RN took Nukes to the Falklands???

[SASless]

This is
LONDON
28/06/05 - News section

UK took nuclear arms to Falklands



Royal Navy ships sent to the Falklands in the 1982 war were carrying nuclear weapons, the official history of the conflict has revealed.

The book's author, Professor Sir Lawrence Freedman, said there was never any intention to use the nuclear depth charges against the Argentinian navy, but it proved impossible to remove the arms from the ships before the dispatch of the Task Force to retake the islands.

Prof Freedman's two-volume history is the result of eight years of research, including access to secret Whitehall files and military communications.

In it, he reveals the anger of then Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher at the failure of her close ally, US President Ronald Reagan, to give her his full support against the military junta ruling Argentina.

He says that the British Government was taken almost completely by surprise by the Argentine invasion of the Falklands, which the South American nation has long claimed as its own.

And he rejects claims - publicised most prominently by former Labour MP Tam Dalyell - that the sinking of the Argentine warship the General Belgrano at the cost of hundreds of lives was a political move designed to scupper a possible peace deal.

Prof Freedman, the professor of war studies at King's College, London, said he was "rather surprised" to find proof in official papers that the British fleet included nuclear-armed ships.

"A number of ships had come from exercises off Gibraltar and had the normal complement of nuclear depth charges that British ships took with them at the time, and they didn't really have a good way of taking them off," he told the BBC Radio 4 Today programme.

"The Government was desperate to get them away from the Task Force, but the delays that this would have caused at a time when they were trying to make the biggest diplomatic impact meant they decided they had better take them and get them off later.

"They put them in the safest places possible. There was no intention to use them, but they certainly went."

[airborne_artist]

Can't imagine why the Prof is surprised - as he says, they were part of a normal weapons inventory at the time.

I will go through my father's notes and see whether it was discussed in his area. He was closely involved at the time.

[Pontius Navigator]

He was probably surprised because it was, and remains, UK Government policy never to confirm nor deny anything to do with the deployment of nuclear weapons.

[SASless]

What makes me wonder about this...if there were no plans to use them...why risk losing them in conventional combat. It would seem the risk to loss and all that entails would suggest offloading the things prior to departure would be the better of choices....it could not have been that complicated a chore....it is not like the RN has millions of the things.

Were any lost when the Sheffield and Conventry were sunk? Working off my memory here....right ships?

[Pilgrim101]

Sasless

Everyone knows there were no WMD ! ;)

Right or wrong, I hardly think the Prof's "research" will have unearthed any concrete evidence.

Typical surmise, speculation and a safe bet because who's going to confirm or deny ? Just a tired old duffer trying to earn a few bucks from an old formula. Take a popular conspiracy theory, add 8 years of research, write an official looking thesis and rely totally on the fact that HMG will never comment.

Anyway, Buenos Aires is still there ain't it ? :E

[Dancing Bear]

P 101

You are exposing a significant lack of knowledge, the weapons in discussion are not of power projection AKA Trident/TLAM etc but reasonably dumb weapons with a flippin big bang, of course Buenos Aires is still there, I don't believe we had a missile capable of hitting it in 1982!!

[nick0021]

I was working in a factory earlier this summer after finishing uni, and was talking to one of the managers about my application into the RN. He informed me that he served with HMS Invincible in the conflict in '82. During our Discussion, he said that Invincible had one night been entrusted with some Nuclear weapons. Thought it might have just been an exaggeration of the truth, but this suggests otherwise. This would therefore give support to the notion that they were not to be used would it not, as as far as i am aware Air Craft carriers do not have the capability to launch such a device unless it was strapped to an FRS/1?

Regards to all ....

P.S watched the coverage of T200 earlier to day. Very impressive, just what the Navy needs in terms of coverage!!

FLY NAVY!!

[Pilgrim101]

SB

Don't take yourself so seriously, and have a look at the little :E motif, and go buy yourself a sense of humour

[Send Clowns]

Dancing Bear - Polaris could have hit whatever part of this Earth we wanted it to. Add that to the fact that we managed to bomb the Falklands, just to prove we could bomb Buenos Aires if we wanted to ...

Nick - depth charges. Probably to be dropped from a helicopter, that would be the norm now. Taken out of service towards the end of the 1990s.

Pilgrim - it's the official history, probably got some good access to the unclassified/declassified material. They do confirm certain things - like that no V bomber ever took off with a Bomb on board (although that may be a bluff...).

[West Coast]

"just to prove we could bomb Buenos Aires if we wanted to ..."

A stretch to say that you could go down town BA because you could drop some on the Malvinas.
Can you provide some supporting evidence or is it your opinion?

[Alex Whittingham]

...because the range ASI to downtown BA was less than ASI to Stanley.

[West Coast]

Range is not what I contemplating. Ability to make it to BA is more along the lines. Especially so after the psychological damage the black buck raids caused. This caused many more AD assets to be home based to defend mainland cities.

[Jackonicko]

Ah, but if they'd bombed BA they'd have had support from ghostly assets in Chile.

Dunno if they lost any WE177s on the ships that went down, but I remember reading recently that they did damage - or lose - WE177 transit containers.

"The UK dumped a boadload of WE177 Type C (600lb, Estimated yield - 10Kt. Variable yield fission weapon) free fall bombs (see photo) somewhere off the Falklands. Early in December Le Monde reported: Londres avait envoyé des armes nucléaires aux Malouines

Translated into Anglo-American, the government of Margret Thatcher sent tactical nuclear weapons (free-fall bombs, the WE177) with the invasion force, and shuffled them about, causing seven weapons containers to become damaged under unstated circumstances, and leaving open the possibility that one or more weapons containers were lost when the destroyer Sheffield was sunk after being engaged by an Exocet (surface-to-surface) missile."

AND

"Falklands warships carried nuclear weapons, MoD admits

Rob Evans and David Leigh
Saturday December 6, 2003
The Guardian

The Ministry of Defence admitted for the first time last night that British ships carried nuclear weapons in the Falklands war.

The disclosure came as the government was forced to concede - after a long-running campaign by the Guardian - that seven nuclear weapons containers were damaged during a series of wartime accidents.

But many of the details of these accidents are still being kept secret by the MoD.

Article continues
------------------------------------------------------------------------


------------------------------------------------------------------------

The ministry also refused to say whether any nuclear depth charges were on board HMS Sheffield, which was sunk during the war.

The MoD's admission confirms persistent rumours that the taskforce which recaptured the islands in 1982 was equipped with nuclear weapons.

The ministry insisted that there was never any intention to use the weapons during the war and that their presence did not break any disarmament treaties. But the admission has provoked concern from the Argentinian government. The Argentinian defence minister, Jose Pampuro, said he was worried in case the accidents had spread radioactivity and he wanted assurances from the MoD.

According to the limited information released by the MoD, the nuclear depth charges were already on board unnamed ships in the taskforce when it sailed to the South Atlantic at the outbreak of the war.

"A decision was taken to transfer them to other ships heading back home," said an MoD spokesman.

Seven containers were damaged "in some way" when they were transporting the weapons on to other ships.

The MoD claims that none of the actual weapons was damaged and that "in what was considered the worst case, a container sustained severe distortion to a door housing".

The MoD finally released information concerning the accidents after a six-year battle fought by the Guardian under the open government code.

After the MoD had blocked a request for information, the parliamentary ombudsman criticised the ministry and ordered it to publish a list of 20 accidents and mishaps involving nuclear weapons between 1960 and 1991.

But despite the ombudsman's critical verdict this year, the MoD concealed the Falklands accidents, and has only divulged their existence after further pressure from the Guardian.

Last night's admission by the MoD fails to clear up the most controversial allegation: that the nuclear weapons were sunk along the HMS Sheffield after the ship was hit by an Exocet a month into the war. The crippled ship was towed for six days until it sank.

Faced with the ombudsman's refusal to support the MoD's policy of secrecy, the department yesterday opted for damage limitation, putting out a statement to all media in the traditional slot for unwelcome news: late on a Friday afternoon.

The MoD said the transfers of the WE177 depth charges took place at various times during April, May and June 1982, "well away from other sea-going traffic, and the weapons were held in ships with the best-protected magazines before being returned to Britain".

The MoD insisted that the nuclear weapons never entered the territorial waters of the Falkland islands or any South American country.

The government has always said there was never any question of resorting to the use of nuclear weapons in the dispute.

The MoD said it was routine practice for British naval ships to carry nuclear weapons during the 1980s, but this ended in 1993. For decades, the MoD has refused to confirm or deny the presence of nuclear weapons at any particular time or place. But in her verdict on the Guardian's complaint, the ombudsman decided there was no danger to national security if the weapons were no longer in service.

She said it was difficult to envisage that the "release of information about events that happened some time ago to weapons that no longer exist could cause harm if made more widely available".




AND

"British Falklands War ships had nuclear weapons
Reuters ^ | 06 Dec 2003

LONDON, Dec 5 (Reuters) - British warships during the Falklands War in 1982 carried nuclear depth charges, but the weapons never entered the territorial waters of any Latin American nation, the ministry of Defense said on Friday.

"The weapons were type WE177 nuclear depth charges. They were on the task force when it sailed south but never entered the territorial waters of the Falkland Islands or any South American country," a spokesman told Reuters.

"The decision was taken to transfer them to other ships heading back home," he added, stressing that there had never been any intention of using the weapons.

He said it was the first time the British government had admitted that the task force assembled to retake the Falkland Islands after Argentina invaded and reclaimed the islands it knows as the Malvinas was equipped with nuclear weapons.

He stressed that it was routine for British naval surface ships to carry nuclear weapons during the 1980s. The practice was finally ended in 1993.

The Argentine government issued an angry statement in response, seeking assurances from Britain that no nuclear weapons had been left in the Southern Atlantic, in sunken vessels or on the seabed.

"This incident could have had huge consequences for the inhabitants, natural resources and environment of the region," the statement read. "It is unacceptable to try and justify it ... during an operation aimed at preserving a colony in the Southern Atlantic."

The information came to light after a reporter asked for information about nuclear incidents.

Included in that information were details of several incidents involving damage to containers carrying the depth charges as they were transferred from the task force to the returning ships.

None of the damage to the containers was serious and none of the weapons was damaged, the spokesman stressed."

[Blacksheep]

One does wonder why the burning hulk of HMS Sheffield was towed around for six days rather than being scuttled, as would be usual in the circumstances. :hmm:

[Colonel W E Kurtz]

The wreck of HMS Sheffield has nuclear depth charges on board at the bottom of the atlantic.

[Navaleye]

Why do you think the wreck of HMS Coventry was visited by an RN Diving team after the war? The cover story of retrieving confidential papers was only partly true.

[VitaminGee]

And there's me thinking the glow in the water was phosphorescence. Might also explain the three headed haddock!!:D

VG

[Send Clowns]

West Coast

Errrm ... that was the whole point, that they moved much of their air defence towards Buenos Aires. We didn't actually wish to hit there, we wanted those assets out of range of the conflict! Had they not done so the Vulcans could have reached Buenos Aires, over 500 nm closer than the Falklands, and probably got through.

The comment as to that being the reason for the Black Buck raids is of course speculation, but informed speculation, not my opinion. There is no proof, but it did show that a Vulcan could certainly (assuming it avoids air defence) have reached most parts of Argentina with enough punch to make a glass carpark had that been desirable. It was not desirable, and would not have been under any conceivable circumstances, but Dancing Bear was underestimating UK capabilities. In the minds of the Junta and the people was the possibility of bombs in their streets. Not good for morale.

[West Coast]

Clowns

I see what your saying now. I just wonder minus a whole strike package if going downtown would be as achievable as you believe.

[steamchicken]

This is hardly as big a story as all that. What on earth would we have dropped an NDB on? The solitary Argie diesel sub? Very simply, it was fully normal for NATO ASW ships to carry NDBs at the time, and the decision was clearly taken not to lose time fetching them back.

I thought the WE177 was a land attack weapon?

[ORAC]

West Coast,

Difference in approach. The USAF would send a complete package at medium level. We would have sent a singleton or a pair low level at night. Mirage 3s would have had virtually no hope of finding them.

[West Coast]

You know more of your capabilities than I do. However what your saying better make a helluva psychological impact as the amount of real damage would be limited playing only a pair.

Don't know squat about the Singleton. Where in theory would it come from?

[Navaleye]

Memory fading due to too much Shiraz, but I vaguely remember the A model as having a 15kt yield.

[Archimedes]

This might be of interest - from the MoD's FOI pages. If you have time, looking at the pages dealing with the requests for info about UFOs is, in certain respects, ah... entertaining...

FOI response 1 (http://www.mod.uk/linked_files/publications/foi/rr/falklandsnuc.pdf)


FOI response 2 (http://www.mod.uk/linked_files/publications/foi/rr/nuclear051203.pdf)

[A D ENUFF]

Having been on board one of her Majesty's grey funnel line during the conflict in 82' i can confirm without doubt that our "nukes" were off-loaded en route. I know because i was involved in the off-load to one of the RFA's. Supposedly to be returned to UK.

[StuartP]

can you have "inert surveillance" nuclear depth charges??!!

One wired up to see how many times you dropped it during loading drills perhaps ?

Stuart (just a civvie).

[Yellow Sun]

"inert surveillance" nuclear depth charges??!!


More commonly referred to as a "shape"

YS

[Dancing Bear]

Send Clowns,

Fair point, I was, at the time of post, limiting myself to the Dark Blue surface/air point of view and fully accept the point you raise ref Polaris and the ability to domb BA into the ground, humble pie now eaten and suck back complete!!

[XV277]

Not mentioned above, but some of the press reports have alleged that teams of RN Divers revisited the wreck of Sheffield to remove 'sensitive' materials.

There was also an IAEC(?) report on lost nuclear weapons that listed the Sheffield. That said, the same report also listed an AIM-54 Phoenix lost from an F-14 in the North Atlantic (JFK) as a lost nuke.

[ORAC]

Wasn´t lost. We knew exactly where it was all the time...

Economical with the verituality is I believe the phrase. :hmm:

[Zoom]

...or perhaps 'temporarily uncertain of its position'.

[XV277]

Hmmm, would politicians tell porkies???

Do ursine bowel movements take place in arboreal areas?

[Jackonicko]

I'm told that WE177 surveillance rounds were not 'shapes' in the generally accepted sense, since though they had no nuclear warhead and no Tritium, nor were they inert.

Fitted with all the usual HE these were 'real' bombs, with all a real bomb's electrics and systems. They were used for loading and were flown, and were transported back and forth - taking more of a 'battering' in service than any 'warshot' ever would. They acted as 'fleet leaders' and were regularly returned to Burghfield where they were stripped and examined in detail.

They could be identified by having a single yellow band around the nose, where the warshots had one yellow and one orange.

[Pierre Argh]

The wreck of HMS Sheffield has nuclear depth charges on board at the bottom of the atlantic.
Fact... statement... opinion... supposition...the storyline to your next novel? C'mon out with it?

[Two's in]

Somebody should clarify if there are WMD's bobbin in the oggin around the Falklands, if only to prevent somebody wanting to introduce democracy and a regime change down there as well - I'm sure Howard Pierce (the current Governor) would object.

[Yellow Sun]

Jacko
I'm told that WE177 surveillance rounds were not 'shapes' in the generally accepted sense, since though they had no nuclear warhead and no Tritium, nor were they inert.

See FOI Reply (http://www.mod.uk/linked_files/publications/foi/rr/nuclear051203.pdf)

which specifically refers to

an inert surveillance variant

Inert means it can't be made to go bang. It is possible however that the marking you referred to in fact related to a non-warhead component of the "shape" or "inert surveillance variant". I really don't think anyone is trying to hide anything here, the in depth textual analysis will not reveal a conspiracy of any type or any attempt at smoke and mirrors. Any way, if you think it through, there are much better ways of simulating operational use under controlled conditions in a properly constructed trial, and much more secure!

YS

[Jackonicko]

YS,

I'm assured that WE177 surveillance rounds are exactly as I described them. Interestingly the RN had them and chopped them around the fleet regularly, long before the RAF did. The RAF had a small batch manufactured after a Minister asked about the inert training rounds he'd just seen loaded onto a jet at Bruggen during a loading demonstration. He was, apparently, amazed to be told that it had been a 'war shot'.

I HATE to rain on anyone's parade by casting doubt on the Coventry/Sheffield stories, but I'd quietly ask what 177s would have been doing on Type 42s? I understand that they were more usually on Leanders, Rothesays, Type 22s and carriers. As you'd expect for an ASW weapon.....

[Navaleye]

I HATE to rain on anyone's parade by casting doubt on the Coventry/Sheffield stories, but I'd quietly ask what 177s would have been doing on Type 42s? I understand that they were more usually on Leanders, Rothesays, Type 22s and carriers. As you'd expect for an ASW weapon.....

Jacko the T42s were just as capable sub hunters as T22s, Leanders or T12s. One half of the ops room was completely dedicated to it and rest assured that they carried the same ASW weapons as the other surface combatants.

[Jackonicko]

Thanks navaleye. I thought I'd been given 'gen' but when it comes to grey funnel lines floaty things I am very, very easy to mislead.

[Daysleeper]

Why the focus on Sheffield/Coventry. How bout the two type 21s lost, Ardent and Antelope would they not also be NDC capable?

As for towing the Sheffield for 6 days I thought she drifted for the first 4 days.

[Jimlad]

"Thanks navaleye. I thought I'd been given 'gen' but when it comes to grey funnel lines floaty things I am very, very easy to mislead."

We knew that given your total lack of knowledge on why aircraft carriers are so vital :D (hopefully WEBF isnt going to make an appearance now on the SHAR issue!)

[Navaleye]

In the case of the T21, I think you'll find that they were "fiitted for but not with..." not all ships carried then all the time. In Sheffield's case yes she was left to drift as bait for the Argentine's 209 should it decide to make an appearance. Sheffield still had some useful kit which could have salvaged including full complement of Sea Darts at £250k a pop plus some other stuff like a gun and various radar antenna. They didn't take her 20mm canon which surprised me, they were like gold dust later.

[Data-Lynx]

Pardon the delay in responding but I have only just seen this thread. As an unfortunate visitor to the hangar on 5 May 82 to collect the 700, Sea Skua live plugs and as many fire fighting sets as we could get into a net, I can assure the curious that WE177 was not present in HMS SHEFFIELD then, or when she sank under tow on 10 May 82.

Three live Sea Skuas remained on the aircraft - safely on deck in HMS HERMES; the 'stbd outer missile' had been damaged and ditched over the side. Both sides of the air weapons magazine were open and only the Mk46 torpedoes remained. A practice WE177 had been transfered, in its container, to a RFA in the vicinity of Ascension Island during the transit down to the Falklands Islands. I hope this helps.

[Data-Lynx]

Navaleye. Salvage options were minimal. By mid morning on the 5th May, a very brave 846 NAS Sea King Mk4 crew was winching and load lifting to the flight deck while the fire had extended forward, close to the Sea Dart magazine. I never knew how successful the attempts to flood the magazine had been because this was in the days when the firemain was connected. Much of the water, hydraulics and HP steam had dumped into the South Atlantic through the hole in the starboard side. Both engine rooms were burning and smoke still billowed out of the foremast access points and the bridge. Neither Oerlikon could be reached and later, from a helo recce on about the 8th May, both weapons had been cooked as the fire spread upwards.

There was time to fill one net only so the priority was for breathing apparatus, pumps, hoses and anything else we had rudely borrowed from half the Fleet. The team on deck were ship’s company back in their comfort zone and so accepted the risk. However, with hindsight and a good bottle of red, I am reminded to tip my hat to the Junglies as they loitered around, watching a wreck that still had the capability to splinter their day. May I offer them a sincere thank you.

[Jackonicko]

MoD papers reveal Falklands nuclear fear_

Rob Evans and Richard Norton-Taylor
Monday October 10, 2005
The Guardian_

British commanders sailed into the Falklands war deeply concerned that the Argentinians could capture their nuclear weapons, previously secret official papers reveal.

The documents also include a graphic description by Christopher Wreford-Brown, commander of the submarine Conqueror, of the controversial sinking of the Argentinian cruiser General Belgrano with the loss of 321 lives.

They show the naval taskforce was dispatched in such haste that there was no time to remove nuclear depth charges carried on seven Royal Navy ships. Two of the ships, Hermes and Invincible, carried 75% of the navy's entire stockpile of nuclear depth charges, the papers reveal.

Offloading the weapons would have given the Argentinians more time to tighten their grip on the islands. But keeping them on board the ships was also dangerous. The papers show the extent of the concern. They say: "It was also conceivable that weapons might fall into the hands of the Argentines, by salvage, if one of the [Royal Navy] ships had been sunk, stranded or captured."

They add: "However unlikely, the consequences of this would be most serious and the acquisition of UK nuclear weapon technology in this way by a state which had no such weapon would have damaging consequences."

The papers include extracts from Cdr Wreford-Brown's personal log. "Orange fireball seen just aft of the centre of the target," he wrote after he torpedoed the Belgrano on May 2 1982. "Third explosion heard but not seen - I was not looking!" The previous day he recorded: "A good day - in contact with the Enemy at last!"

The papers have been posted on the Ministry of Defence website, after the MoD earlier refused to release them to the Guardian and other newspapers under the Freedom of Information Act.

The war cabinet agreed to change the rules of engagement to allow the sinking of the Belgrano, even though the cruiser was outside the total exclusion zone Britain imposed around the Falklands.

Cdr Wreford-Brown sent a signal to London four hours before firing his torpedoes, saying that the cruiser had changed course, away from the islands. The signal was received by Vice-Admiral Peter Herbert, flag officer submarines, but it was not passed on to the MoD or to Rear Admiral Sandy Woodward, commander of the Falklands taskforce. Sir Lawrence Freedman, who has written an official history of the conflict, says Admiral Herbert believed the task force "had to take its chances when it could".

I couldn't find 'em!

I wonder which the other five ships were?

[Logistics Loader]

Forgive my ignorance on reading between the lines, but how come this topic is being aired..??

Surely things of this nature are deemed under wraps for at least 30 years...

Op Corporate was 1982.....plus 30yrs = 2012.....

As we are in 2005, I cant see how things are being made common knowledge...

But then again I have been on th PC all day and guess i'm suffering VDU blindness....

[Jackonicko]

It's partly the fault of the Freedom of Information Act.

A list of nuclear accidents and incidents was released, which included reports of damage to WE177 containers during ship-to-ship transfers in 1982. This in turn provoked further questions, which led to some detail being released about nukes and the Falklands campaign.

It is still less than 30 years ago, you're right. Though it is 23 years. And we are talking about a weapon - WE177C (and indeed a category of weapon - the NDB) which was withdrawn in 1992 - 13 years ago. And WE177 itself has been dead and buried for nine years now.

And while those connected with such once top secret things might still be horrified that it's all being openly discussed, the ombudsman decided there was no danger to national security in discussing such issues if the weapons were no longer in service.

She said that it was difficult to envisage that the "release of information about events that happened some time ago to weapons that no longer exist could cause harm if made more widely available".

[Pontius Navigator]

Jackinoko,

See PMs. Nothing to do with this thread but interesting on nuke plans.

[Data-Lynx]

Jackonicko.
For your missing ships, the two FORTs are an obvious choice as they carried just about everything that could go bang. I suspect the full list included all variants: one FORT received the practice variant from HMS SHEFFIELD on the run south and I believe another was offloaded by a T22. You may have only one ship to find.

Good luck and, by the way, your PMs are full.

[scroggs]

Racking my brains a bit here, but I do recall that several of the ships despatched with the task force - and before it - had been involved in major exercises in the Med, based at Gibraltar, immediately before the soutward push. Some of those vessels were deployed from the Atlantic assets to the Med for those exercises (Spring Train was, IIRC, the RAF element), and so were presumably fully complemented with their normal weapons inventory.

The turn-round time in UK before heading south was, for some of those ships, extremely short. Certainly short enough to make a change of armament impractical. In fact, nearly every ship in the Task Force left UK with equipment and weaponry inappropriate to its individual role, with the intention of sorting out the whole mess once the Task force regrouped at Ascension - where I was witness to the general chaos of trying to get everything where it should be! Rumours were rife at the time that various bits of nuclear ASW weaponry were aboard some ships. I saw nothing to suggest that any such weaponry was moved actually at Ascension, though whether any of the UK-type precautions and protections would have been applied is moot.

It does seem entirely plausible to me that such weapons were aboard some ships that went further south simply because it had not been possible to safely and expeditiously remove them. And for no other reason!

[Jackonicko]

Data Lynx

Not any more!

HAS anyone found these papers on the MoD site. I must be exceptionally stupid, cos I can't.

JN

[Data-Lynx]

Agree completely. We joined Ex Spring Train in Mar 82 off Gibraltar after a full Gulf Deployment. When the Ex was halted on orders to head south, a buddy system was devised to pair up one ship heading north and one south with the former passing as much equipment, ammo, stores, food and personnel as could be spared. In one particular Vertrep sortie, HMS ARROW provided us with a tasty consignment of Arg beef. Speed was essential and the transfers were almost frantic; I don’t remember many opportunities for the receiving warships to offload much, apart from non UK staff. Only the north-bound vessels could get back to Gib.

This Task Group then headed for the Falklands, almost a month ahead of the UK Task Force. We made a short stop off Ascension Island for helo transfers only and very little seemed to go ashore. Some kit and our practice WE177 were transferred around the group to make space – see earlier comments, while an impressive bunch of engineers ran a shuttle service on an RFA to fit Sea Skua for the first time to a number of Lynx Flights.

Frankly, there were other priorities and someone did a sensible risk analysis; scroggs is quite right.

[Jackonicko]

These latest papers, referred to by the Grauniad, seem to indicate a difference between what you'd expect to have happened and what was actually happening.

We know that the RN carriers were supposed to carry five WE177Cs and an inert training round when they carried nukes, and that the Type 22, Rothesay-class and Leander-class frigates, and the destroyers carried two per ship, plus an inert training round or a surveillance round, when embarked.

But these papers say that Hermes and Invincible together carried 75% of the RN inventory (eg: about 18 weapons of the RN's 25 C model WE177s). Perhaps this explains the previous statement that WE177s transferred at sea in 1982 were "held in those ships with the best-protected magazines prior to being returned to the UK," which we'd previously thought meant that the weapons were sent back on RFAs without entering the exclusion zone.

The implication in previously published stuff is that an inert training round or a surveillance round was carried only when live warshots were carried too, yet Data Lynx suggests that his ship had one, but no warshots.

When it was officially admitted that seven WE177 weapons containers were damaged in the course of ship-to-ship transfers during the Falklands campaign it was suggested that these transfers were made to comply with Britain's obligations under the Treaty of Tlatelolco (which had established a Latin American Nuclear Free Zone) with the implication that we did not send WE177's into Latin American waters and 'into harm's way' while the new papers suggest that we did exactly that.

Fascinating stuff!

[Mzee]

We didn't have them on Conveyor, but did have couple hundred barrels of beer stashed behind a shedfull of cluster bombs, devils own job to get at them!!:E

[Data-Lynx]

Jackonicko
We know that the RN carriers were supposed to carry five WE177Cs and an inert training round when they carried nukes, and that the Type 22, Rothesay-class and Leander-class frigates, and the destroyers carried two per ship, plus an inert training round or a surveillance round, when embarked.
Your supposition needs some consideration. This was a rapid move from peace to conflict against a country with conventional submarines. You should find that Fleet’s intent was to pack air weapon magazines with torpedoes, Mk11 depth charges, air to surface missiles – according to helo type – and pyrotechnics. By 1982, Navaleye’s comment on 21 August "fitted for but not with..." was realistic for not just T21s but for almost all ships with the Wasp and for many single ship deployments in peacetime. I wonder if your search for this particular ‘Wally’ is closer to conclusion than you may think?

[WE Branch Fanatic]

Bit off topic but I can't help feeling that this would have made the plot for a good thriller - after the conflict Argentine divers attempt to recover the weapons, which are then used to blackmail the UK. Which then have to be dealt with....

[Bearintheair]

I was with the 845 flight on Fort Austin when she left Ascension for the first time in early April, going south to meet Endurance, and for a while afterwards.

I remember some of the weapons being transferred to us at sea but I can't remember which ships they came from, sorry.

I do remember that people were very concerned about who was watching the transfer, with all non essential staff being kept off the upper decks.

I also remember the containers bouncing off the ships a bit which caused some consternation !