPBs in the Skaggerak and Kattegat mainly.

Third. The Long Toss Manoeuvre, designed for the release of the WE177 when not delivered in a laydown mode, gave sufficient time for the aircraft to complete its escape manoeuvre and be well established back at 100ft over the 'oggin and at 580 kts egressing away from the detonation. Yes, the blast wave would eventually catch you up but we had methods to cope with that and knew when to expect it. However, the fallout would not catch you and the flash was overcome by wearing an eye patch (yes folks that's true) to protect vision in at least one eye.

Fourth. THE NATO standard for Medium Toss was 300 ft and the Buccaneer's automatic analogue system could routinely put a practice bomb well inside that and much closer to the target too if the system was well harmonised. When using Medium Toss against capital ships a stick of weapons would be tossed from each aircraft resulting in 24 weapons being thrown against a single target from a 6-ship formation. Now, if you want me to elaborate on Weapon Effort Planning and the number of aircraft required to achieve a particular Pk then I can do but can it wait for another day please!

Fifth. Varitoss was a manual toss attack dependent upon a clockwork timer set by the navigator and used initially to release LEPUS Flares in the dark and, I think but I was never Fleet Air Arm, Bullpup missiles. Imagine this, pitch black, over the Kattegat, FPBs manouevring in all directions, 2 Buccaneers in Arrow formation at 300 feet over the black 'oggin, stars in the sky but no moon, ships lights blinking below you, both Buccs carrying LEPUS and pods of 2", First Bucc pulls up and releases 1 million candela of light whilst the 2nd Bucc dives and sprays the FPBs (towing a splash target in peacetime) with his load whilst he then pulls up, re-jiggles the pair and chucks his lepus skywards whilst his ertswhile leader then dives against the splash target before they both recover back to height and congratulate each other on not becoming another statistic! Bloody disorientating but excellent fun - and all in the dark!

Sixth. TV MARTEL was an open ocean weapon. It was fired from 100 feet at 10nms from the predicted target position (maybe visible on the Bucc's Blue Parrot). After launch it climbed to 2,000ft and cruised towards the target area. Using a mini hand controller on the RHS of the cockpit the navigator could step the missile left, right, up and down by pre-determined distances or heights until he captured the target on the small TV Screen between his knees. By then Selecting Terminal Phase the missile entered a pre-programmed 8 degree dive angle which the navigator could control with the joystick whilst he attempted to fly his Mx into the target. Get shallow and the Mx would mush into the sea short. Too steep could be disastrous to control. There are no terrain masking issues as only a fool would plan to attack a ship in a fjord on an attack heading that would bring terrain masking into play! There were definitely no 'land return issues'.

Seventh. Terrain masking will NOT cause SNEB or 2" Rx an issue. Both weapons were released in a 10 degree dive from about 1500 feet. If there are any terrain issues then I'm afraid that the aircraft is going to hit it!

Eighth. The Sverdlov was not a destroyer but a cruiser. More importantly it was a very potent cruiser and the biggest Soviet Navy vessel of its day. Its very existence in the 50s was the reason for the Navy writing Naval Aircraft Requirement 39 - the result being Blackburn's NA39 project - more commonly known as the Buccaneer.

Ninth. Tourist - I fear you protest too much. I did 4 years ship bashing on 12 Sqn in the 70s and the number of times we managed to 'splash' ship targets undetected on Northern Merger and Ocean Safari would require me to take off my shoes and socks and yours too, no doubt, to assist with the counting. Moreover, when simulating TV MARTEL we always flew the missile profile after launch rather than conduct the escape manoeuvre in order to allow the ships to carry out their Air Raid Red drills and to bring their FC radars to bear on the Buccs. Signal traffic was always interesting afterwards as claims were only ever made by the ships after the Buccaneers, under normal Mx release circumstances, would have been long gone from the scene. When this was pointed out to them the RN would always use the excuse - 'ah well, but there is no air threat at sea!' Of course, in the mid-70s that was so. The Sovs had not developed an aircraft carrier other than the Moskva which was a through-deck cruiser fitted only with helos. So the RN always claimed a moral victory. AND THEN CAME THE FALKLANDS WAR AND THE REST, AS THEY SAY, IS HISTORY!

Hope that helps and please come back if anybody needs a further update on the Buccaneer's capabilities or if I've got something wrong!

Bloggs:\

[John Farley]

Thank you Bloggs. Always good to find the odd decent post on PPRuNe.

[BEagle]

Fg Off Bloggs, thanks for providing such an accurate post!

Were you involved in that OP. FRISTON on 1 Sep 1988? I'm convinced that AOC Maritime had come in with a bit of a headache one morning after too much port or something and had decided "Enough of this Glasnost stuff, time we reminded the Sovs that we're still in business!". After being informed of the whereabouts of a Sverdlov-class, he'd probably burnt up the classified phone lines to Lossie and as a result, the Bucc mates soon found themselves tasked to 'say hello' to said ship.

We were tasked to provide the VC10K support from Brize and met the Buccs just off Scotland, 'haigh-ing'* our way up track for another Bucc crew to join us after they'd jumped into the spare jet.

The simulated attack most definitely caught the Sovs with their pants down; Tony L-W sent us a nice letter afterwards saying that they'd had one fleeting radar sniff at them after they'd wired the cr@p out of the ship and were climbing back towards us for post-attack AAR.

One of my most memorable AAR trips - good to have worked with such a fine team from Lossie. We did 6:40 in a K2 and made it back to Brize on absolute minimum fuel after climbing to FL420, thanks to the skills of the sqn's most ancient, but best navigator.

And yes, even my attempts at medium toss at Wainfleet whilst struggling as a 237 OCU student were achieving results inside 300ft. Topping the student bombing ladder didn't stop me being chopped off the Bucc though...:sad:

*'haigh-ing' means to meander along track with a variety of heading changes making good the MLA, but rarely on the planned track. Named after a 101 Sqn navigator, Flt Cdr and thoroughly nice chap whose navigational techniques were......different. Also known rather irreverently as 'Admiral Zig Zag' after his time on exchange at BRNC Dartmouth

[Tourist]

Fg Off Bloggs

To be fair, the RN learnt many many lessons during the Falklands.
I think that the pendulum has swung back the other way a bit.

After endless 50's and 60's stories about Scimitars and Buccaneers etc from my father, I am aware of the capabilities it had. That does not mean that in todays world you can plink warships at will with 100lb bombs.


There is a reason the Chinese developed the Dong Feng....

[Darvan]

Hi Bloggs. There is only one other poster espousing Buccaneer facts on this thread and he, too, is a QWI(B). You probably drank with him at the Blitz at HMS President last Friday. There were many sore heads strolling around Butlers Wharf on Saturday morning. :)

[Skeleton]

There is only one other poster espousing Buccaneer facts on this thread

Really? Thank you for your ringing endorsement of mine and others Buccaneer knowledge.

[Darvan]

Sorry, Skeleton. Missed your important contribution. Have you seen or heard from Boggy recently? I've lost his email address. PM me if you have it. And apologies to PN and JTO.

[ORAC]

Don't worry, I have plenty of experience when it comes to weapon effects and targeting. Like quite a few on this forum I also got reasonably good at chucking practice bombs at ships by day and by night. So no, no assumptions needed. You're not the SHAR pilot who bombed his own carrier rather than the splash target with a practice bomb are you? :p

IIRC, it went through not only the flight deck, but also 2 more decks before stopping in one of the Messes.....

[Darvan]

Bloggs, I seem to remember that the only way 12 and 208 could routinely achieve a CEP of 'less' than 300 ft for a toss event in the mid to late 80s was to replace MT with 4 second VT. Rather than allowing the automatics to effect a release, it was more important to 'pull' a smooth 4g toss profile and allow the manual timer to generate a release pulse. Also, marking the target manually using the linear B scan mode of the Blue Parrot proved far more accurate than achieving an automatic lock. It increased the work load of the nav and resulted in more heads-in time on the radar than for monitoring the speed and rad alt but good navs could regularly get under 300 feet for a toss profile (NB, toss is different to loft). Manual radar laydown was also a challenge for a nav and a CEP of less than a 100 feet was very achievable. I see that the range hut at Rosehearty Range is now a luxury 4 bed residence for some hardy couple. Great sea view and fantastic for storm watching but just a little bit exposed for some southern softies I guess.:)

[msbbarratt]

A well designed ship moving at 30knots can be surprisingly nimble laterally. Turn that rudder and the course will change fairly abruptly.

RN ships doing the run to Malta in WWII came under repeated dive bomber attack. They had a spotter with binoculars watching the bombs drop off the rails, and they would shout port / starboard. The ship was often able to move far enough away from the aim line in the time the bombs took to fall so that they'd miss. Of course, sheer weight of numbers would eventually count, you had to be putting up enough flak to ensure that the enemy pilots weren't keen on getting too close, and if you lost power...

San Carlos Water is a small place to manoeuvre ships. Still, the RN did a fair bit of successful bomb dodging. One of the Leander class frigates beat the Navy's speed record (they'd knocked off the engine governors on those big steam turbine plants), so I was told by one of her crew. However the Venturi effect between the ship and the shallow sea bed was strong enough to permanently bend the hull. Better bent than sunk.

[Mogwi]

ORAC,

The incident with Illustrious and the 28lb practice bomb was caused by a glitch in the WAC software, which failed to 'lay off" for the splash target. The bomb hit plumb centre of the flight deck (between the tramlines!) and had it been a concrete 1000lber, would have exited the ship below the waterline on the stbd side. An HE bomb would have crippled the ship, even if it hadn't set off the LOX plant, which was only 30' forward!

It was a very good example of the accuracy that the SHAR was regularly achieving with the LOFT delivery and I certainly put a live 1000lber down the funnel of ?Lowestoft? - the centre of a stick of 3.

Swing the lamp!

[Pontius Navigator]

msbbarret One of the Leander class frigates beat the Navy's speed record (they'd knocked off the engine governors on those big steam turbine plants), so I was told by one of her crew

I suspect a slight twist in that tale. The RN certainly has far faster ships. For a number of years HMS Cavalier held the record of fastest in the Fleet. HMS Speedy was faster still.

Now your Leander may have been fastest in the fleet or fastest in class but only in 1982 as Cavalier had long gone. Cavaliers beam/length ratio was far finer at 10:1 compared with a Leander at 8.6:1 but I am not sure whether that was the broad-beam Leander.

[kaitakbowler]

A Meteor friend on 1574 used to reckon that HMS Manxman was the fastest ship in the navy at the time, '67/68, 40+Kts, certainly the fastest in the Singapore Sqn.

PM

[Fg Off Bloggs]

Ah, Tourist,

That does not mean that in todays world you can plink warships at will with 100lb bombs. You meant 1000lbs, I know.

I never said we would! I was talking about the 70s and, unless you missed it, the Bucc went out of service in 1994!

Eh, Darvan, you have the better of me in knowing who's who on PPRuNe but all I can say on this:

the only way 12 and 208 could routinely achieve a CEP of 'less' than 300 ft for a toss event in the mid to late 80s was to replace MT with 4 second VT.

is standards must have dropped since my day!

Oh, Skeleton,

Really? Thank you for your ringing endorsement of mine and others Buccaneer knowledge.

See above to Darvan and, like he, standby for PM Ident.

Uh, BEagle,

Were you involved in that OP. FRISTON on 1 Sep 1988?

Not I said the fly, after 4 tours on Blackburn's Best Bomber I had moved onto Mother Riley's Cardboard Aeroplane in 1986.

Hi, John Farley,

Well thank you, kind sir.

Always good to find the odd decent post on PPRuNe.

Oh, Tourist, I challenge you to a 'speed by second bow wave' calculation debate. You see not all of us light blue fly boys are ignorant of dark blue ways!!!! Lol!:cool:

Bloggs :ok:

[Heathrow Harry]

TBH it's not just the RN - the Army has no really effective AA missile - rapier is very long in the tooth and is really short range

For the Falklands you might want a patriot or an S-400 that can hit things over 100km out

[Tourist]

Without giving anything away beyond open source, WTF are you talking about Harry?


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_45_destroyer


The RN may not have as many as we might like, but we do have decent air defence.

[t7a]

Bloggs - You are right when you say standards must have slipped since we moved on :E. How's the Vegas planning going?

[glad rag]

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/cb/Coyote_flt.jpg/1024px-Coyote_flt.jpg

OK it's going to have, very possibly, the best doppler you could want, but it's reassuring that it can do what it required...

[Tourist]

Looks like a thunderbird....

[Tourist]

Ah, Tourist,

You meant 1000lbs, I know.


Real men use 100lb bombs. It's called finesse.....:ok:

[Marcantilan]

I really enjoy the Bucc ASuW explanation. Thanks!

Last time I asked about that I was practically accused as a spy...

http://i68.tinypic.com/dxzpjn.jpg

[Pontius Navigator]

Tourist, not aware the Army had Type 45 as well.

[Tourist]

My question was re the "it's not just the RN" bit, as if the RN was in some way a force lacking SAM capability as I'm sure you are aware.

[Pontius Navigator]

Tourist, sorry, couldn't resist. Sadly 6x45 is quite limiting though. I would guess two to escort the QE, one in maintenance, one in work up, ....

Now if they could produce a mobile, air transportable version or, as Harry mentioned S400 or Patriot we would be in business.

[Heathrow Harry]

I've always said we'd be better off with 10 45's rather than 2 carriers

it would also be a good idea to fit all of them with a decent surface to surface missile as well but God forbid we 'd have a ship that could do more than one job.............................

[AndySmith]

Returning to the OP question, I finally had a reply from the A4B pilot I have contact with. I think the reason he took so long to reply is that they had their reunion at the weekend, and I guess he wanted to confer. Anyway, here is the translation of his reply to my questions - as per the OP.

"The pilots were well aware of the technological inferiority of their aircraft and the survival equipment with regard to carrying out attacks against the RN ships. We knew we had to minimise the time we were exposed to the radar and the anti aircraft artillery of the ships. With regard to the Zuni rockets, I can tell you that when it was analysed what we needed to do to carry out an effective attack against a target, it was necessary to carry out an attack at an angle in excess of 10 degrees and from a distance that serious compromised our chances of survival, as much from the anti aircraft fire as the shrapnel from our own rockets. It was concluded that an attack with bombs from very low level gave us the greatest chance of survival."

Cheers

[typerated]

Thanks Andy,


I can see that in open water and that was always going to be a much harder environment to survive in.


I was thinking that rockets would have been preferable in San Carlos Water though.
No detection until the attack aircraft pop over a ridge with quite a short distance to run - effectively you get the pop up for free.


What was the preferred ordnance attacking ships at Loch Ewe on JMC's - pretty similar environment I would have thought?