Stanley Runway
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: YES
Posts: 779
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The last articles i read in various recent magazines had Blowpipe credited with 0 kills for UK and 1 for Argentina. those atributed in the book mentioned had been redesignated as Multiple ground fire or raiper. But then within the RA there has been a school of thought that they don't need light air defence.
Tornado at that time was useless for that type of conflict and still is needing secure airstrips whereas a proper carrier with escort group can cover a much larger proportion of the Globe.
Yes I did miss the contribution of BN which was outstanding and its a shame that we lost Atlantic conveyor and the 3 other chinooks and wessex's it was carrying as well as the Harrier base stores and engineer kit, tentage etc. Why was Atlantic Conveyor lost would that be because of the limited air superiority and lack of AEW capablity?
I would contest that 14 Phantom FG1's and a handful of Gannet AEW3's could have made a huge difference. And with 13-14 Buccaneers would we have had to do Black Buck at all?
Tornado at that time was useless for that type of conflict and still is needing secure airstrips whereas a proper carrier with escort group can cover a much larger proportion of the Globe.
Yes I did miss the contribution of BN which was outstanding and its a shame that we lost Atlantic conveyor and the 3 other chinooks and wessex's it was carrying as well as the Harrier base stores and engineer kit, tentage etc. Why was Atlantic Conveyor lost would that be because of the limited air superiority and lack of AEW capablity?
I would contest that 14 Phantom FG1's and a handful of Gannet AEW3's could have made a huge difference. And with 13-14 Buccaneers would we have had to do Black Buck at all?
Whoops..
Apologies for using the phrase 'crab hater'..
I wasn't there - well four years late, but thats not my fault. All the people I met there in semi-peace ( on Mount Kent) Javelin Crew, Kings Regiment, Argyle & Sutherlands, Navy comms, Nurse's,(!), F4 Crew; were top drawer. My next door Neighbour still has his smoked vest from Antelope, and I read Sharkeys book once a year, and yes he comes across as a bit cocky, but maybe thats what it takes, and if i'm being honest, who am I to argue with someone who had to pull the trigger? (as for the AIM9L argument - most kills were from the rear right? and thats just superior airmanship, be it dark or light blue)
All in it for the right reasons, and lest not forget that.
Cheers.
I wasn't there - well four years late, but thats not my fault. All the people I met there in semi-peace ( on Mount Kent) Javelin Crew, Kings Regiment, Argyle & Sutherlands, Navy comms, Nurse's,(!), F4 Crew; were top drawer. My next door Neighbour still has his smoked vest from Antelope, and I read Sharkeys book once a year, and yes he comes across as a bit cocky, but maybe thats what it takes, and if i'm being honest, who am I to argue with someone who had to pull the trigger? (as for the AIM9L argument - most kills were from the rear right? and thats just superior airmanship, be it dark or light blue)
All in it for the right reasons, and lest not forget that.
Cheers.
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: firmly on dry land
Age: 81
Posts: 1,541
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
John Nott, abridged version
In a new series, we talk to former Defence secretaries about the crises that marked their time in office. 25 years on from the Falklands, Sir John Nott shares powerful memories. Report by Lorraine McBride.
When he first heard that the difficult situation with Argentina was escalating towards conflict, Sir John . . . he returned to the Commons and requested an update on the Falklands. He was stunned . . .intercepted Argentine signals suggesting . . . invade the Falklands within 48 hours. Sir John Nott. . . went across to see a "horrified" Margaret Thatcher
. . . the flamboyant First Sea Lord, Henry Leach, interrupted them and bolstered their resolve: . . . He showed great selfconfidence and really did persuade us that we could get the fleet to sea the following week."
Today, he admits having felt "great scepticism" that the fleet really would be able to recover the Falklands:. . . the flamboyant First Sea Lord, Henry Leach, interrupted them and bolstered their resolve: . . . He showed great selfconfidence and really did persuade us that we could get the fleet to sea the following week."
"There hadn't been any proper contingency plans . . . it wasn't in the front of our minds at all."
"Then Willie Whitelaw came in a frightful panic . . . everyone was threatening to resign.
he noted a growing confidence spreading through the MOD's Main Building:"As soon as there is a challenge, the military is transformed. There was an initial sense of shock on the day of the invasion but by the following Tuesday, the Chiefs of Staff had come to the conclusion that this was a do-able operation, and that increased my confidence.
the alternative would have spelt humiliation:
the alternative would have spelt humiliation:
a feeling of inevitability about military action:
"Margaret was a fairly aggressive and pugnacious lady.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: BATH
Posts: 375
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Stanley Runway
Had I known when I started this thread that there would be quite so much irrelevancy and vituperation in many of the contributers, then I would not have stated it in the first place. Give it a rest. John Purdey
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: firmly on dry land
Age: 81
Posts: 1,541
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
JP, true, however looking afresh at Forget's post #2, a new thought occurs.
Look at all the 500lb bomb plots and then compare them with all the targets. I wonder what they were aiming at and if they hit anything?
So, aside from the Vulcan raid, what about all the other attacks?
A couple of AAA sites pretty close to Vulcan 1000lbs craters and one close to a 500lb. Also two 500lb near misses on the runway. Looking at the dense 500lb cluster south of the runway, did they hit a target or miss the runway?
Look at all the 500lb bomb plots and then compare them with all the targets. I wonder what they were aiming at and if they hit anything?
So, aside from the Vulcan raid, what about all the other attacks?
A couple of AAA sites pretty close to Vulcan 1000lbs craters and one close to a 500lb. Also two 500lb near misses on the runway. Looking at the dense 500lb cluster south of the runway, did they hit a target or miss the runway?
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: 58-33N. 00-18W. Peterborough UK
Posts: 3,040
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I should have mentioned, the diagram of the bombed airfield is from the book 'Falklands, the Air War' by the British Aviation Research Group. ISBN 0 906339 05 7.
Staggering detail of anything and everything involved! You have to see the book to appreciate the work that went into it.
A few copies for sale on Amazon -
http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/offer-lis...8718334&sr=1-8
Staggering detail of anything and everything involved! You have to see the book to appreciate the work that went into it.
A few copies for sale on Amazon -
http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/offer-lis...8718334&sr=1-8
@forget: Is that the one which goes through the war day by day, listing and describing every sortie and which has appendicies giving details of every type used by both sides, listing every ac lost by both sides and how they were damaged or destroyed, the eventual fate of every ac that survived the war and suchlike? If so, I found it bloody useful at Shriv for researching a syndicate presentation.
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: 58-33N. 00-18W. Peterborough UK
Posts: 3,040
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Is that the one which goes through the war day by day.............
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Spain
Age: 76
Posts: 87
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Black Buck
I entirely agree with Post No. 80 from Monty.
This unbecoming inter-service sniping is unwelcome. We all gave of our best in 1982 and we all felt sympathy when casualties were announced. The Army, Navy and the Air Force all showed that we were a force to be reckoned with.
The fact that it was the honour of the Vulcan to start proceedings is neither here nor there; the crew did us proud.
As with Monty, I was not entirely unconnected with the operation.
Papa Fox.
This unbecoming inter-service sniping is unwelcome. We all gave of our best in 1982 and we all felt sympathy when casualties were announced. The Army, Navy and the Air Force all showed that we were a force to be reckoned with.
The fact that it was the honour of the Vulcan to start proceedings is neither here nor there; the crew did us proud.
As with Monty, I was not entirely unconnected with the operation.
Papa Fox.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 887
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In discussing whether or not the RAF could provide AD wherever, one should remember that the politicos will plump for any plan that a) saves money, which can then be spent on some eye-catching, vote-winning plan and/or b) brings jobs to their own constituencies. A suitable defence policy will then be woven around the remaining resources, and whatever the Services want, feel or claim is utterly irrelevant.
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
I see Ray Fletton's letter in today's Telegraph tells the same story - shock and awe in the modern vernacular.
Then MW King, who built the original short runway says that a temporary repair of one or two craters would have been a very simple exercise.
Simple with the off Sea Slug firecracker, further raids as necessary, and BL755s. Also Ray Fletton says how the hardcore filling of the crater had to be tamped down daily.
What MW King has overlooked, or been unaware of was the camouflet caused by the explosion. Rapid runway repair was never going to be easy. The pulverised sub-base would take a considerable amount of ballast to effect a decent repair. Unless the Argentinians had a proper runway repair organisation in situ, with all the necessary heavy plant, their job would have been nigh impossible.
Then MW King, who built the original short runway says that a temporary repair of one or two craters would have been a very simple exercise.
Simple with the off Sea Slug firecracker, further raids as necessary, and BL755s. Also Ray Fletton says how the hardcore filling of the crater had to be tamped down daily.
What MW King has overlooked, or been unaware of was the camouflet caused by the explosion. Rapid runway repair was never going to be easy. The pulverised sub-base would take a considerable amount of ballast to effect a decent repair. Unless the Argentinians had a proper runway repair organisation in situ, with all the necessary heavy plant, their job would have been nigh impossible.
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: 58-33N. 00-18W. Peterborough UK
Posts: 3,040
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Today's Telegraph letters -
Role of Stanley airport in Falklands conflict
Sir - I was senior operations officer at Stanley from March 1983, and one of the major concerns was to keep the runway open for the Phantom jets (Letters, May 9). This involved daily removal of the runway matting and consolidation of the hardcore filling in the (non-existent) crater caused by the first Vulcan raid.
We operated fast jets out of Stanley, and the Argentines could have, too. The air picture would have been different and made things much more difficult for the Army, Navy and Fleet Air Arm.
Tony Chater, the Falklands artist, told me that, after the first Vulcan raid, the Argentines were wandering about in a daze: they had no effective defence against this type of bombing, and the blow to their morale was immense. It was at this point that Tony knew the end of the occupation was inevitable.
There was also the implicit threat that a Vulcan could bomb the mainland, and it was, after all, primarily a nuclear bomber. In my opinion, the negative effect on enemy morale, and the positive effect on that of the islanders, was sufficient justification in itself for the huge effort needed to mount the raids.
Raymond Fletton Flt Lt (RAF) Rtd, Cordes, France
Sir - I was the overseas director of Johnston Construction when we were building the runway, and visited every two months or so from 1974 to 1977.
At the time of the war, we had Royal Engineers staff with us for three weeks so that we could brief and advise them on the runway, the islands and the task of lengthening that they would face once they succeeded in recapturing Stanley.
The runway was some 4,000ft long, built of asphalt on a locally quarried stone base. It was designed to take small aircraft such as the F27 turbo prop and the F28 jet, which were expected to be the regular aircraft from Argentina. Using it for conventional military jets was always out of the question. Strong enough, certainly, but not long enough.
When, towards the end of the construction project, the Falkland islanders realised that the runway length meant that planes would not be able to fly in from countries further afield than Argentina, there was huge disappointment and anger. We were asked by island representatives to offer a price to extend the runway before we left. We quoted circa £1,000,000. This proposal was turned down at the time, no doubt for political reasons.
As far as the bombing was concerned, I suspect this was largely a sabre-rattling exercise, as the temporary repair of one or two craters would have been a very simple exercise for the Argentine equivalent of the Royal Engineers.
M. W. King Tytherleigh, Devon
Role of Stanley airport in Falklands conflict
Sir - I was senior operations officer at Stanley from March 1983, and one of the major concerns was to keep the runway open for the Phantom jets (Letters, May 9). This involved daily removal of the runway matting and consolidation of the hardcore filling in the (non-existent) crater caused by the first Vulcan raid.
We operated fast jets out of Stanley, and the Argentines could have, too. The air picture would have been different and made things much more difficult for the Army, Navy and Fleet Air Arm.
Tony Chater, the Falklands artist, told me that, after the first Vulcan raid, the Argentines were wandering about in a daze: they had no effective defence against this type of bombing, and the blow to their morale was immense. It was at this point that Tony knew the end of the occupation was inevitable.
There was also the implicit threat that a Vulcan could bomb the mainland, and it was, after all, primarily a nuclear bomber. In my opinion, the negative effect on enemy morale, and the positive effect on that of the islanders, was sufficient justification in itself for the huge effort needed to mount the raids.
Raymond Fletton Flt Lt (RAF) Rtd, Cordes, France
Sir - I was the overseas director of Johnston Construction when we were building the runway, and visited every two months or so from 1974 to 1977.
At the time of the war, we had Royal Engineers staff with us for three weeks so that we could brief and advise them on the runway, the islands and the task of lengthening that they would face once they succeeded in recapturing Stanley.
The runway was some 4,000ft long, built of asphalt on a locally quarried stone base. It was designed to take small aircraft such as the F27 turbo prop and the F28 jet, which were expected to be the regular aircraft from Argentina. Using it for conventional military jets was always out of the question. Strong enough, certainly, but not long enough.
When, towards the end of the construction project, the Falkland islanders realised that the runway length meant that planes would not be able to fly in from countries further afield than Argentina, there was huge disappointment and anger. We were asked by island representatives to offer a price to extend the runway before we left. We quoted circa £1,000,000. This proposal was turned down at the time, no doubt for political reasons.
As far as the bombing was concerned, I suspect this was largely a sabre-rattling exercise, as the temporary repair of one or two craters would have been a very simple exercise for the Argentine equivalent of the Royal Engineers.
M. W. King Tytherleigh, Devon
Join Date: May 2007
Location: East Sussex
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Black Buck
Can I second the motion supporting Monty - There's a lot of inter-service sniping going on here, and surely the place for that is over a beer or two, not in a public forum?
As a journalist ( and ex-Sapper) I'd just like to gently remind all contributors that everything that gets published here has a very, very wide audience, not all of whom are as ethical as we'd like them to be.
While open discussion, debate and criticism is healthy, it's all too easy for the wrong message to come across - I've seen parliamentary motions carried on less hard evidence than the tide of opinion on PPRuNe
On another note - what has happened to XM607?
As a journalist ( and ex-Sapper) I'd just like to gently remind all contributors that everything that gets published here has a very, very wide audience, not all of whom are as ethical as we'd like them to be.
While open discussion, debate and criticism is healthy, it's all too easy for the wrong message to come across - I've seen parliamentary motions carried on less hard evidence than the tide of opinion on PPRuNe
On another note - what has happened to XM607?
Last edited by bigwordsmith; 10th May 2007 at 14:04. Reason: SPelling
XM607 has had a bit of a spruce up job carried out. The civvy contractors (can't remember if FRA or Serco) have actually done it all. So she does not look as sorry as she did.
This is one time that praise can be awarded to the contractors.
This is one time that praise can be awarded to the contractors.
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: earth
Posts: 1,398
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
At the end of the war many of us involved were anxious that all possible lessons from the conflict should be gleaned. The direction from MOD was quite simple - 'there will be no airing of lessons learned - this was a victory, let's just remember that'.
At the time that seemed wrong - but, reading this thread, perhaps MOD were right after all.
At the time that seemed wrong - but, reading this thread, perhaps MOD were right after all.
Last edited by soddim; 10th May 2007 at 19:14. Reason: punctuation