Op Fingent - Chile 1982

[Marcantilan]

Hello all,

For those interested, the National Archives recently opened the records about Op Fingent, the deployment of a Type 95 (Marconi S259) radar to Chile (Balmaceda Airport) on early May 1982:

Operation Corporate (Falklands Conflict): Operation Fingent | The National Archives (http://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk/details/r/C16284814)

The Chileans kept the radar after the war (the radar was "sold", with a civilian crew and military operators).

Regards!

[MAINJAFAD]

I'll have to have a look at that next time I'm down at Kew. Thanks (USST got a replacement radar for it, namely a certain TPS-43F).

[Marcantilan]

Yep, that is other interesting story. I´ve read somewhere that Westinghouse was early not very keen to collaborate. The radar was fully operational (if I remember well) just in 1985. I´ve the records about it (including the Westinghouse representantive report) somewhere.

Regards!

[MAINJAFAD]

Yep, Westinghouse wanted somebody to pay for it because your lot hadn't. In fact I saw quite an interesting lecture on youtube by a senior RN officer who had been involved in the war and long afterwards had a good read through a lot of files about the war while at the MOD. He mentions in the lecture that in those files he found a letter from the UK Bank that had underwritten the sale of the two Type 42 destroyers to Argentina, requesting that the RN avoid trying to sink them as the bank was still owed $50M and that they were not insured.

[Heathrow Harry]

hmmm and we didn't..........

[TEEEJ]

hmmm and we didn't..........

Where is the conspiracy? How many chances did Royal Navy subs have to track and engage the two Argentine Type 42s? The two Argentine Type 42s were part of the escort for the Argentine aircraft carrier. HMS Splendid was tracking frigates of one of the Task Groups when she was re-tasked to find the carrier group. HMS Splendid did not find the carrier group after being re-tasked.

RAF - Movements of the Argentinian Navy (http://www.raf.mod.uk/history/MovementsoftheArgentinianNavy.cfm)

[noflynomore]

God it's sad, isn't it, the way some people instantly find a conspiracy in anything.

Harry, tell me you don't actually imagine for one second that the MoD would attempt to restrict a unit's operational capabilities by issuing orders on such trivia (even if the story is true). Do you???
And surely you're not so naiive as to imagine any sub commander would hold fire in a combat situation for anything as irrelevant as that? What sort of puppets do you imagine our military are?
I find the insinuation rather offensive.

[Heathrow Harry]

Harry, tell me you don't actually imagine for one second that the MoD would attempt to restrict a unit's operational capabilities by issuing orders on such trivia (even if the story is true). Do you???


No I don't - but I'll bet it raised a teensie-weensie sigh of relief in a few minds who were maybe close to looking for jobs in The City....................

[MAINJAFAD]

The story about the letter is true. Covered between 5 and 6 minutes in the video. The Sub's didn't sight them (The Argentinian CVBG), but a Sea Harrier doing a radar search did and at least one of the Argentinian T42's was in the group and alert as it got a 909 lock on the SHAR. Of course before anything could be done by the British, the Argentinian CVBG were running back to their 12 mile limit after the Belgrano was sunk.

yLn2TJZqR_o

[Marcantilan]

mmm, what could be done by the British those first two days of May 1982? HMS Splendid and HMS Spartan failed to gain contact, an attack by SHARs was out of question and no one wants a missile vs missile engagement.

In fact, the British CVGB gained distance on May 1st, and not otherwise.

Argentine CVGB was tasked to the 100 fathom line on May 3rd and entered port on May 10th, Belgrano was sunk on May 2nd.

I am not expert in the subject, but I ended writing a book about it ;)

Regards!