Vulcans Falkland Raid

[GOLF_BRAVO_ZULU]

Simply put, AVCAT (Aviation Carrier Turbine) has a higher flash point than AVTUR. It's safer in a ship and the reason why all Naval aviation at sea (since the DIESO centred TRIBALs) use it. As far as I'm aware, until Stanley was secured, the only aviation fuel in theatre was AVCAT via Fleet Oiler. Ships from trade may have carried AVTUR but it would never have found its way to an RFA or HM Ship

[Squirrel 41]

GBZ,

Many thanks. But why would Courtney postulate that the use of AVCAT over AVTUR could've led to the discrepancy in the BLACK BUCK fuel burn?

Thanks again,

S41

[Pontius Navigator]

Density?

.

[Courtney Mil]

F-34 (or AVTUR) is actually lighter than F-44 (AVCAT), but it has a higher Specific Energy. If you really want to know its 43.15 MJ/kg instead of 43.05 MJ/kg - my calculations so blame me if that's wrong. Probably should have asked an engineer.

Going back to the point about AVCAT on ships, it's not just a case of only having AVCAT available onboard. My understanding is that aircraft that had been refuelled previously with AVTUR have to be completely defuelled when they embark and refuelled with the, higher flash point, AVCAT.

AVTAG is a different story again.

Bottom line is that different fuels (and additives) will affect engine performance.

[The Helpful Stacker]

Density?

Indeed. Avcat being heavier than Avtur in addition to, as has been already stated, the former's higher flashpoint combines to make it less efficient kilo for kilo.

Not sure why this would be a factor in the the fuel calculations for Black Buck though because only limited stocks of Avcat were held in Ascension and certainly nowhere near enough to have supplied the Victor and Vulcan forces (Avcat was stored for vertreps via APFC to RN vessels passing Asi).

The main fuel types at Asi were initially US-supplied F-40 (JP-4) Avtag and later F-34 (JP-8) Avtur. Question is, had the Black Buck missions been fuelled using F-40, then due to the fuel's lower SG and FP (0.75-0.80 and -18oC) compared to F-34 (0.77-0.84 and 38oC) would it have been more efficient than expected, given F-34 was the standard fuel used by the RAF at the time and by which I'm assuming all baseline figures would have been calculated?

My understanding is that aircraft that had been refuelled previously with AVTUR have to be completely defuelled when they embark and refuelled with the, higher flash point, AVCAT.

It is possible to work out a blend ratio in order to produce a composite of the two fuels which falls into an acceptable FP range for use on-board ships (ah, that was a fun lecture at West Moors) but from what I understand this is rarely done, navy types preferring to add any small amounts of F-34 brought on board to their F-76 stocks.

[Alex Whittingham]

My understanding is that aircraft that had been refuelled previously with AVTUR have to be completely defuelled when they embark and refuelled with the, higher flash point, AVCAT.

Certainly not the case with F40 and F34. I still remember the stunned silence from an F4 when offered either F40 (from the underwing tanks) or F 34 from the HDU.

[TEEEJ]

SASless wrote

I know the USAF and RAF differed on how to tackle the problem and early on the RAF went their way...took losses and in time changed to the other method that had been suggested to be the safer way to go.

That is my reading of Horner anyway....and as he was there I shall have to go with his version until someone can prove otherwise.

The initial phase of the campaign was at low level for many of the players and was planned for three days. F-111s, F-15Es and even B-52s were in those initial days flown at low level to strike targets. A number of B-52Gs suffered combat damage at low level. One F-15Es was lost during a low-level mission near Basra. Again during this low level phase other Coalition aircraft suffered damage. One French Jaguar returned with its tail shredded.

After the initial part of the low level phase CENTAF ordered the switch to medium level operations. Details of the low level phase were highlighted in Operation Desert Storm - Evaluation of the Air Campaign - General Accounting Office - House of Representatives.

B-52 low level info.

Colonel Ramsay bio

In January 1991 he was the flight leader for the first night, low-level combat mission ever flown by a B-52G, leading 14 aircraft to strike five Iraqi airfields in the opening minutes of Operation Desert Storm.

Biographies : COLONEL SAMUEL H. RAMSAY III

On 17 January 1991, seven B-52Gs, known as the "Doom Flight", took off from Barksdale AFB in Louisiana to help kick off the air campaign. They performed a flight that lasted 35 hours and took them almost halfway around the world to launch 35 CALCMs and then go back home. The routes of the missiles were planned so that they would impact almost simultaneously, and 33 of them hit their assigned targets. That same day, the B-52G followed up this strike with the first low-level attacks conducted by the type after decades of training. Buffs swept into Iraqi airspace at an altitude of 90 meters (300 feet) to pound four airbases and a highway.

With Iraqi air defenses disabled, the B-52Gs then returned to high-altitude bombing, with three-ship formations pounding Iraqi troops concentrations in Iraq with 340 kilogram (750 pound) bombs and cluster bombs. The B-52 performed 1,600 sorties in the Gulf War and dropped 22,725 tonnes (25,000 tons) of munitions.

[2.0] B-52 At War

Major James Riggens, USAF also highlights the initial low-level phase in the following.

'Brilliant Attack: The Need For Autonomous Standoff Weapons in Airfield Attack Missions'

http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc...c=GetTRDoc.pdf

See also accounts online of low level operations - B-52 Stratofortress Units in Operation Desert Storm by Jon Lake

First Night over Iraq

Account by EF-111 pilot on 17th January 1991 providing the jamming for strike packages. He highlights the following '10 F-111Fs and 2 Mud-Eagles (F-15Es) were coming in on the deck against two different targets.'

See online pages of 'F-15E Strike Eagle in Combat 1991-2005 by Steve Davies'

F-15E

On the first night of the war there were 21 F-15Es that went into Iraq. The original plan was for 18, but three more were added near the start time...... Once the refuelling was completed , we headed north and descended to low level.... We were all on the Terrain Following Radar at 200ft in radio silence - the pilots were hand-flying the TFR steering while concentrating on the FLIR picture in the HUD .....

[cheese bobcat]

In 197? the Bomber Command Bombing Competition was joined by a couple of the brand new (!) F111s. These flew from, I believe, McCoy AFB (now known as Orlando Airport), completed the route over the UK and returned to the US. Now I cannot vouch for the distance involved but it must have been a fair competitor for the longest bombing sortie; it certainly was at the time!

By the way, they trounced both the Vulcans and the B52s in the competition, although it was only a demo of their capability, they didn't feature in the prizes.

[ZH875]

Originally Posted by cheese bobcat

Now I cannot vouch for the distance involved but it must have been a fair competitor for the longest bombing sortie; it certainly was at the time!

But only an Exercise sortie, not an Operational sortie.

[SASless]

AW.....lets do nit pick shall we!

[The Helpful Stacker]

The Black Buck missions are still, I believe, the longest bombing sorties launched and supported from a single point.

Not bad for the occupants of a little island near France.

[West Coast]

To put one bomb on a runway. The RAF has had innumerable success stories over the years. This may have been a logistical success, but an operational one, not so much. Enter the revisionists who will say the real purpose of black buck raids was to do anything other than close down the runway.

Sorry lads, focus in on the overall outstanding job the British military did in regaining the islands, not a failed raid by a military component that was feeling left out.

[The Helpful Stacker]

"To put one bomb on a runway"

Of course measured against the later B52 raids on Iraq which were part of an operation to remove the threat of WMDs which were never found (and so revisionists changed the purpose of the operation to 'provide freedom to Iraqis') the Black Buck raids could be considered both cheap and effective.

[Archimedes]

Left out? Nimrod MR, Nimrod R, Victor AAR for Shar and Harrier reinforcement, Harriers of 1 sqn - acclaimed by Julian Thompson for swinging the battle at Goose Green (on the record and in print somewhere) - Victors for MRR, VC10 for Medevac, Herc airbridge (including - see National Archives - dropping vital engineering spares to Invincible so it could fix a bit of an engine glitch which otherwise would've required a port stop), Dick Langworthy and the Chinook in due course. And 25% approx of the SHAR force pilots. That's left out?

And. For revisionists, I assume that the contemporary and near contemporary comments of Admiral Woodward, Admiral Lewin, Admiral Leach and Admiral Fieldhouse about the possible wider benefits of hitting Stanley - which CAS had told the war cabinet he'd need at least 25 and preferably 50 sorties to guarantee shutting it completely - count as revisionism, do they?

[West Coast]

Stacker

Not familiar enough to comment on the buff raids you mention, but if they were a failure, then you're simply comparing one failure to another.

Archimedes

The RAF was in a supporting position. Not the fault of the fine folks that comprised it, but rather due to its civilian masters.

[Deepsixteen]

Hi

I would have much preferred more Nimrod coverage and consider the Black Bucks to have been a waste of tankerage/valuable space on Ascension, although as already stated excellence on the part of those involved.

Delivering these guys and other stuff was much more useful.

Parachute drop. SAS Arriving1

Deepsixteen

[Pontius Navigator]

When I was working with the TPG at Dryad I met some of the AWO who had served there. One ex-Broadsword and another ex-Coventry. We didn't discuss the air war and the RAF contribution or not. It was a joint effort and we won.

What they would have liked was SAM that worked and AEW.

[Archimedes]

WC - there's a difference between being in a supporting role (a fact which the then CAS's language about the conflict, to give but one example, shows was recognised) and being 'left out'.

Despite some of the utter rubbish written subsequently by those either with a severe bout of kabourophobia, or a willingness to believe/accept at face value these statements, the RAF was not so stupid as to think that some sort of independent air campaign was going to lead to the retaking of the Falklands - common sense, campaign planning and geography all placed the RAF (and post Op SUTTON, the RN) in a supporting role, and this was known from the start.

[Deepsixteen]

Hi PN

I wouldn’t disagree with that, Wolf instead of Cat and Dart instead of Slug would have been nice, it’s just that as I remember events the BB’s produced gaps in Nimrod coverage and stores support that lasted days? I have always thought that the many other things done by the RAF had more value than the BB’s is all.

Deepsixteen

[SASless]

Of course measured against the later B52 raids on Iraq which were part of an operation to remove the threat of WMDs which were never found (and so revisionists changed the purpose of the operation to 'provide freedom to Iraqis') the Black Buck raids could be considered both cheap and effective.

Oh do spare me!

Managing to put a single Vulcan over a target and get one bomb of twenty one on the target.....and you really want to compare it to the B-52 Operations in either Gulf War and think we will consider your post worthy of even a moments thought?

You simply amaze me with that kind of "thinking".