Exocet

[A7E Driver]

Interesting behind the scenes review of the Exocet/Falklands issue on the BBC last night. Sorry to see them try to trash the rep of a Naval Officer by complaining he wasn't in the Ops Centre when the action started. They claimed that if he had been there, the Sheffield would have fired chaff and saved the day. In fact, this is wishful thinking as the Exicet (as well as just about every other missle) has a chaff logic built into it (moving target indicator, etc.).

I was more mystified by the failure to mount a successful attack on the Super Etendard base. The helo abort to Peru (?) was, well, embarrassing, especially if it was because the crew was lost (as claimed on the programme).

[supermunk]

I didn't see the programme but I wonder if there was any mention of the info that was in one of the sciene doccos about EW some time ago. This claimed that one of the problems was that the Exocet radar signature hadn't been programmed into the RWR system because it was "friendly"

[Constable Clipcock]

The helo abort was actually to Chile.

[gijoe]

...and the missing Lt-Cdr eventually got promoted and is now working at PJHQ!

[Gash Handlin]

A7E Driver

I'm not very knowledgeable on missile systems but the programme seemed to imply that the chaff screen thrown up by Glamorgan (I think) fooled the exocet heading for the main part of the fleet and when it swung off for the chaff and came out of the cloud it found the nice big juicy target presented by Atlantic Conveyer, so would this not have helped when Sheffield was attacked (I know you can't guarantee a miss but it's got to be better than doing nothing.)

I agree though that it's a shame that the programme degenerated into a witch hunt at the end although the two seamen seemed to have fairly strong opinions and the motivation seemed to be to remove the blame from the captain who was (according to the programme) getting some rest after pretty much three days of constant watch.

Supermunk

The explanation given in the programme was that the navy didn't have any defence system for sea skimmers because at that time the Warsaw Pact didn't have any sea skim capability and the fleet existed to fight the sov's. Therefore there was no perceived threat.

[edited coz of spling and it chopped off my last sentence for some odd reason????]



[This message has been edited by Gash Handlin (edited 02 July 2001).]

[Bag Man]

What happened to the pilot of the Sea King that got lost - with two teams of SAS in the cabin - and had to abort the mission?

[Negative 'G']

I saw a program on discovery a few weeks ago on the super Etendard,it was all about the Argies but shed a different light from there side of the conflict,it even interviewed the crews who launched the exocets,well worth watching.
The beeb program was very good imho,its about time the public were greater informed of such conflicts.

[Archimedes]

Bag Man,

Chappie in question got a DSC (other crew also decorated) and is, I think, still serving. As for getting lost, there is some evidence (in public domain through ex-SF guys' memoirs) that suggests it was not the pilot who got lost but the SAS troop commander, who insisted that the pilot was lost when, in fact, he put the helo down in the right place. Despite best efforts of pilot and crew to convince otherwise, troop cdr insisted on continuing and landing miles from the right place, completely scuppering any chance of successful mission (another view is that he gave up when a bit of hard marching could have put things back on track - but that may be unfair). Trp Cdr's career did not progress much further....

[fobotcso]

Bag Man, that Sea King did not "get lost"; that SK was lost with many lives. Best not to pursue that question in this forum.

[Gash Handlin]

Fobotcso,

I think you're posting at crossed purposes, I think the original question was a genuine one about the crew that had to abort the SAS insert to Argentina and div to Chile, not the one that was tragically lost on a different SF mission.

[Mycroft]

There was a program a few years ago (Horizon I think) that suggested that the Argentinians practised using their own type 42s to determine how close a/c could get without detection. There was also a possible problem that as Exocet is a allied weapon (even used by RN), EW would have shown it as friendly - but there were other stories at the time, such as Sheffield using satcom at the time, which supposedly would have swamped EW.

[Archimedes]

Just for clarification, Fobotcso, I read the question as GH did, re: the helo found burnt out in Chile, not the SK crash (in which a distant relative of a friend of mine was lost).

[Red Snow]

The Argentine navy certainly tested Exocet launch profiles against their Type 42s. An article I have has interviews with most of the pilots involved, and Lt Armando Mayora, who was wingman on the Sheffield raid, describes spending time on board ARA Hercules to ascertain detectability of the Etendard. They also flew missions against Argy Type 42s supported by S-2 Trackers.

Interestingly, after the last Exocet was used on 30 May, the squadron went into an intense night training routine. They were expecting more missiles any time (no doubt the result of MI6's little 'game', as detailed in the programme). After the fiasco of the last Exocet mission, the navy were going to switch to night attacks as soon as they got the missiles.

[Talking Radalt]

Mycroft,
You say Exocet would have shown up as "friendly" because it was also used by allied forces. If the EW parameters were that well known, how hard would it have been to re-jig the associated EW suite to show it as unfriendly?
In layman terms, swap the green bulb for a red one!

[oldpinger]

Didn't see the program, but was any mention made of the fact that a type 42 is a VERY poor substitute for AEW? (I can hear all those bagger observers, yes an ex pinger is recognising that you are useful..)
This is also borne out by the success of the 'manned exocets' ie A4s with 500lb bombs that got through the much vaunted Stovie screen at low level below ships radar horizons.
Anyway, I want to know when the witch hunt for losing the battle of Hastings to the French is going to be on........

[Poor Pongo]

Interesting TV... up to a point.

I have actually met the guy who was pictured in the TV prog as the captain of the SK which went into Chile. He was boss of 847 a while ago and his name and id etc are in the public domain if you dig around. He did indeed get a DSC. Interesting conversations apparently before they went with Westlands about just what exactly you could throw off a SK and still fly and also how much fuel you could get squeeze in. Don't know if its true but I believe that part of the technique for getting off was just to shove the SSLs all the way forward and ignore the book recommendations... Also pretty sure that the plan always was for the crew to divert into Chile - cos there didn't have the fuel for anything else!

Back to the TV prog though. Whilst the individuals seamen concerned may have had the intent to exonerate their skipper, Sam Salt, I just think it is the tip of the iceberg when we start dissecting the actions (even if erroneous) of those involved in this type of situation years later and making personal accusations.

The officer in question may or may not have got it wrong. He will know that and no doubt the punishment of 20 years conscience would be a more sringent sentence than any BOI. If we get into the zero error tolerance game then we will simply develop a culture of total risk aversion and lack of subordinate resposibility. There goes Mission Command!!!

Capt B at PJHQ, if you get these messages I for one would like to offer my wholehearted support, whether an error occured or not. There but for the grace of God go many of us; I would be horrified to be so publicly vilified by those in the media who were sat on their fat arses at home while the Exocets, Bombs and other general unpleasantness was going down.

Here ends the rant!

PP

[fobotcso]

GH and Archi, I stand corrected, thank you. But my general point still applies.

I believe that this is not a place for anonymous gossip and speculation about Operations and identifiable people who are either still living or who may have family or colleagues still living. It is, at best, mischievous and unfair and, at worst, it can be malicious and damaging.

An innocent question such as "oh, whatever happened to/about/when...?" from a likely sounding pseudonym is quickly answered by the ingenuous anxious to be helpful and air their knowledge and, before you know it, we're way over the boundaries of acceptable chit-chat.

I have a rule about gossip I've posted in another thread; gossip as much as you like as long as what you say is True, Kind and Necessary.

I also have a rule about PPRuNers who don't even give an e-mail address. I don't trust them because there is no reason not to give one if you have nothing to hide.

This stuff can be read anywhere in the world. Take note of the red warning at the bottom of this page, it's not your average "small print" to be disregarded as just blah, blah.

Now, turning to the Battle of Hastings...

It has been revealed that the reason for the loss was failure of the Arrow Detection and Decoy System (ADDS) which was overbudget and behind schedule and only working at half power. So the Contractor was to blame.

The rest is History... :)

[Flatus Veteranus]

Bravo in spades to PP and Fob!

The chaff business still puzzles me. The RN had sea-launched Exocet in service well before CORPORATE. Could they not have analysed its ECCM capability and devised a "fix"? ALthough a mere ex-"Crab" I served under Sam Salt after retirement at MOD. What a splendid officer and gentleman!

------------------
presto digitate

[Talking Baggage]

I have just had a look through a book called "The Royal Navy and the Falklands War" which has been on my bookcase for some years. The Sheffield was using her Satcom until just before the aircraft were detected, and the use of this gear blanked out the I band section of the ESM. This meant that when the missiles were detected there was insufficient time to manoeuvre the ship and fire chaff. It's not just a case of firing chaff, but either putting it in the correct position to decoy or seduce the Exocet.
I hope this may be of some assistance.....

[Oggin Aviator]

oldpinger,

There was a mention that there was a lack of dedicated AEW in Corporate.

I can't see how the sailor on the 42 held the raid out at 60 miles.

There was no mention of the fact that 849 had been disbanded when the old Ark was decommissioned and as a result 824 D Flt (leading to 849's recommisioning) was formed and en route south with a SKW 9 weeks after the loss of Sheffield.

BTW Thanks for recognising we do do a decent job !!

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

The OA

[Gash Handlin]

Fob,

I take your point about gossip and I certainly didn't mean to appear to be taking sides as my sum total of knowledge comes from about 5 books on the Falklands (mainly on the land conflict) and a few TV progs including Sundays, so I'm in no position to judge.

Battle Of Hastings - now theres no need for a witch hunt everyone knows that was lost coz harold was busy burning his scones on mari-antoinette's bonfire. That must be true coz I saw it in an American documentary ;)

[BEagle]

The one that told of Robin Hood and the Sheriff of Northampton, someone who fried duck and how he made Marian whilst waiting for Henry the 6th and his 8 wives to come home from crossing the Alps to duff Hannibal Lectoris??

[oldpinger]

Oggin,
At the risk of banging on about something- my great uncle flew AEW in Skyraiders in the 50s on, you guessed it, 849 sqn. Started his career flying Stringbags.....(marginally faster than a Seaking http://www.pprune.org/ubb/NonCGI/tongue.gif )
Can anyone enlighten me as to why they disbanded this capability with the old Ark? Was it a lack of aircraft to land on the CVS or the old "We won't need that anymore" with the u-can't-bend it Type 42.

The important thing to realise about Anti ship missile defence then and now is, in my opinion there is a big culture of 'stick head in sand and hope they don't shoot one of them at me'. Most of the newest missiles,and the exocet was relatively new back then, are so good at picking out ships and ignoring decoys that given enough missiles you will sink a ship. If you also do the maths (have a look in Janes) how many AA missiles do the Type 42 carry and how do you reload? All you RAFies out there- how many ASMs can the average FGA carry?

In light of this, I can't believe the
W@$#%@s that are criticising the poor blokes who had to do their best a VERY long way from home! Lucky it wasn't on TV over here, brick through the set may have been the result. :mad:

- soapbox put away......

edited due smilie failure

[This message has been edited by oldpinger (edited 04 July 2001).]

[Flypro]

Oldpinger
I think you will find that the reason the RN lost its carriers and AEW capability was that the RAF convinced the government of the day that they could provide the fleet with air cover anywhere on the planet. Hollow laughs all round!!

[Flatus Veteranus]

Here we go again! The dastardly "crabs" moved Australia umpteen degs West into the Indian Ocean, etc etc... Lets get real, huh?

------------------
presto digitate

[Mycroft]

Talking Radalt
Was dubious about that myself, as a friend was subsequently (post cease fire but still nervous about possible attack) on a mine hunter searching for UXBs in one of the harbours and when they turned their radar on (same band as Exocet) we treated as hostile, and the ships had not been to a dockyard to have the bulbs painted (it being beyond the average dock yard mateys capabilities to change a bulb)

[Gash Handlin]

BEagle and flatus,

Could you provide more info on the documentary that's on at the moment (of course you won't have seen it as it's on ITV which I understand is NOT an officers channel)

I'm particularly interested in the submarine performance of the Vulcan and was aslo wondering what effect the salt water has on the buckets of sunshine?

[BEagle]

Shimply shplundid, Moneypenny!

There was never a door into the bomb bay from the flight crew area in the Vulcan - otherwise the aerial shots are quite good!

Incidentally, that Vulcan model was last used on a public rally in London which was trying to preserve the RAF's last flying Vulcan.

[oldpinger]

Flatus-

I say hat's off to the crabs of the day for an amazing piece of staff work.
The yanks had loads of carriers and anyone could see they were rather useful for pesky little wars (Vietnam etc) and STILL they managed to convince the Govt that the trusty TSR2-(oops)-F111-(oops)- Vulcan??? could cover the world.

maybe we should have gone back to a box kite towed behind the ship as AEW......

[A7E Driver]

<<maybe we should have gone back to a box kite towed behind the ship as AEW......>>

Actually Oldpinger, I'm sure that towing a radar reflective decoy behind the Sheffield would have been more effective than chaff ....

[Arkroyal]

As for the binning of AEW when my old namesake went to the razor blade factory....It had been decided that we were purely an anti WP force, and so the crabs could provide AEW and the exocet would always be friendly. We could afford to get rid of Endurance, and show the Argentines how much we valued the FI!

As for the lost (as in unsure of position) SK4. Two DSCs and One DSM would rather indicate a mission success (from the flight crew point of view anyway).

Falklands war...bloody close run thing with the wrong kit too far from home. To start raking it over now is not going to help anyone.

[ScopeDope]

So all future conflicts are going to be fought close to home with the right kit ?

I think it is right to study and question these things, after all history, especially miltary history, is there to be learnt from.

[Flatus Veteranus]

Ark et al

I was in MOD at the time of the Strike Carrier/F111 controversy, but not in an involved Directorate. My experience at a humble level of the "modus operandi" in the Mad House (if indeed it has one!) is that some wheel on the 6th floor takes a look at his diary and IN basket early on a Friday in the hope of "Foxtrotting Oscar" early to play golf. He finds (panic, Oh Jeese C!) that he has a Defence Council/Cabinet meeting early the following week at which he is expected to deliver a decision/ recommendation on some boring little detail like should we buy another brace of strike carriers (they always come in pairs) or take the seductively cheap option of increasing the buy of land-based aircraft (they can always be quietly cancelled). Let there be written a paper!. On my desk by close of play this pm! By the time this gets down to the coal face (Wg Cdr/Sqn Ldr & equivs) they have had their Friday lunchtime session in the Sherlock Holmes or the Sh*t & Shovel. Working frantically in the days before word processors they put together some thoughts simple enough to get by the airships/seaships on a Friday and attach at Annex a map photocopied from a school atlas. Unfortunately the longitude lines are blurred so they overwrite them - and get it a few tens of degrees wrong. The cockup, rather than conspiracy theory of history strikes again!

This nation should have learned after the Suez fiasco in '57 that we cannot project power globally any more. Governments delivered themselves of a decison in the '60s that we would no longer procure weapons for operations outside the NATO theatre. The implication was that we would not seek to defend outposts like the Falklands unless we built a strategic airfeild there, as recommended by the Shackleton Report. I believe that COPORATE was morally justified, but a complete negation of national defence policy and economically irrational. CAS at the time was thought to have recommended against it, but was overruled by CDS/1st Sea Lord. if all the bombs that the AAF planted in our warships had gone off we would have been in dire trouble. The fact that the Argies could not unerstand the (RAF) textbooks on arming the 1000 lbs that they had bought from ROF could not reasonably have been foreseen by CAS. So his recommendation was professional and correct.

If we really mean to intervene globally, in areas where we might not be afforded land air bases, then there is no alternative to a brace of strike carriers. But if there is a conflict between our "ethical foreign policy" and, for example, paying old folk in UK a liveable OAP, there is no contest at all. The latter would cost about the same amount (£10B), I believe, as the carriers.