Exocet
Guest
Posts: n/a
Exocet
Interesting behind the scenes review of the Exocet/Falklands issue on the BBC last night. Sorry to see them try to trash the rep of a Naval Officer by complaining he wasn't in the Ops Centre when the action started. They claimed that if he had been there, the Sheffield would have fired chaff and saved the day. In fact, this is wishful thinking as the Exicet (as well as just about every other missle) has a chaff logic built into it (moving target indicator, etc.).
I was more mystified by the failure to mount a successful attack on the Super Etendard base. The helo abort to Peru (?) was, well, embarrassing, especially if it was because the crew was lost (as claimed on the programme).
I was more mystified by the failure to mount a successful attack on the Super Etendard base. The helo abort to Peru (?) was, well, embarrassing, especially if it was because the crew was lost (as claimed on the programme).
Guest
Posts: n/a
I didn't see the programme but I wonder if there was any mention of the info that was in one of the sciene doccos about EW some time ago. This claimed that one of the problems was that the Exocet radar signature hadn't been programmed into the RWR system because it was "friendly"
Guest
Posts: n/a
A7E Driver
I'm not very knowledgeable on missile systems but the programme seemed to imply that the chaff screen thrown up by Glamorgan (I think) fooled the exocet heading for the main part of the fleet and when it swung off for the chaff and came out of the cloud it found the nice big juicy target presented by Atlantic Conveyer, so would this not have helped when Sheffield was attacked (I know you can't guarantee a miss but it's got to be better than doing nothing.)
I agree though that it's a shame that the programme degenerated into a witch hunt at the end although the two seamen seemed to have fairly strong opinions and the motivation seemed to be to remove the blame from the captain who was (according to the programme) getting some rest after pretty much three days of constant watch.
Supermunk
The explanation given in the programme was that the navy didn't have any defence system for sea skimmers because at that time the Warsaw Pact didn't have any sea skim capability and the fleet existed to fight the sov's. Therefore there was no perceived threat.
[edited coz of spling and it chopped off my last sentence for some odd reason????]
[This message has been edited by Gash Handlin (edited 02 July 2001).]
I'm not very knowledgeable on missile systems but the programme seemed to imply that the chaff screen thrown up by Glamorgan (I think) fooled the exocet heading for the main part of the fleet and when it swung off for the chaff and came out of the cloud it found the nice big juicy target presented by Atlantic Conveyer, so would this not have helped when Sheffield was attacked (I know you can't guarantee a miss but it's got to be better than doing nothing.)
I agree though that it's a shame that the programme degenerated into a witch hunt at the end although the two seamen seemed to have fairly strong opinions and the motivation seemed to be to remove the blame from the captain who was (according to the programme) getting some rest after pretty much three days of constant watch.
Supermunk
The explanation given in the programme was that the navy didn't have any defence system for sea skimmers because at that time the Warsaw Pact didn't have any sea skim capability and the fleet existed to fight the sov's. Therefore there was no perceived threat.
[edited coz of spling and it chopped off my last sentence for some odd reason????]
[This message has been edited by Gash Handlin (edited 02 July 2001).]
Guest
Posts: n/a
I saw a program on discovery a few weeks ago on the super Etendard,it was all about the Argies but shed a different light from there side of the conflict,it even interviewed the crews who launched the exocets,well worth watching.
The beeb program was very good imho,its about time the public were greater informed of such conflicts.
The beeb program was very good imho,its about time the public were greater informed of such conflicts.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Bag Man,
Chappie in question got a DSC (other crew also decorated) and is, I think, still serving. As for getting lost, there is some evidence (in public domain through ex-SF guys' memoirs) that suggests it was not the pilot who got lost but the SAS troop commander, who insisted that the pilot was lost when, in fact, he put the helo down in the right place. Despite best efforts of pilot and crew to convince otherwise, troop cdr insisted on continuing and landing miles from the right place, completely scuppering any chance of successful mission (another view is that he gave up when a bit of hard marching could have put things back on track - but that may be unfair). Trp Cdr's career did not progress much further....
Chappie in question got a DSC (other crew also decorated) and is, I think, still serving. As for getting lost, there is some evidence (in public domain through ex-SF guys' memoirs) that suggests it was not the pilot who got lost but the SAS troop commander, who insisted that the pilot was lost when, in fact, he put the helo down in the right place. Despite best efforts of pilot and crew to convince otherwise, troop cdr insisted on continuing and landing miles from the right place, completely scuppering any chance of successful mission (another view is that he gave up when a bit of hard marching could have put things back on track - but that may be unfair). Trp Cdr's career did not progress much further....
Guest
Posts: n/a
There was a program a few years ago (Horizon I think) that suggested that the Argentinians practised using their own type 42s to determine how close a/c could get without detection. There was also a possible problem that as Exocet is a allied weapon (even used by RN), EW would have shown it as friendly - but there were other stories at the time, such as Sheffield using satcom at the time, which supposedly would have swamped EW.
Guest
Posts: n/a
The Argentine navy certainly tested Exocet launch profiles against their Type 42s. An article I have has interviews with most of the pilots involved, and Lt Armando Mayora, who was wingman on the Sheffield raid, describes spending time on board ARA Hercules to ascertain detectability of the Etendard. They also flew missions against Argy Type 42s supported by S-2 Trackers.
Interestingly, after the last Exocet was used on 30 May, the squadron went into an intense night training routine. They were expecting more missiles any time (no doubt the result of MI6's little 'game', as detailed in the programme). After the fiasco of the last Exocet mission, the navy were going to switch to night attacks as soon as they got the missiles.
Interestingly, after the last Exocet was used on 30 May, the squadron went into an intense night training routine. They were expecting more missiles any time (no doubt the result of MI6's little 'game', as detailed in the programme). After the fiasco of the last Exocet mission, the navy were going to switch to night attacks as soon as they got the missiles.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Mycroft,
You say Exocet would have shown up as "friendly" because it was also used by allied forces. If the EW parameters were that well known, how hard would it have been to re-jig the associated EW suite to show it as unfriendly?
In layman terms, swap the green bulb for a red one!
You say Exocet would have shown up as "friendly" because it was also used by allied forces. If the EW parameters were that well known, how hard would it have been to re-jig the associated EW suite to show it as unfriendly?
In layman terms, swap the green bulb for a red one!
Guest
Posts: n/a
Didn't see the program, but was any mention made of the fact that a type 42 is a VERY poor substitute for AEW? (I can hear all those bagger observers, yes an ex pinger is recognising that you are useful..)
This is also borne out by the success of the 'manned exocets' ie A4s with 500lb bombs that got through the much vaunted Stovie screen at low level below ships radar horizons.
Anyway, I want to know when the witch hunt for losing the battle of Hastings to the French is going to be on........
This is also borne out by the success of the 'manned exocets' ie A4s with 500lb bombs that got through the much vaunted Stovie screen at low level below ships radar horizons.
Anyway, I want to know when the witch hunt for losing the battle of Hastings to the French is going to be on........
Guest
Posts: n/a
Interesting TV... up to a point.
I have actually met the guy who was pictured in the TV prog as the captain of the SK which went into Chile. He was boss of 847 a while ago and his name and id etc are in the public domain if you dig around. He did indeed get a DSC. Interesting conversations apparently before they went with Westlands about just what exactly you could throw off a SK and still fly and also how much fuel you could get squeeze in. Don't know if its true but I believe that part of the technique for getting off was just to shove the SSLs all the way forward and ignore the book recommendations... Also pretty sure that the plan always was for the crew to divert into Chile - cos there didn't have the fuel for anything else!
Back to the TV prog though. Whilst the individuals seamen concerned may have had the intent to exonerate their skipper, Sam Salt, I just think it is the tip of the iceberg when we start dissecting the actions (even if erroneous) of those involved in this type of situation years later and making personal accusations.
The officer in question may or may not have got it wrong. He will know that and no doubt the punishment of 20 years conscience would be a more sringent sentence than any BOI. If we get into the zero error tolerance game then we will simply develop a culture of total risk aversion and lack of subordinate resposibility. There goes Mission Command!!!
Capt B at PJHQ, if you get these messages I for one would like to offer my wholehearted support, whether an error occured or not. There but for the grace of God go many of us; I would be horrified to be so publicly vilified by those in the media who were sat on their fat arses at home while the Exocets, Bombs and other general unpleasantness was going down.
Here ends the rant!
PP
I have actually met the guy who was pictured in the TV prog as the captain of the SK which went into Chile. He was boss of 847 a while ago and his name and id etc are in the public domain if you dig around. He did indeed get a DSC. Interesting conversations apparently before they went with Westlands about just what exactly you could throw off a SK and still fly and also how much fuel you could get squeeze in. Don't know if its true but I believe that part of the technique for getting off was just to shove the SSLs all the way forward and ignore the book recommendations... Also pretty sure that the plan always was for the crew to divert into Chile - cos there didn't have the fuel for anything else!
Back to the TV prog though. Whilst the individuals seamen concerned may have had the intent to exonerate their skipper, Sam Salt, I just think it is the tip of the iceberg when we start dissecting the actions (even if erroneous) of those involved in this type of situation years later and making personal accusations.
The officer in question may or may not have got it wrong. He will know that and no doubt the punishment of 20 years conscience would be a more sringent sentence than any BOI. If we get into the zero error tolerance game then we will simply develop a culture of total risk aversion and lack of subordinate resposibility. There goes Mission Command!!!
Capt B at PJHQ, if you get these messages I for one would like to offer my wholehearted support, whether an error occured or not. There but for the grace of God go many of us; I would be horrified to be so publicly vilified by those in the media who were sat on their fat arses at home while the Exocets, Bombs and other general unpleasantness was going down.
Here ends the rant!
PP
Guest
Posts: n/a
GH and Archi, I stand corrected, thank you. But my general point still applies.
I believe that this is not a place for anonymous gossip and speculation about Operations and identifiable people who are either still living or who may have family or colleagues still living. It is, at best, mischievous and unfair and, at worst, it can be malicious and damaging.
An innocent question such as "oh, whatever happened to/about/when...?" from a likely sounding pseudonym is quickly answered by the ingenuous anxious to be helpful and air their knowledge and, before you know it, we're way over the boundaries of acceptable chit-chat.
I have a rule about gossip I've posted in another thread; gossip as much as you like as long as what you say is True, Kind and Necessary.
I also have a rule about PPRuNers who don't even give an e-mail address. I don't trust them because there is no reason not to give one if you have nothing to hide.
This stuff can be read anywhere in the world. Take note of the red warning at the bottom of this page, it's not your average "small print" to be disregarded as just blah, blah.
Now, turning to the Battle of Hastings...
It has been revealed that the reason for the loss was failure of the Arrow Detection and Decoy System (ADDS) which was overbudget and behind schedule and only working at half power. So the Contractor was to blame.
The rest is History...
I believe that this is not a place for anonymous gossip and speculation about Operations and identifiable people who are either still living or who may have family or colleagues still living. It is, at best, mischievous and unfair and, at worst, it can be malicious and damaging.
An innocent question such as "oh, whatever happened to/about/when...?" from a likely sounding pseudonym is quickly answered by the ingenuous anxious to be helpful and air their knowledge and, before you know it, we're way over the boundaries of acceptable chit-chat.
I have a rule about gossip I've posted in another thread; gossip as much as you like as long as what you say is True, Kind and Necessary.
I also have a rule about PPRuNers who don't even give an e-mail address. I don't trust them because there is no reason not to give one if you have nothing to hide.
This stuff can be read anywhere in the world. Take note of the red warning at the bottom of this page, it's not your average "small print" to be disregarded as just blah, blah.
Now, turning to the Battle of Hastings...
It has been revealed that the reason for the loss was failure of the Arrow Detection and Decoy System (ADDS) which was overbudget and behind schedule and only working at half power. So the Contractor was to blame.
The rest is History...
Guest
Posts: n/a
Bravo in spades to PP and Fob!
The chaff business still puzzles me. The RN had sea-launched Exocet in service well before CORPORATE. Could they not have analysed its ECCM capability and devised a "fix"? ALthough a mere ex-"Crab" I served under Sam Salt after retirement at MOD. What a splendid officer and gentleman!
------------------
presto digitate
The chaff business still puzzles me. The RN had sea-launched Exocet in service well before CORPORATE. Could they not have analysed its ECCM capability and devised a "fix"? ALthough a mere ex-"Crab" I served under Sam Salt after retirement at MOD. What a splendid officer and gentleman!
------------------
presto digitate
Guest
Posts: n/a
I have just had a look through a book called "The Royal Navy and the Falklands War" which has been on my bookcase for some years. The Sheffield was using her Satcom until just before the aircraft were detected, and the use of this gear blanked out the I band section of the ESM. This meant that when the missiles were detected there was insufficient time to manoeuvre the ship and fire chaff. It's not just a case of firing chaff, but either putting it in the correct position to decoy or seduce the Exocet.
I hope this may be of some assistance.....
I hope this may be of some assistance.....
Guest
Posts: n/a
oldpinger,
There was a mention that there was a lack of dedicated AEW in Corporate.
I can't see how the sailor on the 42 held the raid out at 60 miles.
There was no mention of the fact that 849 had been disbanded when the old Ark was decommissioned and as a result 824 D Flt (leading to 849's recommisioning) was formed and en route south with a SKW 9 weeks after the loss of Sheffield.
BTW Thanks for recognising we do do a decent job !!
------------------
The OA
There was a mention that there was a lack of dedicated AEW in Corporate.
I can't see how the sailor on the 42 held the raid out at 60 miles.
There was no mention of the fact that 849 had been disbanded when the old Ark was decommissioned and as a result 824 D Flt (leading to 849's recommisioning) was formed and en route south with a SKW 9 weeks after the loss of Sheffield.
BTW Thanks for recognising we do do a decent job !!
------------------
The OA