RAF Stanley

[Think Defence]

Hi everyone, first post

I have just finished a couple of posts on the operational flexibility of the Harrier in 1982

Atlantic Conveyor
The Atlantic Conveyor #Falklands30 | Think Defence (http://www.thinkdefence.co.uk/2012/04/the-atlantic-conveyor-falklands30/)

San Carlos FOB
Harrier Forward Operating Base (http://www.thinkdefence.co.uk/2012/04/harrier-forward-operating-base-falkland-islands/)

The last in the mini series is a look at the very early days of RAF Stanley, before the Phantoms arrived.

It is not that well covered, obviously, but an important part of the story and I like looking at things outside the popular subjects.

So this is an appeal to PPRUNE members, can anyone point me to any online or printed resources other than the usual suspects like the IWM, RAF Websites etc for background research?

Would really like any feedback on the posts above as well, I have tried to get them as accurate as possible but there are always errors to correct.

Thanks in advance

TD

[NutLoose]

I have read the conveyor thread and thought it was very good, If I remember correctly what I was told at the time, some of the containers either side of the deck held Civgas and Avtur, though I believe they ruptured on the way south.

[RetiredSHRigger]

Bag tanks inside the containers located just forward of the bridge ISTR, chafed due to the ships movement allowing AVTAG fuel to leak out on to the deck and into generator compartments as we transited the Bay of Biscay on the second evening of our voyage south. It was definately squeaky bum time as the MARTSU guys and ourselves (18 Sqn) foamed the deck area whilst the ship was steered round in circles heeling the ship over to assist in washing the tons of fuel over the side.:yuk::yuk::yuk::yuk:

[NutLoose]

Yup what RB told me after he got back from his swim..

[Green Flash]

What happened to all the matting etc from the first Harrier strip? Did some of it go to repairing Mart Withers handiwork?

[Marcantilan]

Hello TD, very interesting and informative posts, well researched and with plenty of pics. Bravo Zulu!

[glojo]

An interesting read and far be it for me to gossip but.....

Fuel was always a problem even though after MOGAS (motor gasoline) for the Rapier units, AVGAS for the FOB was a top priority. At its peak the FOB dispensed over 50,000 litres of fuel per and supported nearly 120 aircraft movements per day.That is an awful lot of petrol... I know our RAF pilots like to take their sports cars with them whenever they deploy but 50,000litres of petrol per day ;) :)

In my day AVGAS = petrol

A great thread and PLEASE accept my attempt at humour for what it is... You are probably correct and I am just confused

[Wallah]

Try 3(F) Sqn at Coningsby. They certainly had a diary covering their stint down there in the history cabinet. Lots of photo's and banter in what looked like very primative conditions.

[Think Defence]

Thanks everyone for your kind words.

On the AVGAS thing, yes, does seem strange on reflection. I took that snippet of information from an Inst of Civil Engineering paper written in 1983 by three Royal Engineer officers.

The Rapiers definitely needed petrol for their generators and I understand they were top priority, a Sea King flight each day was allocated just for their fuel.

Am I correct in thinking AVGAS is for piston engined aircraft and therefore not a great deal of use for the Harriers and numerous helicopters that the refueling equipment at the FOB used.

Perhaps it was a mistake that I have repeated but I can definatily believe 50,000L per day across all aircraft, not just Harriers, that used it.

One of the questions I had was about the matting used, there are a number of sources out there that say different things. Having looked at a number of different photos I think the vertical landing spot and main runway was AM2 but the small taxi way was not, maybe PSP, trackway or helicopter matting off one of the ships.

As I said though, am working on the last one in the series about the very early days of RAF Stanley when the Royal Engineers built up the facilities and repaired the bomb damage so any information would be gratefully received.

At least to me, this shows the tremendous flexibility of the STOVL model and something we might consider in the F35B F35C debate

[RetiredSHRigger]

Yes you are correct AVGAS is High Octane petrol for Piston Engines, where as Turbine engines use AVTUR FSII, AVCAT and AVTAG or when uplifting from civil airports normally Jet A1.:ok:

[glojo]

Hi Think Defence,
Thank you for taking my post in the spirit it was meant, I for one hate criticising folks when they have worked hard on a project but in this instance you did state:

Would really like any feedback on the posts above as well, I have tried to get them as accurate as possible but there are always errors to correct.

So your wish was my command. I am surprised to hear the RAF use petrol generators but being ex Royal Navy I know absolutely NOTHING about those issues, we tend to treat petrol with the greatest of respect and very rarely use it aboard a ship (outboard motors being the exception that might make the rule)

I loved reading your diary extracts and thanks once more for the posts

[Think Defence]

Thanks Bomber

PSP for the whole thing or just sections.

If you look at the images on the post the runway surface looks smooth which screams AM2 not PSP.

Were you there?

Glojo, seriously, I don't anyone being critical because it is only through that mechanism that the accuracy of the post can be improved.

I am going to amend the AVGAS section for definite now so thank you.

[FantomZorbin]

The RE's, by the way, are an outstanding bunch of folk, who rarely, IMHO, ever get their due recognition. Their tea is the best ever!! And always available, no matter where or when!!

IIRC there's a quote in "Don't Cry for Me Sergeant Major" where a party of RM storm a hill in the Falklands only to find a Sapper comfortably ensconced offering them 'a wet'!!!

The original 'can do' section of the UK Armed Forces:ok:

[Dan Gerous]

I am surprised to hear the RAF use petrol generators

Glojo, when I joined in 1976, there was a good mix of petrol and diesel engined equipment. By the time I left in 1985, our ground equipment was almost entirely run on diesel engines. My memory is a little faded, but I seem to remember towing around 2 bowsers on Ascension to refuel the ground equipment so one must have been petrol, (there was no diesel, so 1/99 motor oil/avtur was an excellent substitute). The Regiment had their own ground equipment guys and from what I remember the screamer generators they used were petrol, but a lot of l4nd rov3rs were still had petrol engines so perhaps not such a big issue back then. I would think that now, the Armed Forces use diesel to fuel all their engine run equipment, with only a few exceptions. All the ground equipment I used since then, when working abroad, has been diesel engined.

One garage owner told me that in 2001 when Agfannystan kicked off, the rise in diesel prices was attributable to the sudden increase in demand from the military.

[exblanketstacker]

I think it was about 1999 the single fuel concept can into being. This called for all machinery to be able to run on a single fuel type - Kerosene / avaiation fuel. This was certainly the case in Gulf War II although I had difficulty trying to explain to a few peopel that avaiation fuel was very similar to diesel.

[CAW]

Hello, to you all, Greetings from Argentina!

I´ve read this article of yours about FOB San Carlos. Finally thre´s something clearly written on this topic.

I´ve been trying to come up with a single text on the very same topics you´re trying to cover (FOB San Carlos & RAF Stanley - the early days) and have only been able to get no more than 3,000 words on all that.

I´ll gladly share the sources I got to with you just in case you need them.

By for now
Christian

[diginagain]

In 85, Rapier Dets around Stanley had petrol-driven generators. We got to drop one from a Gazelle, and so I can confirm their fragility. We weren't invited back.

[lj101]

Think defence

I read your linked articles and was really impressed, actually brought a little bit of a lump to the throat - how ridiculous of me.

Anyway, having spent about 18 months in total on the Falklands I remember that there was alot of photographs and info at MPA/in Stanley on the subject you are requesting information about.

Any thoughts on touching base with the station commander down there and seeing if he or his appointed minion can point you in the right direction?

[Trucker 55]

Hi,

Just noticed your thread and joined to reply hope you are still interested. I went to the Falklands in July 82, VC10 to Ascension few hours later Herc to Port Stanley all 14 hours of it.
I was in MT and delivered the matting for the runway at Port Stanley, which i believe we were fetching from a ship in the harbour, if memory serves me correct it was AM 2, and i vividly remember delivering direct to the runway which was closed at the time and it being laid by Ghurkas in fact they could lay a lorry load before i could return with the next load. The runway was closed for about 4 weeks the RE,s did all the engineering work. If I can be of any more help feel free to contact me.

[Think Defence]

Trucker, just checked back into this thread and noticed your offer.

Cheers for that.

Have just completed a three parter on the runway at Port Stanley. It started out as a look at the post conflict aspects but quickly developed into something much broader including putting my head into the lions mouth that is Black Buck


PART 1 - PRE CONFLICT

That Famous Runway at Port Stanley (http://www.thinkdefence.co.uk/2013/02/that-famous-runway-at-port-stanley-part-1-pre-conflict/)


PART 2 - CONFLICT

That Famous Runway at Port Stanley (http://www.thinkdefence.co.uk/2013/02/that-famous-runway-at-stanley-part-2-conflict/)


PART 3 - POST CONFLICT

That Famous Runway at Stanley (http://www.thinkdefence.co.uk/2013/02/that-famous-runway-at-stanley-part-3-post-conflict/)


As with the first post on this thread, always interested in views and corrections

[knarfw]

If you're on Facebook have a look here https://www.facebook.com/groups/coastel1/

[Lower Hangar]

San Carlos FOB aka HMS Sheathbill !

[thowman]

If you would like me to translate your website into Spanish, I'd be happy to do it for you.

[pontifex]

Think Defence

I recon it must have been AM2 as I had to do a rush job as a tp at Boscombe Down. It was to take a Nimrod out to 29 Palms via Yuma, where the Yanks had a full AM2 runway laid, in order to formally assess its sutability before we signed the cheque. I was given to understand that the ship with the matting on board was already enroute. We had a Herc support - I also had to check that that could cope as well. Heavens knows why! It was great fun though - the locals were very friendly. The Marines were in awe of our success in kicking the Argies out with such a numerical disadvantage.

[sargs]

Pontifex - It was to take a Nimrod out to 29 Palms via Yuma

I was on that trip. We left BD on 25 Jun 82 and returned on 04 Jul 82, with Ernie B the captain of XV227. When we operated off the AM2 the BD chaps wanted the aircraft as heavy as possible, but not to spend hours in the air with all that fuel - so, the solution was to nip behind a convenient hill and dump as much as possible. The US Marine in charge of the fuel farm was amazed at how thirsty RR Speys were....

[Courtney Mil]

Stanley's extention was AM2.

[ksimboy]

By 1985 a lot of the AM2 friction surface had worn off, which made crosswind landings after the runway had been de-iced just a tiny bit sporting.

[Courtney Mil]

So just how long was the temporary runway extention supposed to last?

[ksimboy]

When I did my 4 mths MPA had just opened and 1312 Flt were flying the odd heavy load in as it was easier than a road move. Apart from that MPA was emergency (and Tristar/Jumbo only). Handy runway in an emergency though, once the painters left the runway.

[CAW]

Courtney Mil: it was supposed to stand no more than three years, according to some RE whose papers I´ve read.

It managed to last a bit longer. But by then MPA´s main runway had been opened, the apron was almost finished and work on the second runway was well underway.

[Courtney Mil]

Ooh, didn't expect to see this thread reappear, bt am very glad thad it has. Very interested to hear more.

I have to say, that three years isn't a bad spell for the AM2 matting. Thanks for letting me know, CAW.

[CAW]

Three years it´s not bad at all!!

The thing is that the whole runway at RAF Stanley was re-surfaced with AM2... that´s something like 6000 fts long, plus aprons and taxing ways... meaning a lot a matting!!

Did you know that tha FAA (Argentinean Air Force) had used the very same AM2 10 years before at Hooker´s Point runway? In fact some of the argentinean AM2 had been left behind when Pembroke´s runway was opened in 1978 and they were used during the time of BAM Malvinas to extend the apron area, and create a few acceses to the runway from the sides of it.

I always wondered wether that matting had also been used by the RE in their Aug/Sept 82 work...

[Dysonsphere]

That's why am I getting a 403 error access forbidden to this server on my home machine.

[Courtney Mil]

When was the entire Stanley runway matted? I clearly recall the extention, access ways and hard standings, but not the original runway. Mind you, it was 31 years ago now.

[Dan Gerous]

Courtney I'm pretty sure the runway was completely matted by the time I was detached there in Dec 82. Near the end of our 6month detachment it was decided to remove and re-lay the first third of the runway, as the tiles had "slid " forward with all the constant use. The Royal Engineers were in charge of the job, but there was a fair sized RAF presence on the task. Myself and a few other guys from GSE were tasked with putting in the wiring for the lights. As the tiles were laid from one side to the other, at a certain point it all ground to a halt as we needed to run cable in from the edge to the centre. This gave the guys laying it a wee break, as they weren't hanging about doing it. During this the runway was unusable for the Phantoms, so the Harriers were doing the "Q" thing. A couple of times a Herc did get airborne, while the work was in progress. The tiles were all stacked up on the runway near where the work started. The first time a Herc took of, it blew these tiles off the stacks. After that the forklifts were placed in front of them with the forks down on the stacks. I can't actually remember seeing a Herc landing back at Stanley while the work was on-going, but it must have been an interesting experience for the crews.

There was a story going round that landings were to be balanced out, so that both ends were used, to prevent this slippage from happening, but in the 6 months I was there, I can recall only a few occasions when aircraft landed from the Stanley end.

[Extg3]

Dysonsphere,
The Think Defence website is down for maintenance \ refurbishment at the moment. Don't know when it will be back. They are on Twitter @thinkdefence

[Courtney Mil]

Thank you, Dan. Good story, well told:ok:

I must admit, I had forgotten that. I left the first time just before Christmas 1982 so I guess the refurb was after that.

[izod tester]

I was there from early July to November 1982. The entire runway was laid with AM2, I think about September. I remember that the RE had considerable difficulty repairing the bomb crater between the Control Tower and the FiGAS hangar and the repair was delayed several days whilst they extracted a bulldozer which had been pushing hard core into the hole.

Although the RE were in charge of the laying of the AM2, any RAF personnel who could drive a 3 tonner were pressed into service to transport the AM2 from the port to the airfield.

[Courtney Mil]

Thanks. Shows how much attention I paid to the runway I was using. As long as it worked, it was fine by me.

[Mach Two]

Hopefully your lack of attention was more about the runway surface than the runway itself!:eek: Useful to give it some regard, especailly during take off and landing.

[Courtney Mil]

Top tip, M2. Why didn't they tell me that earlier?

[CAW]

may I ask if you refer to the crater shown on the picture linked below? (I mean not the one on the runway side, but the second one which has a written indication that I can´t actually get to read)

http://www.pprune.org/military-aircrew/479504-falklands-most-daring-raid.html#post7074058

[CAW]

izod tester,

when you say this:

"I remember that the RE had considerable difficulty repairing the bomb crater between the Control Tower and the FiGAS hangar and the repair was delayed several days whilst they extracted a bulldozer which had been pushing hard core into the hole."

can you tell us which one of the craters shown in the picture linked below are you talking about?? (I´d guess it´s the one which has a written note, below the runway...)

http://www.pprune.org/military-aircrew/479504-falklands-most-daring-raid.html#post7074058

[Think Defence]

Have been doing a spot of redesign and the site is back on now

Thanks for everyone's input, really valuable.

The series is complete now, it was originally a three parter; Atlantic Conveyor, San Carlos FoB and Port Stanley Airport but the last one kind of grew as I started writing it to include Black Buck and RAF Stanley

A trilogy in 5 parts!

The Atlantic Conveyor #Falklands30 | Think Defence (http://thinkdefence.co.uk/2012/04/the-atlantic-conveyor-falklands30/)

Harrier Forward Operating Base ? Falkland Islands | Think Defence (http://thinkdefence.co.uk/2012/04/harrier-forward-operating-base-falkland-islands/)

And on Port Stanley

That Famous Runway at Port Stanley ? Part 1 (Pre Conflict) | Think Defence (http://thinkdefence.co.uk/2013/02/that-famous-runway-at-port-stanley-part-1-pre-conflict/)

That Famous Runway at Port Stanley ? Part 2 (Conflict) | Think Defence (http://thinkdefence.co.uk/2013/02/that-famous-runway-at-stanley-part-2-conflict/)

That Famous Runway at Port Stanley ? Part 3 (Post Conflict) | Think Defence (http://thinkdefence.co.uk/2013/02/that-famous-runway-at-stanley-part-3-post-conflict/)

On my original question about San Carlos FoB, it seems the runway surface was pretty much anything the sappers could lay their hands on; MEXE pads, PSP and the materials they used for helicopter landing pads onboard the civilian ships.

Feedback, as ever, is always very much welcome

[ColinB]

Tried all five links, all came back forbidden on this server. Is there a problem?

[PhilipG]

ColinB the links worked on my PC.

[izod tester]

The crater I was referring to is the third black arrow up from bottom left.

[bspatz]

I arrived in Stanley in early 1985 and was intrigued to find that the entrance to the HQBFFI mess at Lookout (assorted tents and cabins) had a floor made of AM2 matting. Having been involved in the procurement and movement of said matting I reckoned that it was without doubt the most expensive mess entrance anywhere in the 3 services!

[Think Defence]

Sorry about any access problems, have just transferred to a new host so the DNS needs to propagate.

Interestingly, had a comment on one of the posts from Dave Morgan DSC which confirms the San Carlos FOB runway was PSA 1.

One of the great things about this kind of material is how it provides an opportunity for people to contribute to the accuracy of the post I am very grateful for it.

[CAW]

I´ve writing my own account of airfields and planes in the Malvinas for over two years now. If it all goes according to my plans, it might be turning into a book late this year.

Regarding FOB San Carlos, I remember reading somewhere that the matting used there was gathered out of the existance that some RFA ships had, since most of the actual FOB sunk with the Atlantic Conveyor. How accurate could this be?

Also, I´d like to ask if anyone has information regarding a second FOB erected sometime between southern winter 1982 and late 1983 in the Goose Green area.

One last note: there is some information about RN SHARs taking up the interception role around August 1982, maybe due to the fact that RAF Stanley had to suffer major refurbishing works, or maybe because of some harrasment from the west. I tend to believe those planes were based in some CV, but I failed to find out which one. Could it be Vince?

[diginagain]

ISTR several lengths of AM2 being used at Murray Heights as bridges, as well as a second-hand UH-1 main rotor blade.

[Single Spey]

The original runway plus the extension were laid with AM2, some of the original Harrier dispersals were laid with PSP. It was the 26 end of the runway that was re-laid. Because most arrivals were from the East and the F-4s did carrier-style 'arrivals' into the cable with the added benefit of 'chute popped just before touchdown, the matting was 'creeping' and had developed a bit of a hump. Normal ops were suspended midnight Fri 22 Apr 83, and 1500ft of matting was taken up leaving about 4400ft useable runway. C-130 Tankers were launched and recovered during Sat and Sun along with Harriers. Full runway was back in use around mid-day Sun 24 April.

[tyne]

Surely the CV at the time was Lusty.

[ExGrunt]

@ExBlanketStacker:

I think it was about 1999 the single fuel concept can into being.

My recollection is that the decision was taken much earlier, in the early '80s.

The last petrol powered vehicle I can remember is the early APV which replaced the Piglets in West Belfast in 1985.

EG

[Dan Gerous]

You would think being on GSE I would remember this, but can any Phantom crew members recall, after a sortie, when the first aircraft landed and took the RHAG, did the second aircraft wait till the first had cleared the runway, or did the second land with the first one still on the runway? I know we didn't start rewinding the cables in till both aircraft were down and off the runway.

[wiggy]

As far as I recall it ( v late 82/early 83) it was very definitely "one at a time". I think the possible consequences of a missed "trap" by a second F-4 with one still on the runway ruled out doing anything else :eek:.

[Dan Gerous]

I thought that was how it worked Wiggy. I was trying to recall if the first one landed, unhooked, then went down to the end, to let the second one in. Since the majority of landings were towards Stanley, I suppose the stop was near enough the Phandet turnoff, to allow the jets to turn in there. They certainly didn't hang about when landing.

[WIDN62]

The rules were only 1 F4 airborne unless the C130 tanker was also up - unless there was a QRA scramble and then the C130 got airborne asap after the F4s. That way if there was any problem after the first one landed the second one could be re-fuelled if necessary.

[CAW]

If I may ask to both of you, could you recall how often those QRA sorties were lunched between late 82 and the openning of MPA?

I´m trying to figure out some pics I have of an argentinian Navy Electra been "escorted" by a couple of F-4s and I have two different dates for 1983 and another pair for 1985... could it be that there were that many incidents? Were any QRA lunched against the Mirage fighters the AAF placed in Rio Gallegos by December 1982?

[thowman]

Could you share these photos with us?

[wiggy]

could you recall how often those QRA sorties were lunched between late 82 and the opening of MPA?

V. late Dec 82 - March 83, ;) - I really can't give you a hard number of launches but things still seemed a bit twitchy, even tense at times and if there was a hint from any of our assets on or around the islands of a possible "problem" QRA would be launched, so it wasn't that infrequent an event.

What then usually happened was you headed west and sat on CAP "just in case" whilst the situation was resolved. I don't recall anybody coming into contact with any Argentinian aircraft when I was down there.

I think there was at least one successful intercept of a (?(the) Electra after I left so your mid 83 date might be right.

[Geehovah]

Hopefully I can add a little to the debate but you may have to wait until it's published:

Fighters Over The Falklands due out in November

[CoffmanStarter]

Gee ... Already on my 2013 Christmas List :ok:

[John Blakeley]

CAW,

I do not recall how often QRA launched for a CAP out to the west, but when I was OC Eng from mid Aug 84 - end Dec 84 we certainly had one "live" scramble in the early morning (0500 or so) which turned out to be a USN (or possibly US Coastguard) P3 which I was told was in transit from ASI to Chile and which had been on the ground at ASI the day before. No doubt one of the F4 operators will recall more details and may even know why there was, apparently, no flight plan received at Stanley.

[CAW]

thowman, these are a few of the pictures I mentioned. The last one (4th), it was shot in the early or mid ´90s according to the sources I have.

http://img9.imageshack.us/img9/4822/daj3.jpg (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/9/daj3.jpg/)

Uploaded with ImageShack.us (http://imageshack.us)

http://img801.imageshack.us/img801/9088/nke4.jpg (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/801/nke4.jpg/)

Uploaded with ImageShack.us (http://imageshack.us)
http://img19.imageshack.us/img19/2776/yi9y.jpg (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/19/yi9y.jpg/)

Uploaded with ImageShack.us (http://imageshack.us)

http://img197.imageshack.us/img197/5075/362i.jpg (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/197/362i.jpg/)

Uploaded with ImageShack.us (http://imageshack.us)

Geehovah, are you the author of "Fighters Over The Falkland"? Could not you just briefly (or privatly if you wish) say something regarding this topic?

Also, I´m almost completly sure that there were incidents between March and July 1988 and, again, some time in 1997. Does anyone know the nature of these incidents? Were they "simple" interceptions? I have information of an argentinean ELINT flight around 1987 which was actually able to overflight Byron Heights or the areas close to it... could anyone tell anything on this event? Is the date actually right?

wiggy & John Blakely thank you for your comments!!:ok:

[Geehovah]

CAW, I researched the earlier incident and included one of my own. All will be revealed in the book. Forgive me if I don't publish the details in advance.

[BSweeper]

It was indeed AM2 matting. I know because I made the bar floor out of it when we arrived on 18 October 1982. It was a good bar though a little short on beer. We tried to get some from Batemans with a promo picture but to no avail. And for all those who weren't there in Stanley days, this is how it was - ploughed field and wellys - not the usual front line aircrew deal.

http://i1274.photobucket.com/albums/y438/charlespatchett/0b5e3ca4-0b07-4b83-9df4-98ba6346c991_zps9656a645.jpg

Dave - if you want some gen on those days PM me.

[CAW]

Geehovah, thanks for your answer. Guess I´ll need to find a way to get your book. Any chance to get to pre-order it to you so it can be sent down here by November (or before)??

Bsweeper, that´s truly an original picture. Hadn´t seen it before, thou I had read somewhere about the bar set up at RAF Stanley... well, guess there were many of them around.

In case you didn´t know, by late 83, when the MPA construction started, beer was apparently one of the most demanded supplies. If I´m not mistaken, I read at Wickham´s memories of that enterprise, that some time in Summer 1984 something like 4 containers were drunk each month at te construction site.

One last thing, now that some of you are around, could anyone tell anything about the "norwegian rubber hangars" deployed at RAF Stanley? When did they get there? Were they any good? Any incidents you recall with them? (fires, ie)

Thank you,
Christian

[BSweeper]

CAW

That wasn't the RAF Stanley bar set up, it was where 29 Sqn det hung out in the evening (after dark) when they weren't in the Portacabin (where half of us aircrew slept - the other half being in the "Rangatraz").

The Hangers were very good despite the appalling weather conditions and wind. How they were set up was a mystery to me but we were very grateful. Far more worrying was the chalk crusher (for AM2 footage) conveniently placed next to the ramp. The dust got all over the place.

I remember we got airborne one day, switched the Master Arm on upon coasting out, and a Skyflash lit up as "Ready" even though it wasn't "Selected" (!?). Pilot was scared stiff to touch a thing. We spent a bit of time keeping the Pucaras company at the end of the runway before the armourers sorted it out.

Turned out that it was chalk dust in the weapon relays behind the Nav's seat even though the canopies were taped down overnight and Hoovers regularly employed for cleaning (our first main request for spares - Signal 29 to 11 Group. Most urgent and Secret - please send a Hoover).

By the way that is a Pucara drop tank in the pic.

The Sweep

[Marcantilan]

Well, it looks like Phantoms were near the mainland some times...

http://img28.imageshack.us/img28/3611/t21m.jpg

Also, apparently Mr. Thomas was a Phantom admirer!

[CAW]

Marcantilan, we meet again... it looks like :ok:

If my memory doesn´t play tricks on me, I think I remember Freedman´s writings on some plans calling for some "preventive attacks" on the argentinean continental air bases. These plans were supposedly promoted by MT herself around September or October 1982, and disregarded later on. May be, these document you´ve just posted shines a light on the matter...

By the time Sir Lawrence Freedman wrote those words, many of the documents released in 2012, were still "secret". Have you got to see the ones I refer to?

Christian

PS: Bsweeper I just sent you an PM.

[BEagle]

Back in early 1999, I was enjoying yet another few weeks in the sun drenched South Atlantic. Predictably, our trusty VC10K had developed a fault, deeming it a 'wargoer only', so we were sitting around waiting for a Timmy to bring the necessary part down to us.

One morning, a QRA scramble was ordered, much to our surprise. Piling into the oldest, rustiest and slowest Land_Rover on base, we made our laborious way to the jet, pausing as the F3s thundered off to the west.

Having crewed in and checked in, the next thing we knew was when OC Eng bowled up and demanded to know what we were doing on an 'unserviceable' jet. I told him that it was a wargoer and that, if we were launched, he could either get off or come along.... That seemed to deflate him and he left the flight deck.

Listening to the comms was hilarious. Someone was champing at the bit demanding to know the identity of the suspect aircraft. "Stand by" called the F3 crew.....

"What markings can you see?".
"I said STAND BY! OK - the markings, are you ready to copy?"
"Yes - go ahead!"
"Aerolineas Argentinas!"
"Err. Roger.....continue to shadow".

When we were stood down to RS Crewroom and coffee, I asked one of the Herc mates, young StopStart, if he could do a little research. Stoppers was a bit of an Internet whizz, for those days, so I asked him if there was anything such as www.aerolineas_argentinas.com which he could find...

Some minutes later, a yell from the office indicated that Stoppers had triumphed. "See if there's a flight schedule", I asked him. There was, so we duly printed it off and sent it down to the TIC-TOC with a 'you might find this useful' memo attached.

Not long after, OC1312's phone rang. It was the Int spooks demanding to know 'the source of this highly important intelligence' - it seems they'd been trying to get hold of an Aerolineas Argentinas schedule for months, with zero luck....:rolleyes:

We told them, then realised this was too good an opportunity to miss. Shortly afterwards, OC1435 received the following letter:

El Commandante del Vuelo 1435
Base Aerea Gringo
Fuerza Aerea Malvinas
Islas Malvinas

16 Jan 99

Hola Señor!

In responsing to the requesting por informacion del nuestros vuelos to Argentina, I am pleasing to helping you with your queries. El Boeing 737, avion mucho importante, flies muy frequente en todos los airways del Americano del Sud. She not yet fly to Puerto Argentino or other destino en las Islas Malvinas, pero yo creo que es possible that, if you gringos let our brave boys back to the Islas, el B737 fly to Aeropuerto Malvinas Internacional mucho often.

If you wishing, we fly el Boeing con los flaps y wheels down, so the hijos de putas in los F3 Tornado can catch him if he get off track like other day.

If you wanting to have details of our flight schedules y frequent flyer program, please sending cheque for muchero dinero to myself.

Salud y pesetas y mucho amor,

Jose B Cojones

Generalissimo Manager
Aerolineas Argentinas
236 Calle Galtieri
Buenos Aires


They weren't impressed. Just another merry jape to make the days pass less boringly....

[ex-fast-jets]

Predictably, our trusty VC10K had developed a fault, deeming it a 'wargoer only'Was the microwave dodgy??

Or were you not allowed to use charcoal when airborne??

[BEagle]

If I recall correctly, it was a B-sys hyd leak. So we planned to use A-sys and s'by brakes until lined up, pressurise B-sys for take-off (giving us normal brakes with maxarets in case we had to abort the take-off) and depressurise it once the gear, flaps and slats were retracted. Then repressurise it again for landing. If we lost B-sys hyd contents during flight, there was every chance of a tyre(s) bursting on landing (no maxarets) - but that was an acceptable 'wargoer' risk. No doubt one that wouldn't be allowed today....:rolleyes:

The VC10K2/3 galley was a single hot cup and a small oven. From which, as the groundcrew will doubtless recall, some noteworthy feasts were often produced.

[MPN11]

Late on parade, as SATCO May-Sep 83.

Have loads of photos, and access to some by the first bunch of ATCTOs (TacATC) who went down.

I shall not dribble, but I will respond to meaningful PMs.

Oh, it was one on my guys, a diving enthusiast, who explored the Tower water tank, plugged the holes, and gave us the the only functioning flush toilet on the airfield. SATCO held the key, naturally ... "Do you want to trade something?" :p

[CAW]

Hello to you all!!

I´ve just received this picture. It appears to be either mid or late ´80s, somewhere "in the camp"... can anyone add information?

http://img577.imageshack.us/img577/4017/7iu4.jpg (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/577/7iu4.jpg/)

Uploaded with ImageShack.us (http://imageshack.us)

Thanks,
Christian

[lj101]

Christian

I doubt that's on camp, it will probably be a small holding farm - the Phantom crews used to have great relations with locals and would often spend their 2/3 day rest and recuperation time on some of these farms.... Hence the fly pasts like this.

I'm sure some ex Phantom crews will pop up and fill in the details as to which farm this would have been.

[BEagle]

lj101, 'camp' is the word used by the bennie....the locals for anywhere outside Stanley and comes from the Spanish word countryside - campo.

[500N]

CAW

I did a search for you as I knew it had been written up before.

The story behind the photo is written up here on this Phantom thread.

http://www.pprune.org/military-aircrew/492108-any-phantom-stories-out-there-12.html#post7518439


If the link doesn't work, it's post 232 in the
Any Phantom stories out there? thread

[CAW]

Thanks to all of you for your answers!!

500N I miss that thread!! Guess I`ll need to pay closer attention to the other Falkland Islands related threads.

Any suggestion which ones I should not miss?

Thanks again,
Christian

[thowman]

CAW

This is an interesting thread, which you may or may not have read.

http://www.pprune.org/aviation-history-nostalgia/297920-falklands-crash-sites.html

[CAW]

Guess I´m a little late... sorry.

Thanks anyway. The thread was unknown to me and I guess there are many very useful and interesting ones here for me to read.

:ok:

[CAW]

I know that this could not be the proper thread to ask about this, but I´ve just come across a UK document that mentions the existence of a "paper" which explores the "intentions" and possibilities of setting up an airstrip somewhere in South Georgia after its re-taken by Operation Parequet.

Has anyone hear anything about this paper??

Can anyone add anything else to this??

Thanks,
Christian

PS: The paper was submitted for discussion and/or approval to the British Commanders Of Staff sometime in April´s third week, 1982.

[cokecan]

Christian,

i'm not sure if its the paper you've got wind of, but i (many years ago..) saw a memo from a junior defence minister, apparently on prompting from a cabinet minister from outside MOD, asking if a runway could be built at either South Georgia or Tristan de Cunha.

it was long the lines of 'i know this is a stupid question, but X from Z dept has looked at a map of the South Atlantic and asks if...' with the reply being 'the topography, as you suspected, makes it impossible/spectacularly difficult, as does the timeframe..'

[ancientaviator62]

When the Falkands Op was brewing up I was with the group EU. I remember this question was asked in all seriousness as were several other 'interesting' ones.
Anyone who had ever read an account of Shackleton's epic to South Georgia would have known the answer. I think the cunning plan was to drop a grader from the Herc on a Heavy Stressed Platform to make a tac strip.
The fact that the HSP had effectively been out of service for some time seems to have escaped them. Quite what the Herc crew were supposed to do after the drop was not enunciated.

[Xercules]

When I was in MoD between '94 and '97 I had reason to use the CIA World Fact Book for some work I was doing. Out of interest I also looked up the entries for FI and the Islands. Much to my surprise the entry for SG and SS noted the presence of at least 3 airports with one runway in excess of 2000 metres.

I note that this entry has now been corrected.

[CAW]

Thanks to all of you for your asnwers!!

So it looks like a paper on the matter actually existed. Here´s the reference I was talking about in my previous post:

http://img17.imageshack.us/img17/3827/io6e.jpg (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/17/io6e.jpg/)

Uploaded with ImageShack.us (http://imageshack.us)

It´s taken from the COS 37Th meeting, dated April 30th.

I surely be interested in getting to read how would someone plan to set up a 4000 fts long runway in South Georgia, in 6 months time in the middle of an antarctic winter!! Don´t get me wrong: I´m not saying it cannot be done, specially when I pay close attention to the FOB San Carlos construction (less than two weeks). It´s just that I´d like to read such a paper.

Talking about FOBs during that War... have you seen this?? (Taken from an INTSUM, dated June 10, 1982):

http://imageshack.us/a/img34/1213/40ec.jpg

A FOB Teal Inlet already set up by June 10th?? Any comments??

Christian

[Xercules]

Further to my above, several years later and after I had transferred my immediate allegiance, we were contacted at Filton by a consultant for the FCO. His brief was to investigate establishing a tourist industry in FI, St Helena and Tristan da Cunha (bird watching being the main/only attraction). For this you need an air service.

Travelling on the Tri*, he had read an article in the inflight magazine about A400M and wondered whether it could be used for TdC. Apparently there was one place they could build a runway 6000 ft long but it would have a cliff going up at one end and a cliff going down at the other. Volcanoes are not designed with runways in mind. The need was to replace the 4 - 6 monthly ship visits - they could only anchor off-shore and then were limited to individual items of no more than 10 tonnes.

Other snippets were that the nearest airfield was in South Africa, 1700 nms away, and even if they also built an airfield in St Helena that would also be 1700 nms away. Clearly it meant a 4 engine aircraft configured as a combi and really meant either C130, C17 or A400M (in civil variants) but none would be really realistic, probably having to carry round trip fuel not least in case of arriving overhead when the weather then prevented landing. With that in mind C130 could carry about 10 tonnes, A400M 20 and C17 about 30. I showed that A400M could theoretically land and take off at those weights and I guess C130 would, but I do not know about C17.

We exchanged 2 or 3 letters before he went away - I never found out whether he was happy with the results or not - I certainly would not want to run any guaranteed air service on the basis of what I had found out and calculated.

[Coochycool]

Slight thread drift but you may or may not be aware that St. Helena is at long last getting an airfield, predicted to be operational late 2015.

Which for me begged the question where the airlink will fly to (Cape Town?), and what equipment they'll use.

Anybody any idea?

What are the chances that the occasional FI shuttle will get routed via?

[vascodegama]

Not sure of the RW length but my guess is that it is too short for most ac esp the A330 . My second guess would be a turbo prop of some sort to connect to ASI (and the FI schedule).

[Coochycool]

Makes sense but thats quite a trek over water to Cape Town.

Can anyone enlighten me on the ETOPS limits for a twin turboprop in such a scenario?

Might it force them to run shorter sectors ie. via Luanda?

Spoze an alternative might be a Cape Town - Ascension jet service but I dare say the numbers wouldnt stack up

[cokecan]

St Helena's runway will be 1500m - its supposed to have relatively big 'shoulders' and taxiways etc.. (being a brown job i have no idea what that means...), but its still only 1500m.

from recall the view is that to be of any use regarding 'those islands', we'd need a runway at Tristan de Cunha, a further 1000+ miles south - and the topography just makes that a complete no-no: the only area on the islands almost flat enought to take a runway also happens to be the islands main farming area, and the island is a cliff, so actually getting stuff from ships to a contruction site is a nightmare...

[Coochycool]

Thanks Cokecan

The original query about this eluded to the prospect of an airfield at Tristan, but clearly that was just a kneejerk response at the time to the desperate situation in spring '82. Surely based on the logic that anything closer than Ascension would be easier fuel wise.

Now that we have MPA, would somebody care to point out why we might still need this? Obvious answer is we dont.

Being a bit of a geography buff might I also add that we wont see an airfield on Gough Island 200 miles south east of Tristan anytime soon either, even if it was achievable (which it aint).

I do still worry however about the vulnerability of FI under certain scenarios, but I understand an open forum is not the place for their discussion. :cool:

[WHBM]

Slight thread drift but you may or may not be aware that St. Helena is at long last getting an airfield, predicted to be operational late 2015.

Which for me begged the question where the airlink will fly to (Cape Town?), and what equipment they'll use.

Anybody any idea?

What are the chances that the occasional FI shuttle will get routed via?
I think that Cape Town itself is nearer to The Falklands than St Helena.

Regarding the new St Helena airport, as I understand it the intention is an A319/737-700 operation from Cape Town, but the 1,550m strip (a fraction longer than London City) exposed to Atlantic gales is surely going to be a bit of a challenge. Luanda in Angola is about the same distance, while the nearest airfield is of course Ascension Island. There's going to be a 6 million litre fuel store. Given that the only sea access to the island is by a ship anchored offshore craning onto lighters, I'm not quite sure how the bulk fuel will get there in the first place.

[cokecan]

Coochy,

the post-82 thinking on having a runway closer to the FI was about supporting a fleet with AEW and ASW in the unlikely event of an exact re-match.

the more recent thinking is primarily about developing the local island economies - that and the cronic lack of tanking assets available to bring down reinforcements. diversion airfields are also an issue - apparently no one particularly fancies the prospect of a C-17 with a Parachute Coy on board or an F-35 or Typhoon having to divert to a Lat Am airfield because MPA is closed...

Stanley's runway is less than 1000m - it could be extended, but not by that much, and if the weather closes MPA, it will probably close Stanley as well.

[vascodegama]

Cape town to MPA 3900 NM
ASI-MPA 3900NM so St Helena to MPA would not be much different. Tristan to MPA ?-probably 2500 nm or so. Not sure that diversions has anything to do with it.
As for Stanley-I guess they could extend it to the 6000 or so that it was as a max during the heyday of RAF Stanley.

[Coochycool]

Thanks for the last few posts chaps, there arent too many avenues for discussion of such a specialised topic but it is of anorak interest to some like myself.

I think we can deduce that the availability of further airfields in the South Atlantic is largely irrelevant to the regional threat.

I do however question the continuing vulnerability of the islands under certain circumstances, one of which Cokecan eludes to.

I believe that on at least one occasion 2 FJs and the tanker launched from MPA but were subsequently unable to recover there due to wx deterioration. It provoked a rather ignominious diversion to Chile, only after having asked Argentina whether they would mind awfully if they overflew.

Fortunately in this instance common sense prevailed and permission was
granted, but what if it hadnt been?

And theres nothing quite like advertising when your in a state of compromise. Any potential aggressor might naturally consider developing a strategy for a more robust response whenever this scenario might recurr.:eek:

Any thoughts?

Maybe someone could at least explain why given that Autoland is older than I am, why we cant land in pea soup however thick it is?

[MAINJAFAD]

Maybe someone could at least explain why given that Autoland is older than I am, why we cant land in pea soup however thick it is?

Being in charge of an engineering team that maintains an airfield's Radars, radios, navigation beacons and landing aids, I can answer that one.

The precision of the ILS system required to do full autoland is massively affected by what bits of metal are kicking about the airfield from minute to minute thus it massively restricts ground movement of aircraft and support vehicles (the radio beams don't propagate as they should due to reflections). To put it in perspective, I was on an airfield with a contractor in close proximity to an ILS Glideslope tower and was told over the radio from ATC to get away from the equipment ASAP because the two vehicles we were in where having an adverse effect on the equipment as an aircraft was making its approach on ILS. The classic example of what can go wrong was a tri engined jet that tried to do full autoland on airfield with a non autoland calibrated ILS. The aircraft did a very heavy landing which resulted in major damage to the wing spar(s). Also the infringement regulations for radio site clearances for a full autoland compatible ILS system are extremely restrictive (off airfield to a specific range) and they have to be flight calibrated on a much more regular basis than a non autoland capable ILS.

In fact most of what you ask about is covered in this thread from a few years back http://www.pprune.org/military-aircrew/417239-typhoon-vc10-divert-chile.html.

[Coochycool]

Thanks for taking the trouble to broaden the knowledge of others MainJafad. :D

I wasnt aware of the linked thread but perhaps should have guessed it would be out there.

I suppose the main point to be learned from it is that the jets in question should really have been landed before MPA got socked in, but then I guess it can happen rather quickly in that part of the world.

And if we cant fly, neither of course then can a potential aggressor. :cool:

[Heathrow Harry]

One of the reasons for the new airport at St Helena is that the tub that shuttles to & fro is near the end of it's life - the cost of replacing isn't a lot but the cost of running it for another 40 years is apparently horrendous

[OldNavigator]

The photo shown in August is at Saunders Island settlement, I have seen similar shots from there, one showing a house with the fin of a Hercules peeping above it

[CAW]

It looks like at least the RAF Stanley Phantoms did actually fly outside the TEZ after their October arrival. Something really strange must have happened in the final days of December 1982 over the waters close to the argentinean mainland.

http://imageshack.us/a/img541/3120/q6hw.th.jpg (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/541/q6hw.jpg/)

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=611237785586894&set=a.214549221922421.51874.214542278589782&type=1&theater

Christian

[Courtney Mil]

I would say your assumption is correct, CAW. We did fly west (quite a way:cool:) and we did encounter Argentinean aircraft.

Courtney

[Squirrel 41]

One of the reasons for the new airport at St Helena is that the tub that shuttles to & fro is near the end of it's life - the cost of replacing isn't a lot but the cost of running it for another 40 years is apparently horrendous

Correct, leading to the amusing Treasury suggestion to the FCO / DFID that they should consider buying a long-range Beriev-200 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beriev_Be-200).... not that the FCO got the joke IIRC. (Well, it would've cheaper than blasting the runway out, and where else can you take a flying boat on holiday?!)

S41

[peter we]

Regarding the new St Helena airport, as I understand it the intention is an A319/737-700 operation from Cape Town, but the 1,550m strip (a fraction longer than London City) exposed to Atlantic gales is surely going to be a bit of a challenge. Luanda in Angola is about the same distance, while the nearest airfield is of course Ascension Island.

They have upgraded the plan to allow flights from London with a refueling stop in Spain (I can't find where it says the upgrade has been approved)

No flights from London? Woah, I?m going to Barbados? | St Helena Online | Page 4 (http://sthelenaonline.org/2013/06/14/no-flights-from-london-woah-im-going-to-barbados/4)

Ascension shuttle is ?do-able?, says would-be airline chief | St Helena Online (http://sthelenaonline.org/2013/06/20/ascension-shuttle-is-do-able-says-would-be-airline-chief/)

There's going to be a 6 million litre fuel store. Given that the only sea access to the island is by a ship anchored offshore craning onto lighters, I'm not quite sure how the bulk fuel will get there in the first place.

They are building a harbour, fuel pipeline and road as part of the airport construction

http://www.sainthelenaaccess.com/news/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/Airport-Update-38.pdf

A wharf for Rupert?s Bay | St Helena Online (http://sthelenaonline.org/galleries/a-wharf-for-ruperts-bay/)

[CAW]

CourtnetMill,

I heard "rumours", when I was a kid, that at times planes incoming from the sea could be seen from some cities down south.

Would you mind confirming wether or not:

a) low level attacks on Rio Gallegos airstrip were either plan and/or exercised?

b) if Buccanner aircraft were ever deployed south? (L. Freedman states that they were supposed to be used in some sort of retaliation actions against argentinean air and naval bases... he even states that those plans were prepared around October by direct request of the PM.)

Also, did you guys ever get to find any other aircraft than Boeings 737, ARA´s Electra or FAA´s ELINT Boeing 707??

I was told by someone actually in one of the planes that in more than a couple of times, FAA´s Hercules did fly directly over the islands in order to get to Antactica´s Marambio Air Base. Any comments on that?

Thank you.
Christian

[Courtney Mil]

Would you mind confirming wether or not:

a) low level attacks on Rio Gallegos airstrip were either plan and/or exercised?

Not to my knowledge. Mind you, we were an Air Defence outfit so we would have had no part in such a plan - except, perhaps to provide escort. Assuming you're talking after the war, we would have had no reason to do such a thing anyway. Once the Falklands were liberated, we had no further need for offensive operations. I would say "no".


b) if Buccanner aircraft were ever deployed south? (L. Freedman states that they were supposed to be used in some sort of retaliation actions against argentinean air and naval bases... he even states that those plans were prepared around October by direct request of the PM.)

Can't speak for the PM - he didn't always share his thoughts with me - but I'm sure there were plans to deploy Buccaneers should they have been needed. Again, after the liberation, they weren't needed. As for retaliation, I think you may have been fed a line. The UK had absolutely no wish to retaliate whatsoever. The only reason we were in the South Atlantic at all was to reclaim British teritory and to liberate British passport holders from an occupying power. There was no thought whatsoever of retaliation. What would thathave acheived?


Also, did you guys ever get to find any other aircraft than Boeings 737, ARA´s Electra or FAA´s ELINT Boeing 707??

I don't recollect any other type and I'm certain there was no overflight of the Falklands by Argentinean aircraft after the liberation. That was why we were there and why we have been ever since.

Courtney :ok:

P.S. Sorry for rushed typing.

[wiggy]

I'm sure there were plans to deploy Buccaneers should they have been needed. Again, after the liberation, they weren't needed.

FWIW well after the conflict (AFAIR early '83) a Bucc (? a pair) did make a fleeting visit to Stanley (stayed only for a day or two).

(edited to correct number of aircraft)

[Shackman]

I don't recollect any other type and I'm certain there was no overflight of the Falklands by Argentinean aircraft after the liberation.

18 Jan 83: Air Raid Warning Red! We were tasking on the western end of West Falkland when the warning was broadcast, and told to 'get out of there'. So we (very bravely) flew at 20ft (ish) rapidly eastward whilt the QRF F4s overflew us westbound. Threw the Chinook on the ground at Pt Howard and joined the Gurkhas in their trenches, thankful they didn't shoot us down as all their weapons were now pointing upwards. The only really p*****-**f people were the two FJ mates we had taken with us on sightseeing, who spent all their time divided between looking out for hostiles and cursing 'cos they wouldn't be able to get airborne as well!

It transpired that at least one pair of FJs had come out from Argentina and entered the FIPZ before descending low level and disappearing from radar whilst still on an eastbound track about 50 miles from the coast (they must have then turned away, but no doubt with a good bit of elint/sigint for them).

[Courtney Mil]

Fair enough for them to come visiting us. We did it them all the time. "Presence Runs". I wonder what elint they might have gathered and for why? It was all over by then.

[CAW]

CourtneyMill. thank you for your clear answers!!:ok:

Assuming you're talking after the war, we would have had no reason to do such a thing anyway. Once the Falklands were liberated, we had no further need for offensive operations. As for retaliation, I think you may have been fed a line. The UK had absolutely no wish to retaliate whatsoever. I´m sorry I didn´t make myself clear enough. Yes, I was talkling about the "after war events". I apologize to you all, I misused the word "retaliation"; Freedman´s words refer to "reasonable response to any argentine military adventures".

"Upon reading the November JIC paper which reached this conclusion, the Prime Minister expressed an interest in whether or not offensive operations by Britain might be a reasonable response to any Argentine military adventures: ‘Their shipping and bases are now vulnerable, as we have considerable forces in or near the Falklands’"

L. Freedman. "The Official History of the Falklands Campaign" Volume 2, Chapter 44: "Fortress Falkland". Rutledge. London. 2005. (Quote in page 585)

As for the motivation to fly outside the FIPZ, Freedman states in page 586 that:

"In December 1983 an Argentine submarine deployed much further south than usual, and Heseltine authorised a temporary change in the ROE...A ‘warning zone’30nm in from the edge of the FIPZ was established in which unidentified submarines could be harassed but not attacked unless they unmistakably demonstrated hostile intent. Once a submarine penetrated further than 30nm inside the FIPZ it could then be attacked...This change applied only to submarines but led to Heseltine asking the Chiefs of Staff to re-examine the ROE to ensure that they met the threat from Argentina while minimising the risk of an ‘accidental’ engagement. Out of this came a recommendation that the warning zone concept should be extended to include Argentine surface combatants and combat aircraft, both of which could be unmistakably warned-off by visual means. A warning zone 30nm deep would still leave the Commander British Forces with adequate room and time to engage Argentine combat units that had aggressive intent... The Commander was later given additional discretion to identify potential targets close to, but outside, the FIPZ boundary. This had the added advantage of further extending the range of response to a potential incursion..."

If I´m not clear enough, what I mean to say is that I undoubtly understand that the purpose of the british forces that were either kept or developed to the Malvinas after the argentinean surrender was not to carry on offensive operations against the argentinean mainland. But it´s also true that, since they were to serve defensive popouses only, the best way to acheive just that is to be either ready to strike first (once its known that an offensive action is coming against you) or to have the information and capacities to answer quickly to an "incoming surprise". I believe that both of these options requiere the previous gathering of tactical intelligence.

Since I read the documents released by the UK National Archives in December 2012, and presented in previous pages, I made some connections with Freedman´s statements and came to think that -may be- the UK forces in the island would be needing to gather information/intelligence to be able to properly achive those aims. That´s why I suggest that flights outside the FIPZ were not only a defensive need.

One final note, if I may: as far as I know (and I´m putting a big deal of money and time researching real documents related to this war) most of the "official information" we researchers are able to have access to, comes from the UK. There´s barely a few official documents release and/or published by Argentina on this topic. We basically count on your testimonies, stories, and good will to let us all know about these things that -like me- many find worth asking about.

Hope I´m not a pain in the back to you and thanks again!!
Christian

[trap one]

CAW
If you read the above book, chapter 17 details the trip of 2 Bucc's to RAF Stanley were they stayed for 10 days. These aircraft were from 12 Sqn which were Maritime attack but with the capability of supporting troops.

[MPN11]

Jul/Aug 83 ... another "Air Raid Warning Red" with a FIPZ penetration. Stanley launched the QRA F4 pair, rest of station did what it should and dived into assorted holes. ATC moved to Alternate locations.

FIPZ penetrator duly turned for home, F4s recovered to base, normality returned. It was a nice sunny day, IIRC.

[RAFEngO74to09]

By mid-83, Buccaneers were an option in the RAF Stanley reinforcement plan. Martel missiles were going to be stored in ISO containers, with side doors for easy access, that were going to be positioned off-base due to the high Net Explosive Quantity in areas inaccessible by most vehicles except Unimog and BV206 - 4-Ton trucks could not get there. The ISOs would have been moved to aircraft dispersals by Chinook.

[CAW]

trap one, that chapter and the quote you meke, it´s just where I got the first mention of any Buccaneers in the islands. Just like happens with Nimrod pics, I´ve just never come across with -let´s say- one of those planes in RAF Stanley´s apron... That´s why I asked about it. Thanks!!

RafEng074to09, are you saying that those were the contingency plans or that they had actually been excersised? (I mean, the deployment of both Martel missiles and attack planes)

MPN11, shackman and wiggy thank you for your posts. I´m trying to round up some conclusions regarding the period December 1982 - January 1983. :ok:

Christian

[RAFEngO74to09]

CAW

The missiles were going to be held forward because there would have been insufficient time to deploy them by any means available then within the sailing time of an invasion fleet.

They had not been deployed by the time I left and I don't know what happened subsequently. The project had got to the point where some ISOs had been bought and ground crew at the Buccaneer base in the UK had rehearsed how to break out the missiles and loading equipment from them and load the aircraft.

[CAW]

Thank you again RafEng!!!:ok:

I take it like you were there sometime around 1983. If I may, a question that might look like out of place: Can you (or anyone) remember an incident around March 29, 1983 in the area of Cape Meredith? (it apparently involved an argentinean civilean vessel)

Christian

[BSweeper]

Well. When I was there on F4s (Oct-Dec 1982) the main op roles were QRA and Presence. We were briefed that the role of "Presence" was to demonstrate that while Argentinian military ac were not allowed to come into the FIPZ (and we had free rules of engagement on that, excluding the B707), we were perfectly allowed to use international airspace to the 3 mile limit if necessary. The role entailed flying towards Argentinia to the Prudent Limit of Endurance (PLE) and then returning to base - huge fun.

Of course what actually happened was a game amongst the crews to see who could get closest to the Argentinian mainland. Cruise climb, cruise descent, engines set at 93.5% for the whole flight. The furthest achieved I believe was Madsox who reported he turned around "when he got to the mountains". BS no doubt but it earned a "revision of policy" from senior management.

[Single Spey]

Got a couple of pics of the Buccs at Stanley - March 83 IIRC. Lots of debate about which RHAGS they could use..... and how far West they were allowed to operate, being seen as offensive assets.

Also somewhere might have more dates for QRA launches between Mar 83 and Jul 83, but as I was only on duty for 50% of my time down there I probably missed some.

[CAW]

Bsweeper, thanks for your data!! Much appreciated!!

Single Spey, can you please share any of those pictures? Also, would it be much for me to ask if you can list briefly some of those QRA during your time down there?

For all of you to know, I´m trying to set straight the facts on "a Story" someone told me about a Skyhawks Flight towards San Carlos on... JUNE 26th, 1982. As I was told, it turned around when they overflew the Jasons...

Christian

[AndySmith]

Hi Christian

Very interesting questions. I would doubt the Skyhawk story. However, if they had flown low level all the way to the Jason's, would the FI AEW picked them up incoming? What was providing AEW at the time?

Was it the SK, or did we have ship or submerged assets providing the warnings?

Andy

[Marcantilan]

HMS Valiant was on station off Rio Grande, but she did not pick any Skyhawk (or any other attack A/C) that day.

If it is true, the raid departed from Gallegos or else.

Regards,

[CAW]

We should also add that FAA A-4 had been withdrawn back to Villa Reynolds by that time. COAN´s Skyhawks left were no more than 2... may be 3.

So, if they trully were A-4s, supported by KC-130, they probably came from Comodoro Rivadavia or even Trelew. Different thing if we´re talking about COAN´s Super Etendart: they most likely were flying from Punta Alta.

I´m pretty sure that no less than 15 or 20 air-contacts were reported by HMS Valiant between June 25th and 27th, most of them C-130. I should double check that. Were there any SSNs still on station just outside the 12NM zone let´s say around Puerto Santa Cruz, San Julian or Gallegos?

Christian

[Fortissimo]

CAW,

There were some attacks planned on mainland airfields in the summer of 1983. This was in response to 23 Sqn's resoundingly successful participation (OK, it was the QWIP) in an otherwise spectacularly unsuccessful firepower demo for the Army on a W Falkland range. There was much running about with pink files with a big red stamp on them shortly thereafter- I think it took about a week before the "General Staff" at HQ BFFI was persuaded that committing the bulk of your AD assets to un-recce'd strafe attacks at max unrefuelled range was not out of the top drawer of cunning plans.

That said, 20mm HEI @ 6000 rounds per minute was impressive to watch from both outside and inside the cockpit and, for me at least, it topped the list of fun weapons events.

[AndySmith]

There were some attacks planned on mainland airfields in the summer of 1983. This was in response to 23 Sqn's resoundingly successful participation (OK, it was the QWIP) in an otherwise spectacularly unsuccessful firepower demo for the Army on a W Falkland range. There was much running about with pink files with a big red stamp on them shortly thereafter- I think it took about a week before the "General Staff" at HQ BFFI was persuaded that committing the bulk of your AD assets to un-recce'd strafe attacks at max unrefuelled range was not out of the top drawer of cunning plans.

But, does this mean they were actually planned to take place, and then cancelled - or contingency plans for a retaliation in the invent of an attack by the Argentine Air Force? I would doubt that there would have been a plan for a unilateral attack by UK assests against the Argentine mainland, given the political fallout that would provoke - including the Inter-American Treaty of Reciprocal Assistance - but there again, I only take the view of a historian looking at the context of the time rather than someone that was there.

Could you elaborate more on the firepower demonstration on West Falkland.

Thanks

A

[Fortissimo]

Andy

This never got as far as tasking or even formal contingency plan status. And you are right in thinking there would not have been a plan for a unilateral attack, the ROE profile would not have permitted that anyway. I'm not sure it was even thought of as a retaliatory option (assuming an ARG attack got through the AD system in the first place, eh Courtney?!), I think it was more of a 'great idea' moment that failed to survive contact with any sort of reality.

The firepower demo involved a bit of 4.5" Naval Gunfire Support, Lynx + TOW and F4 strafe against a few dead vehicles lying in the peat on the W Falkland mainland. There may have been some 105mm arty as well, but memory wobbles after 30 years... I believe it may all have been Army-inspired, but that could just be vicious rumour.

ff

[Courtney Mil]

assuming an ARG attack got through the AD system in the first place, eh Courtney?!

Indeed, my friend. Would never have happened in my day!

[CAW]

Thanks for your post, fortissimo!!

I can now confirm that the Grupo 5 Skyhawks re-deployed to their peace-time base between June 20th and 26th. Daggers from one of the Squadrons of Grupo 6, were completly withdrawn by June 26th and back in Tandil. May be a few planes of both types remained down south for something like a week.

My guess, is that around June 18th, the FAS decided it´d start to retreat its remainig assets to recover as fast as possible, its fighting capacity. This could only be achieved by going back to peace-time routine, at least in a roulement basis. It appears to be obvious that both pilots and commanding officers needed to rest and re-think their whole experience at war, planes needed to be either repaired or upgraded, supporting lines needed to be re-stablished, and so on.

If this "strategic retreat" of late June was caused by the need to de-escalate the conflict, or by another set of aims, I still can´t tell.

Christian

[ex-fast-jets]

You must be talking June 83.

June 82 was still a little too dangerous for the RAF AD Force to come out to play, so it must have been June 83 which was when they thought it was safe enough to venture south and take over from the Harriers - whilst waiting for a proper airfield to be built for them.

The Lightnings were still around then - why, oh why, did we not send them down south!!!!!..............

Surely they would have sorted all the problems of the world out!!............

:uhoh:

[CAW]

You must be talking June 83.

June 82 was still a little too dangerous for the RAF AD Force to come out to play, so it must have been June 83 which was when they thought it was safe enough to venture south and take over from the Harriers - whilst waiting for a proper airfield to be built for them.BomberH,

I´m not sure I clearly understand what you mean.

The first RAF AD (meaning aircraft, not only SAMs), as far as I know, was stablished at RAF Stanley in June 1982. It later became the HarDet, which handed over the task to the F-4 when they got there by October 1982.

By 1983, RAF had an interesting number of planes stationed at Stanley, and as far as I was able to find out, no less than two FOBs were still manned and running.

Given that we have already read testimonies of pilots that did fly west, outside the FIPZ, given that we even have a few pictures and known locations of "encounters" between RAF and argentinean aircrafts, and -at last- given the fact that most of this facts were both known and discussed in documents that the UK Government has released, I think that the arising question here is: did the RAF have enough planes "in the theatre" to be able to think about conducting offensive operations against mainland targets, ie airfields?

I apologize if I got you wrong, BomberH. :ok:

Christian

[ex-fast-jets]

No, I need to apologise to you................

My comment was banter - otherwise known as irreverent comment between different forces within the RAF.

You were interested in serious comment - so I need to apologise to you for reducing your thread to banter, rather than making worthwhile comment on the points that interest you.

You are, of course, correct - the Harriers did the business at Stanley from June 82 until the F-4s arrived. I left in July 82, so I have only peripheral knowledge of the activities that interest you.

I am sorry not to be able to offer you more meaningful comment on the points that are of interest to you.

[AR1]

Regarding post conflict incursions to FIPZ - Does anyone else recall the Sept/Oct time 1986 period. - I was off duty on one of the Radar sites one evenig when the boss comes in and told us to get an early night as intelligence suggested some kind of potential action from Argentina the following day.

Come daylight we manned our site fully and things were far quieter than normal with regards our flying, eventually the day passed and things got back to normal, but I've often wondered, 1: Did I make it up, and 2: If I didn't what was going on!

[BEagle]

The Lightnings were still around then - why, oh why, did we not send them down south!!!!!..............

And precisely how would they have been deployed south?

There weren't enough diversion aerodromes to have made AAR an option, we didn't have any transport aircraft large enough to carry a dismantled Lightning - and the engineering effort to rebuild them on arrival at an austere location would have been colossal.

[CAW]

BomberH, there are plenty of things you could share with us.

If I may.

I left in July 82, so I have only peripheral knowledge of the activities that interest you.

Could you tell us about a second Harrier FOB set up at Teal Inlet during June?

AR1,

Regarding post conflict incursions to FIPZ - Does anyone else recall the Sept/Oct time 1986 period. - I was off duty on one of the Radar sites one evenig when the boss comes in and told us to get an early night as intelligence suggested some kind of potential action from Argentina the following day.

I can confirm to you that there were at least two 707 flights, north of Byron Heights after 14th June 1986. I wouldn´t be surprised if another set of flights like that would have been scheduled for the southern Spring.

Which radar site did you manned back then, if I could ask?

Christian

[CAW]

Hello again and Happy New Year to you all!!

I´ve just found this picture taken at Yorke Bay sometime after June 1982. I can´t seem to place neither the exact date nor the situation pictured.

I do Know that the major landing of both materials and machinery to set up RAF Stanley, were conducted from RFA and MV vessels and did not use the Stanley jetty. I read somewhere that mexeflotes were used to land these items directly to the airport peninsula.

Could it be that this picture shows something related to those vessel-to-beach landings?

http://img600.imageshack.us/img600/8356/sxzv.jpg (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/600/sxzv.jpg/)

Uploaded with ImageShack.us (http://imageshack.us)

Christian

[Shackman]

CAW: I´ve just found this picture taken at Yorke Bay sometime after June 1982

I would be very surprised if that was in Yorke Bay - it was heavily mined with both anti tank and anti personnel devices, and it was a good few years before any clearance was carried out. If, however, it was taken on 29 Dec 82 it was of the only 'heavy' digger/dozer the engineers had on the island at the time. Whilst trying to dig out sand or gravel from a beach for use in construction they succeeded in bogging it down with a rapidly incoming tide and we were tasked to try to 'help' the recovery and prevent many red faces. The engineers 'reckoned' it weighed 16 tons, so even our Chinook was not going to lift it (although we did try - Op Corporate rules!). Eventually though we did succeed in helping to pull it out just before the sea would have forced an abandon ship episode.

Unfortunately I can't remember exactly which beach it was, but I seem to remember it was fairly close to PSC (Port San Carlos).

WRT Mexefloats - they were used for almost everything to do with loading/offloading ships in Port Stanley in the early days - even pax to and from accommodation ships such as the Norland as none of the port infrastructure could take the traffic. In addition the mexes got everywhere - I think we had one or two over at PSC (which was how the bulldozer got ashore in the first place).

[CAW]

Shackman, thank you for your answer.

As for this precise observation:

I would be very surprised if that was in Yorke Bay - it was heavily mined with both anti tank and anti personnel devices, and it was a good few years before any clearance was carried out. If, however, it was taken on 29 Dec 82 it was of the only 'heavy' digger/dozer the engineers had on the island at the time.

I must tell you I agree with you: that beach had been heavily mined.

Still, the reference I have mentiones Yorke Bay. Since I remember reading about some fast de-mining activity carried oud by RE personal after June 18th around the airstrip and beyond the area, and adding to that the fact that Stanley´s jetty was no use given the volumes and speed requiered for RE´s equipment to be offloaded... well, I just thought that it could all relate.

There´s another detail in the picture that makes me think about the Pembroke Peninsula: those two isles in the back. Aren´t they the Toussac Island, just a few houndred meters north of the peninsula´s shore.

Could it be that the beach was not actually Yorke but the one east of it?

http://img829.imageshack.us/img829/8717/p2ut.jpg (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/829/p2ut.jpg/)

Uploaded with ImageShack.us (http://imageshack.us)

Here´s another one of the dozers:

http://img7.imageshack.us/img7/6990/54s9.jpg (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/7/54s9.jpg/)

Uploaded with ImageShack.us (http://imageshack.us)

Cheers!
Christian

.

[Think Defence]

CAW, re Mexe and unloading kit at Port Stanley

Have a read of this

That Famous Runway at Port Stanley ? Part 3 (Post Conflict) - Think Defence (http://www.thinkdefence.co.uk/2013/02/that-famous-runway-at-stanley-part-3-post-conflict/#RAF_Stanley_Construction)

The kit and construction materials, at least for the interim operating capability, seem to have been offloaded by a combination of Mexeflotes and RLC RCL's at a number of jetties in and around Port Stanley.

For your research, have you got a copy of Edward Fursden's book, picking up the pieces. It is very good

Falklands Aftermath: Picking up the Pieces: Amazon.co.uk: Edward Fursdon: Books

Will have a look through some of my other reference materials for you to see if I can add anything to the bulldozer information posted by Shackman

Happy New Year by the way !

[CAW]

ThinkDefense,

Thanks for your answer. I´ve read all of your "papers" on RAF Stanley and those related to the Malvinas War. I´ve been doing a research of my own for some years now and look forward to publish in the near future.

I do not own a copy of the book you mention, but I´ll try to get one. Anyways, if you know of free dowload site, I´ll much appreciate it.

Thanks again.

Christian

[Think Defence]

CAW, if you look at the Amazon link the book can be had for pennies, then its just postage charges I guess

[Mickj3]

"The kit and construction materials, at least for the interim operating capability, seem to have been offloaded by a combination of Mexeflotes and RLC RCL's at a number of jetties in and around Port Stanley"

If my recollections are correct (I was there 11 July 82- Oct 82)there were two jetties, Sir Tristam was tied to one and the other was used purely for troop movements. There was one slipway in use that the Mexi floats and Landing craft brought all the stores and vehicles ashore at, this was a major choke point.

[Think Defence]

I have seen this image a few places but I think relevant

http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8111/8516763150_1f3df1af6a_o.jpg

And a couple of comments from the post I linked to earlier

when I was at 17 P&M years later there was a great story about a mexe cox’n during this period moving civilian plant equipment ashore in slightly lumpy seas; the digger or whatever it was shifted on deck and simply slipped over the edge into the oggin whilst the mexe continued serenely on. For whatever reason the cox’n simply tried to bluff it out when questioned later about the missing kit, claiming he couldn’t remember whether it had been loaded or not

and a follow up to that one

Have read the vessel logbook you are on about the vehicles were called haulmatics but were soon renamed aquamatics!!! according to the logbook they were recovered and eventually returned to service

[Dan Gerous]

I was at Stanley from Dec 82-May 83, and was living on the Rangatira in Stanley Harbour. We had to get to and from the airfield everyday, by landing craft to the Stanley Jetty, and then trucks to the airfield. I say Stanley jetty, but not sure of the names for them all, but it was the main one with the shop just of to the left, as you got off the jetty. I can't recall seeing anything bigger than a landing craft using that jetty. The Tristram was tied up to the left, East, of that jetty, didn't ever hear it called anything, for the time I was there. There was a sort of beachhead landing area a bit further to the East of the Tristram, and I seem to recall it was quite busy and was used to land stuff of the mexifloat craft. It was quite impressive watching the Eager Beavers unloading cargo from them, and negotiating the slope, to load lorries.


(I say that we used to use the landing craft everyday to/from work, but one day the sea was to rough, and we had to use the company helicopter.)

[MPN11]

Dan Gerous ... IIRC it was called the "Public Jetty" during my time there (May-Sep 83)

[Madbob]

I remember the RN water taxi service which carried people to Navy Point and to the various ships in the inner (and sometimes also the outer harbour) which were I think crewed by a coxswain and a couple of matelots.

I remember a couple of shall we say "heavy landings" when some RN officer was given a turn at the wheel by the usually Petty Officer cox'n, supposedly to keep his hand in. All I can say is that the more junior the helmsman the more comfortable the trip! Though to be fair conditions could get a bit rough with a tricky crosswind.

I'm not sure of the class of vessel but they were brought in as deck cargo and craned off. They were not combat support boats (CSB's) which I also remember trying to water ski behind, I managed a couple of laps but after only a short time in the water your hands were too cold to grip the handle on the tow rope. The immersion suit was ok for normal ops, but when I fell I made the mistake of holding onto the rope too long and so entered the water head-first and the neck seal was shall we say, compromised.

The result being what felt like several pints of icy sea water but was probably no more than a quart, followed by a strong gasp reflex, a sharp constriction in breathing and then it worked its way down.....

Aged 25 it seemed like fun at the time.:ok:

MB

[Old Bricks]

I was sat at the back of the General's morning brief in HQ BFFI when the door was pushed open by his ADC. This was normal, and usually he just showed a "thumbs up" to indicate that the daily morale-boosting flight by Hercules from Ascension had passed the half-way point and thus had mail etc en route. This time the ADC told the General that there had just been a problem in Stanley Harbour and all the Haulmatics had tipped overboard from a Mexeflote taking them out to a ship which was to take them and their full loads of stone from the airfield quarry round to San Carlos (if my memory is correct). Great consternation - how quickly could they be replaced? Some months, as they would have to be bought and shipped by sea. REs and Navy clearance divers tasked to sort out, and all were recovered, including one or two complete with loads of stone, within a couple of weeks. REME got them dried out and running, and, apart from copious dents, cracked or missing windscreens and wads of seaweed, they carried on regardless. Haulmatics (if that was the right name) were huge dumper trucks, and ISTR there were at least half a dozen on the Mexe, which was a large proportion of the total at the quarry.
Can't remember when this was, but I was there Nov 82 - Mar 83, and I would think this was in early 83.

[Dan Gerous]

MPN11, bells dinging, that's the one.

[wiggy]

REME got them dried out and running, and, apart from copious dents, cracked or missing windscreens and wads of seaweed, they carried on regardless.

:ok: Didn't one of them run around with a life belt hanging on the front of the radiator grill..until a certain SO had a sense of humour failure?

[CAW]

...all the Haulmatics had tipped overboard from a Mexeflote taking them out to a ship which was to take them and their full loads of stone from the airfield quarry round to San Carlos (if my memory is correct).
Can't remember when this was, but I was there Nov 82 - Mar 83, and I would think this was in early 83.

Excuse me, if I may, why were they shipping loads of stone to San Carlos? May be road-building?

Christian

[Busta]

I think I saw the first one driving about within a couple of days of their "total immersion". The logo had been adjusted by some wag to read "Aquamatic."

Nothing matters very much, most things don't matter at all.

[Old Bricks]

CAW
Can't honestly remember why the stone was going to San Carlos or wherever. Although there was stone all over the islands, the only stuff that was processed into decent sizes was the stuff from the airfield quarry. There have been various threads about the flight safety/health and safety/barking madness of blowing up huge amounts of rock in the middle of an airfield, but in those days needs overrode logic a lot of the time.

[MPN11]

Ahh, them big trucks!! Here's one being led by GEF's "GT Tractor" towing something :cool:

http://i319.photobucket.com/albums/mm468/atco5473/PPRuNe%20ATC/Scan-2.jpeg (http://s319.photobucket.com/user/atco5473/media/PPRuNe%20ATC/Scan-2.jpeg.html)

[CAW]

First thing I read.

Can anyone comment on this, please?

http://i61.tinypic.com/2qsuw0l.jpg

Christian

[dragartist]

AVM Ian Macfadyen talking about the development of flying from Stanley in 1982 -83 at London Society of Air Britain. Wednesday 12th March. Victory Services Club starts at 19.30


AVM has featured a few times recently. FL put a photo up relating to the Banquet. Also mentioned in the alternative to the Red Arrows thread.

[N2erk]

i thought FRADU was Fleet requirement......

[k3k3]

It was....

[lundytom]

I was recently at the Interim port and storage system and spotted them still working!
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10152342034598834&l=6dfdd6cd62

[CAW]

I come back again hoping for someone to clarify something for me.

Here´s the thing: was there an Operation CANNONBALL during the war of 1982? (As I understand it, it was supposed to be an air-trasport operation, a RAF only-operation? I don´t know) or was it something that started after Operation CORPORATE ended?

Was it actually related with air-transport or did it include all air traffic between ASI-RAF Stanley?

Thanks to you all,
Christian

[Courtney Mil]

The only Op Cannonball I've ever heard of was the North Americans trying to get OBL.

[knarfw]

Cannonball was the name we used on 216 Sqn for the bi-weekly run to ASI. The Cannonball crew flew the leg to ASI then handed over to the pre-positioned FI crew who carried on to MPA. The Cannonball crew overnighted at ASI and then flew the return leg back to BZN. I did it a few times, left BZN on Thursday night, spent most of Friday and Friday night on the beach etc at ASI before returning to BZN on Saturday night. This may or may not be the Cannonball you are referring to.

[ancientaviator62]

One of the confusing things is MOD's reuse of old Op names. Thus one of the Balkans ops was called Op Grapple. The same name had been used for the A bomb tests at Christmas Island. Why they should do this I have no idea.

[CAW]

Thanks to you all for your kind explanations.

It looks to me like "knarfw" might be the closest to the answer I was looking for.

The original sources I got this from are:

"Tribute to RAF´s Falklands Operations" by Harold Briley (Published Nov 2003, Mercopress)

"Tristar bows out" by DENIS J. CALVERT (2014)

They both mention the existance of an Operation Cannonball after June 1982, regarding the airbridge down south.

Thank you!!

Christian

[Alex Whittingham]

knarfw is correct, it was never an official "op cannonball", just a name used on 216. Significantly if it had been classed as an 'operation' the rules of the time would have allowed 18 hour crew duty days, which were not used.

[CAW]

Geehovah, I finally got hold of a paperback copy of your book some weeks ago. It´s surely most interesting, I tell you. Some of the pics are really new to me. Data on how things were done then, has been clarifying to me in many aspects.

Since you were down there around the time this picture is said to have been taken, I thought I´d share it. Specially for you to explain details to us, if you wish.

http://i57.tinypic.com/rub810.jpg

Christian

[Geehovah]

CAW, glad you enjoyed the book.

Interesting shot. Which outfit is that? I don't recognise the gunsight.

It's an F3 in "Lima" fit with 2250 litre tanks by the look of it but the shot is staged. The F3 is straight and level and that's barely outside a fighting wing position. It must have been taken on a tip in from the perch. If the "target" had been trying to avoid a gun shot it wouldn't have been straight and level. Nice for the crewroom wall though.

[Wrathmonk]

Geehovah

A post (by Andre on April 15, 1734hrs) on this link (http://www.aereo.jor.br/2010/04/15/olha-o-passarinho/) (translation may be required!) would suggest it was a Brazilian Air Force F5E that intercepted an F3 which was diverting following an IFE.

Then again that could be complete hoop - other posts on that thread had identified the target aircraft as either an AMX, Mirage F1 or F111!

[CAW]

Geoovah,

As Wrathmonk states, the picture was taken by brazilian pilots while escorting a Tornado flight that had to divert to an air base in Brazil. As the picture show, it supposedly happened in April 1995, and since you were down south a few months before that, I thought it was likely for you to know something. One more thing about the picture: I´ve kept it for the past two years in my "Malvinas file", and as far as I know it was uploaded to the web in early 2010, maybe even before that.

Of course, the description you just gave us, perfectly matches what I´ve learnt over these past years: It´s just a picture taken in a non-agressive fashion... almost a courtesy, I´d say. Had we not taken back our own fighters from Rio Gallegos, I´d bet there would be a similar picture of the VC-10 and the Typhoon pair that had to divert to Punta Arenas some years ago.

I remembered something else of your book´s reading: you mention the russian frighters hired to move the 1435 Flight down to MPA. Those planes also come to my city, every once in a while, specially when the oil industry is booming (like it is right now). Here´s another picture of -I´d guess- one of those shippings:

http://i61.tinypic.com/x0p7co.jpg

And here´s another one, with a RAF C-17:

http://i59.tinypic.com/dbtw4.jpg

Cheers!!
Christian

[Courtney Mil]

CAW, your choice of words sometimes makes me wonder.

[CAW]

Wonder about what?

[Nimman]

Geehovah - ref the pic in post 164.


Between 2-14 Apr 1995 there was an Tornado F3 changeover, Op Cyclone Change. On 6 Apr en route ASI to MPA one of the F3s had hydraulic problems and the whole trail, 4 x F3s, Nimrod (XV241), VC10, Herc and Tristar diverted into Rio being escorted in by 2 Brazilian AF F5s. We were on the ground there for 3 days before the trail resumed. Have some pics somewhere. I would say that was taken then going by the pic wording.

[BSweeper]

CAW.

A VC-10 and 2xTyphoon diverting into Punto Arenas? How interesting - please tell more. Dates, reasons, outcome etc.

[CAW]

BSweeper,

The event took place in Late May 2010 (some 9 months after the first Typhoon deployment to MPA). As far as I found out, some heavy fog shut down all air operations for a longer period than expected. All planes flew across argentinean air space and landed at Chabunco (Chilean AFB) in Punta Arenas.

There was some "noise" here, and it still goes on every once in a while with some folks talkling about the british illegal intrusion (which was not, since it was authorized by the Argentinean Air Force autorithy in Comodoro Rivadavia), but to me looks like a real emergency that had to be dealt with.

Here´s how it was reported by a pro-british local news agency:

Friday, June (http://en.mercopress.com/2010/06) 4th (http://en.mercopress.com/2010/06/04) 2010 (http://en.mercopress.com/2010) - 19:02 UTC Falklands’ thick fog forces two RAF Typhoons and tanker to land in Punta Arenas

Two Royal Air Force Euro Typhoon fighters and their Vickers VC10 refuelling tanker had to land Wednesday afternoon in Punta Arenas, extreme south of Chile, because of adverse weather conditions in the Falkland Islands Mount Pleasant Airport.


Full text here: Falklands? thick fog forces two RAF Typhoons and tanker to land in Punta Arenas ? MercoPress (http://en.mercopress.com/2010/06/04/falklands-thick-fog-forces-two-raf-typhoons-and-tanker-to-land-in-punta-arenas)

There´s also a thread opened here: http://www.pprune.org/military-aviation/417239-typhoon-vc10-divert-chile.html

And here´s a picture taken when all three planes departed from Punta Arenas back to MPA.
http://www.modocharlie.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/bf61715a966c228f548d8294cec42814o.jpg

Christian

[Jimlad1]

Based on my experiences, there does seem to be two dimensions to the Argentine/UK relationship - a high level politically driven one and a more practical day to day military one.

Having worked alongside the Argentines, I sense that both militarys hold each other in mutual respect and would like to do more. I also sense that there is a sensible level of working together done when life is at stake - its a shame that we can't do more together as my exposure to the Argentine armed forces has been of good people who bring very good wine to the party :-)

[Think Defence]

Hi all,

Hope you gents don't mind me resurrecting an old thread but have just finished a lengthy refresh and extension of the the series that started this thread, the runways of the Falklands Conflict.

Pre Conflict (Part 1) – Development of aircraft operations in the post War Falkland Islands, build and opening of Stanley Airport and activity before the invasion.

Conflict (Part 2) – Invasion, transition to 'BAM Malvinas', operations from Ascension Island, reinforcement through Stanley, Black Buck and other attacks, Pebble Island, the FOB at Port San Carlos

Post Conflict (Part 3) – Clearance, development of Harrier and Phantom operations at RAF Stanley, and finally, MPA.

In Part 4, have had a stab at looking at the various claims and counter-claims on Black Buck, a bear pit at the best of times!

Start at the link below

Black Buck and the Runways of the 1982 Falkland Islands Conflict - Think Defence (http://www.thinkdefence.co.uk/black-buck-runways-1982-falkland-islands-conflict/)

As ever, feedback and correction most welcome.

[Darvan]

I am not so sure of your motives with this tome but following a speed read of the Black Buck missions I find that your assessment of BB6 is way off the mark. If you relied entirely on open source material you clearly didn't google hard enough!