PPRuNe Forums - View Single Post - Belgrano...
Thread: Belgrano...
View Single Post
Old 27th Mar 2008, 21:25
  #1 (permalink)  
Double Zero
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: West Sussex
Posts: 1,771
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Belgrano...

This might not at first glance seem aviation related, but it is, indirectly.

We at Dunsfold had taken 13 months to wire up and instrumentate Sea Harrier XZ450 ( the first one to fly, in the hands of CTP John Farley, August 20th 1978 ) for the Sea Eagle surface-skimming missile, a larger punching & more intelligent programmable thing otherwise similar to the Exocet.

That aircraft, for some reason which I cannot fathom, was used on an iron bomb raid on Goose Green, and was the first of our aircraft taken out by ground fire – unfortunately with the loss of the pilot, Nick Taylor.

It has been said to me by one of his relatives that his RWR was either not fitted or U/S; this is possible as it was a development aircraft, but at that stage even the fully operational FRS1’s only had countermeasures in the form of tin foil strips stowed above the airbrake, giving the pilot one go at self defence !

So XZ450 was technically ready to go with Sea Eagle, though untried.

The only good thing to come out of it was I was told the Argentinians found the missile control panel in the wreckage, and thought “ Christ, they’ve got Sea Eagle operational already ! ”

A little while later I set up the camera pod on XZ440 which recorded the first real Sea Eagle firing.

What has always made me wonder ( putting aside for a moment the ‘outside the exclusion zone factor’) is while the Belgrano had – I believe - 6” guns, fair enough I wouldn’t want to be at the wrong end of those, her 2 escorts were both carrying Exocet – so why weren’t they the prime targets ?

I know the story that a third torpedo possibly dinged off one of their hulls, failing to detonate, and the sub had chosen Mk8 virtually WW2 vintage torpedoes as the wire guided ‘fish’ were regarded unreliable – also the often unmentioned fact that the heavy loss of life on the Belgrano was due to her Captain, Hector Bonzo, choosing to cruise with all hatches & watertight doors open !

Note that when a British warship ( admittedly a bit smaller ) was sunk by bombs or Exocet, the casualties were usually around 20.

The Belgrano, which had relatively much more heavy armour, took around 380 men down with her…

So the point I’m working to is, why weren’t the Exocet carrying escorts regarded as the primary targets ( by Sub’ or Sea Harrier ) or indeed allowed to get away ?

No I am not a journo’ trawling, my meagre contibution is viewable on the Harrier website 'history' section - please feel free to PM me, though a lot of people here know me anyway…

Andy
Double Zero is offline