'Falklands' Most Daring Raid'
I believe the Nimrod aiming system was based on the CVBS - if BEagle be following he was a expert on this.
However, tracking the No3 RPM gauge through the target was much easier.
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
The copilot used to carry a natty little plastic man-bag that had the perspex back plate. It would be fitted and removed as required.
in 1977 there was no such plastic gizmo; the SFOM sight glass was stored in the aircraft.
Working out the SFOM values was usually rather a waste of time; it had a narrow field of view and the score obtained using SFOM was no better than using 'that looks about right' techniques. Which were good enough for me to obtain several DHs.
Working out the SFOM values was usually rather a waste of time; it had a narrow field of view and the score obtained using SFOM was no better than using 'that looks about right' techniques. Which were good enough for me to obtain several DHs.
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Bucks
Posts: 7
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I know it's the Daily Mail, but see this:
Falklands defence budget to be cut despite conflict with Argentina | Mail Online
Falklands defence budget to be cut despite conflict with Argentina | Mail Online
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Spain
Posts: 46
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi everybody:
I´ve just seen this thread. I´m very pleased to greet a lot of old e-friends from Argentina and UK again.
I would like to add an info about 1st may raids against Stanley airstrip.
Argentinean Air Force (FAA) performed one mission on 26th of April in which Canberras Mk-62 involved would land at Stanley runway after attacking british shipping at Georgias to refuel and continue the return to the mainland. The mission was finally aborted when the planes were flying very close to the NW of Gerogias cause the surveillance KC-130H that was spotting the british force, advised that they had just got into Cumberland bay and the height of the mountains around it, made the attack impossible.
So, if FAA planned one mission with jets landing there to refuel, it´s quite probable that they had thought to repeat this kind of use. Why it didn´t happen?
In my opinion for the joint strikes on 1st may. They convinced FAA that there was no way to operate from the runaway without suffering losses. We must remember that a lot of damage was caused by Vulcan bombs as well as Sea harrier´s ones. Three Cessna 172 and one Islander were put out of action. A hangar burnt in flames as well as some fuel dumps.
But, was FAA trying to increase the lenght of the runway? It has been told in previous pages that some aluminium plates had been used to create a platform for the planes. In the Western end of the runway some of them had been placed too. The incident of the vessel "Córdoba" in a patagonian port made impossible to have them by sea. More plates could be transported, if it was decided, by C-130 (landing or by LAPES). Did the strikes on that day affected the FAA plans?
Some time ago, in another forum, one Argentina´s armed forces member who remained a great part of the war around the runway, told that after these raids, they used the plates as a protection in another positions:
Imágenes del conflicto de Malvinas < fotos > | Página 368 | Foros Zona Militar
"En la cabecera oeste se colocaron algunas, pero cuando comenzaron los ataques se dejaron los trabajos, muchos de estos paneles se usaron para reforzar las posiciones. A dos de ellos les debo mi vida ya que pararon una esquirla que iba justo a mi cabeza en la noche del 29 de mayo."
Translation:
"In the western end some of them (the plates) were placed but when the raids started, works were abandoned, many of them were used to reinforce the positions. Thank to two of them I´m alive at the moment, as they stopped shrapnel direct right on my head in the night of 29th may".
So, 1st may was important in the way that FAA acted in the rest of war respecting the use of the runway to deploy or operate high performance jets. But in the name of the truth, not only Vulcan´s one but both, RN SHar and RAF Vulcan.
Another little known fact is that the uncleanliness of the runway caused on 21st may one MB-339 ingested some small stones and its turbine was put out of action for the rest of war.
About the influence of Vulcan´s raid on the top cover missions of Mirage and Dagger over the island to protect the strikes missiones, I think it has no sense. In fact, Mirages continued those missions until the last day and Dagger until 8th may. The reason why they didn´t try to engage in dogfight was the result of the 1st may engagements with SHar. FAA High Staff thought there was no way to get the air superiority so although flights continued, the purpose was to atract british CAP to clean the way to the attack planes, but not to dogfight in combats in which they were worse than their opponents in training, weapons and planes.
Regards
PS: In the bottom of page 127 of this pdf from Ratenbach´s inform (in spanish), Brigadier Weber says that the runway was enlarged 200 meters with some plates transported from the mainland and others of the previous existing runway of Stanley:
http://www.anses.gov.ar/files/12%20-...20Tomo%201.pdf
I´ve just seen this thread. I´m very pleased to greet a lot of old e-friends from Argentina and UK again.
I would like to add an info about 1st may raids against Stanley airstrip.
Argentinean Air Force (FAA) performed one mission on 26th of April in which Canberras Mk-62 involved would land at Stanley runway after attacking british shipping at Georgias to refuel and continue the return to the mainland. The mission was finally aborted when the planes were flying very close to the NW of Gerogias cause the surveillance KC-130H that was spotting the british force, advised that they had just got into Cumberland bay and the height of the mountains around it, made the attack impossible.
So, if FAA planned one mission with jets landing there to refuel, it´s quite probable that they had thought to repeat this kind of use. Why it didn´t happen?
In my opinion for the joint strikes on 1st may. They convinced FAA that there was no way to operate from the runaway without suffering losses. We must remember that a lot of damage was caused by Vulcan bombs as well as Sea harrier´s ones. Three Cessna 172 and one Islander were put out of action. A hangar burnt in flames as well as some fuel dumps.
But, was FAA trying to increase the lenght of the runway? It has been told in previous pages that some aluminium plates had been used to create a platform for the planes. In the Western end of the runway some of them had been placed too. The incident of the vessel "Córdoba" in a patagonian port made impossible to have them by sea. More plates could be transported, if it was decided, by C-130 (landing or by LAPES). Did the strikes on that day affected the FAA plans?
Some time ago, in another forum, one Argentina´s armed forces member who remained a great part of the war around the runway, told that after these raids, they used the plates as a protection in another positions:
Imágenes del conflicto de Malvinas < fotos > | Página 368 | Foros Zona Militar
"En la cabecera oeste se colocaron algunas, pero cuando comenzaron los ataques se dejaron los trabajos, muchos de estos paneles se usaron para reforzar las posiciones. A dos de ellos les debo mi vida ya que pararon una esquirla que iba justo a mi cabeza en la noche del 29 de mayo."
Translation:
"In the western end some of them (the plates) were placed but when the raids started, works were abandoned, many of them were used to reinforce the positions. Thank to two of them I´m alive at the moment, as they stopped shrapnel direct right on my head in the night of 29th may".
So, 1st may was important in the way that FAA acted in the rest of war respecting the use of the runway to deploy or operate high performance jets. But in the name of the truth, not only Vulcan´s one but both, RN SHar and RAF Vulcan.
Another little known fact is that the uncleanliness of the runway caused on 21st may one MB-339 ingested some small stones and its turbine was put out of action for the rest of war.
About the influence of Vulcan´s raid on the top cover missions of Mirage and Dagger over the island to protect the strikes missiones, I think it has no sense. In fact, Mirages continued those missions until the last day and Dagger until 8th may. The reason why they didn´t try to engage in dogfight was the result of the 1st may engagements with SHar. FAA High Staff thought there was no way to get the air superiority so although flights continued, the purpose was to atract british CAP to clean the way to the attack planes, but not to dogfight in combats in which they were worse than their opponents in training, weapons and planes.
Regards
PS: In the bottom of page 127 of this pdf from Ratenbach´s inform (in spanish), Brigadier Weber says that the runway was enlarged 200 meters with some plates transported from the mainland and others of the previous existing runway of Stanley:
http://www.anses.gov.ar/files/12%20-...20Tomo%201.pdf
Last edited by jualbo; 25th Mar 2012 at 14:52. Reason: new info
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Back in the sandbox ... again!
Posts: 36
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Falklands - THE Most Daring Raid
Just finished reading "Special Forces Pilot" by Richard Hutching - A single Sea King HC4 on a one way trip Invincible to Chile via Argentina - now that is what I call a Daring raid! Also SCRAM by ex Junglie Harry Benson has just been released - purely about the helicopter war down south and full of some very familiar names and outstanding dits!!
Suspicion breeds confidence
RAF crews trained for bomb raids on airfields in Argentina - World News - Independent.ie
This one would have raised a few eyebrows if it had happened
This one would have raised a few eyebrows if it had happened
More bang for your buck
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: land of the clanger
Age: 82
Posts: 3,512
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
They had enough trouble refueling one Vulcan to get it to the Falklands how were they going to refuel "The attack of two flights of two Vulcans"?
According to the Telegraph:
"The attack of two flights of two Vulcans would be launched from Ascension Island, the mid-Atlantic British possession, which was 1,000 miles closer to the Argentine mainland air bases than the Falklands.
After mid-air refuelling the No 44 Squadron bombers would drop to 300ft above the surface to begin their final run-in using just their terrain following radar and flying skills to skim over the Argentine landmass in complete darkness.
The aircraft would have been equipped for the first time with Sidewinder air-to-air missiles in case of attack by Argentine fighters, although the enemy air force rarely flew at night.
As well as a Dash-10 radar jamming pod the first Vulcan would four AGM-45 Shrikes anti-radar missiles to knock out the Argentine surface-to-air missile systems.
But it was the second bomber that would carry out a devastating attack aimed to wipe out the Argentine air force's ability to launch attacks.
Carrying a substantial load of 21 bombs each weighing 1,000lbs, equivalent to the bomb payload of five Tornados recently used in Libya, the plane would fly straight down the runway releasing its ordnance attached to small parachutes. If the attack was successful the runway would be pockmarked by craters and burning fighter jets".
According to the Telegraph:
"The attack of two flights of two Vulcans would be launched from Ascension Island, the mid-Atlantic British possession, which was 1,000 miles closer to the Argentine mainland air bases than the Falklands.
After mid-air refuelling the No 44 Squadron bombers would drop to 300ft above the surface to begin their final run-in using just their terrain following radar and flying skills to skim over the Argentine landmass in complete darkness.
The aircraft would have been equipped for the first time with Sidewinder air-to-air missiles in case of attack by Argentine fighters, although the enemy air force rarely flew at night.
As well as a Dash-10 radar jamming pod the first Vulcan would four AGM-45 Shrikes anti-radar missiles to knock out the Argentine surface-to-air missile systems.
But it was the second bomber that would carry out a devastating attack aimed to wipe out the Argentine air force's ability to launch attacks.
Carrying a substantial load of 21 bombs each weighing 1,000lbs, equivalent to the bomb payload of five Tornados recently used in Libya, the plane would fly straight down the runway releasing its ordnance attached to small parachutes. If the attack was successful the runway would be pockmarked by craters and burning fighter jets".
Join Date: May 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 261
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The other thread on this matter goes into the detail of the sortie(s), but does not challenge the "Most Daring" claim.
I don't think that anyone, not even the most "dyed in the light blue wool" can agree that the Vulcan raid was THE most daring raid. As previously mentioned, the "Chilean" Sea King AND the attack on Pebble Island (The first use of NVG in anger) were clearly more daring. The Vulcan was the most choreographed perhaps, but not most daring.
I don't think that anyone, not even the most "dyed in the light blue wool" can agree that the Vulcan raid was THE most daring raid. As previously mentioned, the "Chilean" Sea King AND the attack on Pebble Island (The first use of NVG in anger) were clearly more daring. The Vulcan was the most choreographed perhaps, but not most daring.
Originally Posted by engineer(retard):7101211
How do you get "daring" points?
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
Well Chilean attempt - aircraft launched with reasonable guarantee of having somewhere to land. Chances of survival good. Risk - 3.
Pebble Island - aircraft launched with reasonable guarantee of having somewhere to land. Chances of ingress good and egress reasonable. Risk - 5.
Black Buck - aircraft launched with some guarantee of being refuelled as modest. Chances of attack and survival good. Chances of recovery or diversion low to medium. Risk - 7.
That is a very subjective summation of what was a very small part of a hugely complex operations. If you look in detail at each element for success/failure, as you do when calculating bombs required for a 2 sigma success, then it follows that then number of potential failure points in the Black Buck raid far exceed the number of potential failure points on the other two.
Pebble Island - aircraft launched with reasonable guarantee of having somewhere to land. Chances of ingress good and egress reasonable. Risk - 5.
Black Buck - aircraft launched with some guarantee of being refuelled as modest. Chances of attack and survival good. Chances of recovery or diversion low to medium. Risk - 7.
That is a very subjective summation of what was a very small part of a hugely complex operations. If you look in detail at each element for success/failure, as you do when calculating bombs required for a 2 sigma success, then it follows that then number of potential failure points in the Black Buck raid far exceed the number of potential failure points on the other two.
More bang for your buck
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: land of the clanger
Age: 82
Posts: 3,512
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
GG, wow, that is breath-taking. Did they lift that straight from a Dan Dare comic?
Join Date: May 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 261
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
PN; 3 points:
1. If you get points for having risk that you won't have anywhere to land, then Naval sorties get them by the bucket load, as at land-on the airfield is never where you left it!
2. Since when have opposed landings been "good chance of getting in & out" (to paraphrase)?
3. In saying that the Vulcan had risk of not achieving a safe landing at home base, then it is more daring than a one way mission (e.g. Chile)......... I think not!
1. If you get points for having risk that you won't have anywhere to land, then Naval sorties get them by the bucket load, as at land-on the airfield is never where you left it!
2. Since when have opposed landings been "good chance of getting in & out" (to paraphrase)?
3. In saying that the Vulcan had risk of not achieving a safe landing at home base, then it is more daring than a one way mission (e.g. Chile)......... I think not!
