Tornados in the South Atlantic [Archive]

g126

14th Dec 2005, 14:38

Theoretical situation...

If we could have had the Tornados in service earlier, during the 1982 South Atlantic conflict, what impact would it of had? Would it of improved the situation in the air?

Was there anywhere they could operate from? Ascension, with air refueling, maybe? Is that too far away? Would they have needed Mount Pleasant for them to have any chance of operating?

Or is there no feasible way they could have operated? Would the cost/difficulty out weigh the benefits?

I'm sure there are lots of you out there who know a lot more than I do and I would appreciate any knowledge anyone has to share on the matter.

(and remember it's only theoretical, obviously I understand there was no way that they could of actually operated, not being in service)

G.

BEagle

14th Dec 2005, 14:52

Perhaps a better question might have been "How much use would the Vulcan have been in Gulf War One?"

I was told that someone was seen laughing hysterically over the payload-range 'capabilities' of the new bomber which was supposed to take over from the Vulcan back in 1982. Particularly with the engines it had back then. Simply not feasible.

But a proper RN carrier or two with Phantoms and Buccaneers instead of little bona jet boats would certainly have made a considerable difference.

Washington_Irving

14th Dec 2005, 15:20

:ok: You're having a laugh aren't you?

Ascension to Falklands?

1. It's 4000 miles each way.

2. I can't even begin to do the maths on how many tankers would be required. (Remember that the tankers need tanking too.)

3. 8000 miles over water on (hopefully) two engines with the prospect of someone taking pot shots at you half way. Oh and no diversions since Brazil is too far away. Hmm, nice idea but I think I'll pass.

4. Even if that doesn't put you off, go outside and sit down, wearing a rubber suit that is hotter than the pits of hell, on a big, flat lump of concrete for the better part of 16+ hours without moving. You can only eat and drink whatever can be be smuggled into your pockets and a little white box. You will have to pee (sitting down and only after having to draw your wedding tackle through about 6 different layers of clothing) into a big plastic bag with a sponge in it. God forbid the curry you had last night decides to visit and you have to swamp yourself. Don't forget to arrange for the local chavs start hurling bricks at you for 5 minutes or so around about hour 8. Then tell me if you think it'd be a good idea to try.

The longest non-stop transit of tactical a/c I heard of was by US F15s from the East Coast to Saudi in 1991. They were packed to the gills with fuel, not bombs (fewer tankings), had KC-10s (we didn't have Timmy in '82 either) with them all the way, had the luxuries of not having anyone shooting at them and being within dashing distance of a friendly base at all times once they got across the Atlantic.

g126

14th Dec 2005, 15:25

The vulcan made it though, ok a different kettle of fish, to being strapped into a GR1. Of course, it would be hell for the pilot/nav.

Would the tornado guzzle more fuel then?

Washington_Irving

14th Dec 2005, 15:34

This is a Wah isn't it?;)

PPRuNeUser0172

14th Dec 2005, 15:45

journo alert????

g126

14th Dec 2005, 15:55

DS, are you taking the p***.

Thats right I am a journo writing a story about how well the tornados did in the falklands. What??? I understand that you have to be careful on here, but really? Although, to be fair I wouldn't put it past the press to write a story like this because they do write some rubbish.

No, I am definetly not a journo, I am young person, in the process of joining RAF, who wants some more information to settle an argument with another young person who is in the process of joining the Army (nothing like a bit of friendly inter-service banter). Anyone who wants to contribute, but fears that I may be a journo, can pm me, and I have no quarms about telling you who I am.

G

Fg Off Max Stout

14th Dec 2005, 16:02

You do realise that Mount Pleasant Airfield were 'nowt but fields' in 1982.

I believe that if our man, g126, is a journo he would not write 'would it of had' and 'could of actually operated'. Would HAVE, could HAVE. It's a little point of English that really grates. Even Mirror journos have grammar checkers, don't they? Crikey, I'm getting anal in my old age.

I suspect that if, somehow, we had some suitably armed Tornados GR1B and F2 pre-deployed to a suitable airfield on the islands, prior to the invasion, then there never would HAVE been an invasion. All a bit too hypothetical, though. Likewise, if we had hot air balloon based laser weapons and infantry armed with Tesla rays, then we would HAVE kicked gaucho arse too.

In all seriousness, what would HAVE made our lives easier would have been angle-deck carriers capable of launching 'proper' combat aircraft (Phantoms, Buccaneers) and Gannet AEW3s. Not losing the Support Helicopter capability on the Atlantic Conveyor would have made a very big difference, too.

Stout

PPRuNeUser0172

14th Dec 2005, 16:14

Dare I say it, but the SHAR did a reasonable job given the kit we had. What should we have used instead Stout? We didnt have any phantoms left on carriers did we?

What would you have done differently Fg Off?

G126 glad to hear you are not a journo, tell your 'friend' to get back in their box. What would a pongo know about it anyway

Max, see that you have just edited your little grammatical faux pas, oh how we laughed!!;)

Fg Off Max Stout

14th Dec 2005, 16:32

Dirty,

Only too happy to entertain but the edit was to add Gannets to the list not not to adjust grammar. The lack of a decent AEW capability was a serious hindrance in the campaign.

I can only emphatically agree that the Harriers, light and dark blue, did a tremendous job in the Falklands - legendary efforts from the pilots, an unbeatable can do attitude from the groundies. No complaints and no alternative.

You do recall that this question is hypothetical. In this hypothetical scenario, I still think that the previous generation of carriers and their air wings would have had a greater capability.

What would I have done differently? Not much to be honest. I think the campaign was directed almost faultlessly and made best use of the resources we had at the time. After all, victory was achieved despite the odds being against us. But......with the benefit of hindsight, I would not have left the defence of the islands to a platoon of bootnecks when the diplomatic situation was going divergent and I would have pressed ahead with SF raids on Argentinian airfields to take out their FJ capability. I would probably also nuke Buenes Aires. Joke. ;)

Safeware

14th Dec 2005, 16:38

Do you think that if we could have got Tornado F3s all the way there (had they been available), that we wouldn't have managed to get Phantoms (which were available) all the way there?

sw

Washington_Irving

14th Dec 2005, 16:50

I still think it's the daftest question since "Well apart from that, Mrs Lincoln, how was the play?".

Just out of idle curiosity, g126, what were you arguing?

airborne_artist

14th Dec 2005, 16:57

FO Stout - I think it's a fair bet that if UK had had angle deck carriers with F4 and Bucc in 1982, then the Malvinas would have been left well alone in the first place.

It's worth remembering that Carrington resigned because it was accepted that the sources on the ground were telling the FO that the Argies were revving up, but the FO did SFA. My dad was one of those who had made it quite clear that the invasion would happen eventually (although it took place sooner than even he had forecast), and also one who had to clear up the mess afterwards.

g126

14th Dec 2005, 17:01

The original argument was slightly off the main topic, hence not mentioning it at the start.

My argument was that, feasability aside, if there had of been Tornados there, then it would of worked in our favour, as the Tornados were, supposedly, the next generation. I believe that they would of done a better job than Sea Harriers, (not that our pilots didn't conduct themselves with the highest proffesioanlism with the given equipment), as they were out of date even then. (I am aware that we did not lose a single Harrier to enemy air activity.)

Another question then, if they were based their before the war, we didn't have strap some poor guy into a rocket for two days with nothing to pee in apart from a lucozade bottle, just to drop two bombs etc., then would they have made a difference to the outcome?

It has already been mentioned that there may not have even been a war if they were there, but what about the exocets, could they have been stopped, would a Tornado on a CAP be able to intercept the Mirages affectively, or does that just come down to a radar issue?

pr00ne

14th Dec 2005, 17:23

g126,

I just have to ask, what are you intending to join the RAF as?

Fg Off Max Stout

14th Dec 2005, 17:25

I don't think it is fair to say that the SHARs were 'out of date even then'. Even now, it is a very competent little fighter and proved itself in the Falklands. I would say, though, that conventional fighters generally have a better range / weapons load, but that is one for the jet jockies to argue.

What I can say is that the Argies wouldn't have invaded if they didn't fancy their chances. Things that would have changed their minds would include: indigenous air defence of FI, a resident army brigade or greater, angle deck carriers, a very long range heavy bomber (Black Buck raids incurred an exponential Air Refuelling requirement and weren't really sustainable), sub launched TLAM, earlier indication of our ability to hit their mainland, etc etc.

Washington_Irving

14th Dec 2005, 17:30

Oh Jesus. While your enthusiasm is laudible, young man, perhaps you'd be better off joining the army with your friend.;)

Didn't realise that you were talking about the F3, not the GR1/4.

1. Super Etendards carried Exocet, not Mirage.
2. Yes, assuming you had an ADV with Foxhunter radar that did it's job properly (which was a big issue for a good many years), it would be much more effective at picking up the baddies than SHAR FRS1 with Blue Fox. However, the lack of AEW would still be a big problem. Even the mighty F3 (ahem) can't see something if it's looking in the wrong place. You also have the issue of BVR capability with the F3
3. Returning to the fuel issue, jets burn fuel at ridiculous rates during ACM and it's a long trip back to Ascension in a rubber dinghy.
4. SHARs were multirole (FRS) where as Tornados are not (GR or F) Hence you would need two aircraft to perform the same functions.
5. I hope someone somewhere determined that having dedicated interceptors down there was a good idea since we spent an awful lot of money building an airfield and many people have spent months at a time on that pitiful rock, bored out of their tree (if there were any bloody trees, that is).

BTW, I believe that SHAR entered service only 4 years or so prior to the conflict and F3s didn't show up until about 5 years after. The entire conversation is a little like debating whether the Luftwaffe would have won the Battle of Britain if they had their MiG 29s. Basically an argument like this is like running in the special olympics- even if you win, you're still retarded.:ok:

Widger

14th Dec 2005, 17:36

G126,

I think you need to do a bit more research. You talk about Tornados as Air Defenders and Mud Movers in the same breath. There are two distinct variants. You also mention that the Sea Harrier was out of date even then..by what yardstick do you make that assumption? Just because the old girl may well be spluttering for air on hot days do not make the assumption that she was obsolete in 1982. Anyway there is plenty of chat about the SHAR on another thread if you really want to go down that road.
edit: bu&&er be beaten to it.

All the previous comments about the Tornado are valid. The runway at Stanley airport is only 6100 feet, which while adequate, would probably be a bit short for a fully loaded F3.

MarkD

14th Dec 2005, 17:46

Well, even if Tornado was in service in 82 none would have been deployed to Falklands anyway, so its CAP capability etc. etc. etc. is all moot. They couldn't even keep one ship down there FFS.

The possession of better carriers might have helped but since the Argentines couldn't wait for the ones the RN actually had to go to India they might still have gone for it.

What *would* have been a deterrent in my opinion is none of those things, but a TLAM equipped submarine force which could land ordnance on mainland military bases and scare the daylights out of the natives even more than Black Buck could have done. But that wasn't available either - not fired in action until 17 years later!

g126

14th Dec 2005, 18:04

pr00ne, an engineer. I'm not going to fly them, just fix them.

WI, no I am definately not better off with the pongos, and yes I am fully aware that they are two completely different aircraft, however I was unaware of the magnitude of the difference between the entry dates, I had, wrongly assumed, that they entered service at a similar time. And we have already ruled out Ascension.

All, yes, I may only be a young man, with a lot to learn, however I've got to learn it somewhere, and this seems to me to be as good a place as any.

And if there was any implication that, to join today's air force you need this level of knowledge before entry, then quite frankly I am shocked. I have a lot more knowledge on these matters than a lot of the people going down the same route as me. I don't know maybe that says something about the future. How many of you had this level of knowledge before entering? Maybe that is why I asked for proffesional opinions.

I realise that it is hypothetical, although I did point that out at the start. My original post was to try to gain information whilst possibly starting a bit of a debate on air power in the falklands. Not to call into question my reasons for joining the air force. Rant over.

And inadvertantly WI you may have finished my argument with my green friend here rather well.

5. I hope someone somewhere determined that having dedicated interceptors down there was a good idea since we spent an awful lot of money building an airfield and many people have spent months at a time on that pitiful rock, bored out of their tree (if there were any bloody trees, that is).

The Tornados would not be there if they did not have a use. Surely, post 1982, someone saw the need for interceptors on the Falklands.

Yellow Sun

14th Dec 2005, 18:22

Interestingly enough the Tornado option was examined. The aircraft was not in squadron service (or barely was - I cannot remember), but the intention appeared to be that if the evaluation showed clear advantage to be gained through its employment then it might be made available. The evaluation consisted of a Tornado nav being briefed on the possible missions and then closeting himself with a set of maps and the ODMs. After a suitable period he emerged and said "Not really the Tornado's sort of war" or words to that effect. I think we knew that before he started, but it put the matter to bed.

YS

RileyDove

14th Dec 2005, 18:55

G126 - The range and payload of the Tornado wouldn't have contributed much that wasn't already there in the form of the Harrier GR.3's and Sea Harriers. Operating from Ascension would have been the only option and a Tornado bombload would have been incredibly small in comparion to the Vulcan.
I do know that groundcrew from a Jaguar squadron were tasked to get ready to deploy in the immediate hours after the invasion. When the location was fully understood - the order was quickly cancelled.
Prior to the war we were about to retire HMS Endurance and the Argentinians obviously thought were wern't that committed to the region.

Styron

14th Dec 2005, 19:00

Submarine Launched Tomahawk missiles would have been more useful. :)

http://navy-matters.beedall.com/images/tlam.jpg

Mandator

14th Dec 2005, 21:47

From my time in the (old) Bradenhan Beeches Bunker in 1982, Tornado to Stanley was looked at very seriously, hauling the still under development JP233. Anyone remember a little publicised non-stop trip of a Tornado of TWCU from Honington, through the Akrotiri overhead and direct back to Honington (tanked, of course)? This was to check engine oil and lox consumption on a long duration sortie because these were seen as the aircraft's main technical limitations in trying to get one from Ascension to Stanley and back. As history records, it didn't happen, but it WAS looked at very seriously.

steamchicken

15th Dec 2005, 11:43

I get the impression quite a few people on the staffs were smoking the crack at the beginning of the Falklands crisis. Yes - I know, we'll deploy Jags....errrrrr....alert 40 Commando to fly there on civilian aircraft via Argentina...whoops....prang the SAS onto Stanley airfield and kidnap the Argie general...maybe not...blow up Aerospatiale in Toulouse...peut-etre pas..