Why wasn't Nimrod based in Falklands?
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: uk
Age: 55
Posts: 117
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If it had been a nimrod deployed rather than a C130 in June 1985 would the mission systems on the aircraft identified the surface contact they were probing as a warship and prevented the midair with the (believe it was an 826) Seaking?
If it had been a nimrod deployed rather than a C130 in June 1985 would the mission systems on the aircraft identified the surface contact they were probing as a warship and prevented the midair with the (believe it was an 826) Seaking?
Why was the Nimrod not deployed to the Falklands? Because the task could be adequately accomplished more cheaply with another platform and the Nimrod's capabilities were better employed elsewhere.
Even during Corporate the normal UK tasks were still being carried out. The Soviets didn't cut back on their activity because we had sent a few aircraft down South. I recall a couple of "entertaining" nights in the Outer Clyde Approaches during that period. You couldn't have put any other platform out there to do what we were doing.
YS
Yellow, that is kind of blaming the C130 crew which is a little unfair. If I recall correctly the ship in question reported its operating area as somewhere else and that it would not be conducting helo ops that day. Coordination is everything, but perhaps that is what you were alluding to.
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: here, there, everywhere
Age: 47
Posts: 119
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
While we're asking, does anyone know the patrol locations of Trident...
The patrol areas are in the area West of Cornwall, East of Maine, North of St Helena and South of Greenland.
Good luck in your hunt, they are v v quiet beasts, the Dark side of the Force, as a surface fleet chap (read target), we could never find them!
Yellow, that is kind of blaming the C130 crew which is a little unfair.
YS
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: wiltshire
Age: 65
Posts: 230
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yellow, the C130 on the day in question was one of the tests beds for the Orange Crop fit on Albert. The RN vessels radar was picked up , but as vessel wasn't (a) where it was supposed to be and (b) conducting heli-ops without notification , the C130 crew investigated the radar contact . Another factor for the Nimrod was the runway at MPA had only just been completed and Nimrod wasn't overly keen on AMT matting at Stanley.
The RN vessels radar was picked up , but as vessel wasn't (a) where it was supposed to be and (b) conducting heli-ops without notification , the C130 crew investigated the radar contact .
I am not criticising the C130 crew, but they just did not have the depth of maritime role experience to pick up the subtle clues that would have made a Nimrod crew suspicious. Added to that the Nimrod would have had much better sensor derived information available which adds up to my assessment in reply to Icanseeclearly's question of "Probably not"
YS
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Devon
Posts: 48
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Maritime procedures Falkands
I was detached to 1312 Flt as a C130 navigator from Dec 1985 to April 1986, after the midair previously mentioned. I had previously been on Shackleton's (1964-1970) and Nimrods (1970-1980). I rewrote a draft of the maritime air procedures, particularly the rules for overflight of surface vessels and IMC altitudes for rotary and fixed wing aircraft. The maritime surveillance carried out in my time at RAF Stanley was mainly fishery protection and ECM monitoring.
Last edited by middlesbrough; 9th Feb 2014 at 22:07.
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Not here
Posts: 18
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
826 SQN/C130 mid air
A bit more info. I was an Observer on 826 in 1983/4 and deployed south with the RN group twice. I knew all 4 who were killed in the Sea King, a number quite well.
The 'RN' ship was a RFA, I forget the name but she was a converted container ship with a US containerised system for operating Sea Kings. The C130 crew was fairly new and was not used to oeprating the the maritime environment, uderstandably.
RN/RFA ships operated in areas, the sea areas out to 200 NM from a central point in the Islands, were divided into 8 equal sectors. Ships did not regularly publish their actual positions for obvious reasons. The RN/RFA flypro was published daily, but tended to be a guide and ships usually their aircraft on alert (15/30/60) for 24 hours. Which allowed them to operate when they wanted to, maintenance dependant.
The RFA had 5 helos embarked and therefore theoretically could operate 24 hours per day and were set up to do so, aircrew and maintaner numbers etc. What was not good in the early days was info disemination it terms of what the RAF was doing and what the RN was doing for flying ops. There were limited rules/processes and procedures, which complicated things further. We used to call Mt Kent radar to ask what else was airborne shortly after launch but this was from experience and not a required procedure.
The accident was caused by the usual chain of: errors, lack of comms, inexperience and probably a confidence in the 'big sky' theory. I am told that, understandably, things changed a lot after the BoI issued its findings, if not before.
It was all very sad and avoidable.
I also understand that it was quite a piloting feat top bring the damaged C130 back to Stanley.
The 'RN' ship was a RFA, I forget the name but she was a converted container ship with a US containerised system for operating Sea Kings. The C130 crew was fairly new and was not used to oeprating the the maritime environment, uderstandably.
RN/RFA ships operated in areas, the sea areas out to 200 NM from a central point in the Islands, were divided into 8 equal sectors. Ships did not regularly publish their actual positions for obvious reasons. The RN/RFA flypro was published daily, but tended to be a guide and ships usually their aircraft on alert (15/30/60) for 24 hours. Which allowed them to operate when they wanted to, maintenance dependant.
The RFA had 5 helos embarked and therefore theoretically could operate 24 hours per day and were set up to do so, aircrew and maintaner numbers etc. What was not good in the early days was info disemination it terms of what the RAF was doing and what the RN was doing for flying ops. There were limited rules/processes and procedures, which complicated things further. We used to call Mt Kent radar to ask what else was airborne shortly after launch but this was from experience and not a required procedure.
The accident was caused by the usual chain of: errors, lack of comms, inexperience and probably a confidence in the 'big sky' theory. I am told that, understandably, things changed a lot after the BoI issued its findings, if not before.
It was all very sad and avoidable.
I also understand that it was quite a piloting feat top bring the damaged C130 back to Stanley.
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Edinburgh
Age: 43
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
south
I just meant in general/public open terms re nimrods south eg SAR deployments and if anyone had any stories... ? Really interesting remote remote part of the world.. Thanks
Nimrod based in the Falklands.....way too far from sea water of any size perhaps.
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: wiltshire
Age: 65
Posts: 230
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It was quite a piloting feat , one of the more interesting days in a 4 month tour. The conversations on the R/T that day were slightly non standard on occasion also.
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: 4 Civvy Street. Nowhere-near-a-base. The Shires.
Posts: 559
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
In 85 or 86, Pete Rosie took a CXX crew down there for a week long SAR looking for a missing Australian civvy aircraft. The other crew sat at Ascension all week U/S, sunburnt and hungover