Argentine fast jet weapons choice - Falklands
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Racedo blows goats
Posts: 677
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Seriously, SNEB is a short range LOS weapon whereas Martel was supposed to be BVR and theoretically, like the Trykon I mentioned, steerable around a river.
I recall being told that a near miss to a ship with a 1000lb would be good enough as the compression wave would burst bulkheads. No idea if that is true though.
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
The Nimrod was originally designed to carry Martel but only carried the AS12. Now that was fun.
Plan Bluebell required the Nimrod to overfly a suspected FPB at about 5000 feet and illuminate with a stick of 5 inch flares. Having identified the target it would swoop down to low level under the flares and the copilot would fire the missile and fly it to the target.
We only ever practiced in the SIM which was as well because the Sovs unsportingly fitted twin 30 mm CIWS even on OSAs and the flares were never reliable.
Plan Bluebell required the Nimrod to overfly a suspected FPB at about 5000 feet and illuminate with a stick of 5 inch flares. Having identified the target it would swoop down to low level under the flares and the copilot would fire the missile and fly it to the target.
We only ever practiced in the SIM which was as well because the Sovs unsportingly fitted twin 30 mm CIWS even on OSAs and the flares were never reliable.
The Nimrod was originally designed to carry Martel but only carried the AS12. Now that was fun.
Plan Bluebell required the Nimrod to overfly a suspected FPB at about 5000 feet and illuminate with a stick of 5 inch flares. Having identified the target it would swoop down to low level under the flares and the copilot would fire the missile and fly it to the target.
We only ever practiced in the SIM which was as well because the Sovs unsportingly fitted twin 30 mm CIWS even on OSAs and the flares were never reliable.
Plan Bluebell required the Nimrod to overfly a suspected FPB at about 5000 feet and illuminate with a stick of 5 inch flares. Having identified the target it would swoop down to low level under the flares and the copilot would fire the missile and fly it to the target.
We only ever practiced in the SIM which was as well because the Sovs unsportingly fitted twin 30 mm CIWS even on OSAs and the flares were never reliable.
Did those who came up with plans like this Procreate ?
Kind of scary to see genes like that passed on.
If it blew up underwater it could approximate the explosion of a torpedo warhead. On a small to middle sized warship it could do some serious damage. (What is the weight of explosives in a 1000 pound bomb? How much is iron and how much is explosive charge?)
If it blew up "just right" in terms of where getting more or less underneath the ship as it explodes, it might create that bubble under the keel that submariner's torpedoes can achieve, which could cause severe structural damage to the main strengthening member of the ship's structure.
So "it depends" is the answer.
Thx. That makes such an explosion about half as strong as a Mk-48 ADCAP. (US Sub wired guided torpedo). Trouble for a frigate or bigger trouble for any corvette or smaller, depending upon where it goes off.
Last edited by Lonewolf_50; 8th Dec 2015 at 15:19.
Getting back to the original question, perhaps it was you use what you have. Iron bombs were perhaps the best available weapon for ship strike by the Mirages/daggers, Canberras and A-4's. More punch that rockets or cannon, and an effective weapon against a thinner skinned ship.
The problem was delivery profile. Too low and the bomb does not have time to arm, too high and you are much more vulnerable to AAA and missiles.
The problem was delivery profile. Too low and the bomb does not have time to arm, too high and you are much more vulnerable to AAA and missiles.
SNEB rockets were not used aboard carriers because of R/F problems with the fuse. The 2" rockets used by the RN were not as stable aerodynamically as SNEB and carried a smaller warhead. They were developed as an A2A weapon but could do damage to upper-works and aerials in the anti-ship rôle.
In '82, we designed an attack against the Arg T42 destroyers using rockets and bombs, which worked very well against our own ships but was never tried against the Arg Navy. It relied on a well choreographed attack with 6 aircraft, exploiting the ZD notch and scanning system of the 909 radars.
First weapons on target were LOFT VT fused 1klb bombs, followed swiftly by 2"rockets, with the coup de grace being lay-down 1klb retard bombs.
Post 82, we got the Sea Eagle which allowed one to be back in the crew-room by the time the enemy went bang - great improvement. And what a war-head!!
Swing the lamp!
In '82, we designed an attack against the Arg T42 destroyers using rockets and bombs, which worked very well against our own ships but was never tried against the Arg Navy. It relied on a well choreographed attack with 6 aircraft, exploiting the ZD notch and scanning system of the 909 radars.
First weapons on target were LOFT VT fused 1klb bombs, followed swiftly by 2"rockets, with the coup de grace being lay-down 1klb retard bombs.
Post 82, we got the Sea Eagle which allowed one to be back in the crew-room by the time the enemy went bang - great improvement. And what a war-head!!
Swing the lamp!
exploiting the ZD notch and scanning system of the 909 radars.
Can you expand on that?
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Home
Posts: 3,399
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not convinced that near misses will do anything to a warship. Warships are built strong.
Mines and torpedos that do the under the keel, break the back trick are rather different.
Mines and torpedos that do the under the keel, break the back trick are rather different.
Using the words notch and Radar in the same sentence implies some filtering, I imagine this is clutter with Zero Doppler.
Given they were our Radars I imagine we knew where they performed the worst.
Given they were our Radars I imagine we knew where they performed the worst.
There are some pictures in Ian Inskip's excellent book about Glamorgan's war down south that has photos of the indentations left by the presumed explosion of bombs dropped on the 1st May by the Daggers of the Torno flight. However, I believe these bombs were 500 lb Spanish BRP bombs. Unfortunately, I cannot find that photo on the web.
I had a reply from the A4 driver. He will send me a "long" explanation of their choice of weapons. I will post it when I get it, and have translated it.
I had a reply from the A4 driver. He will send me a "long" explanation of their choice of weapons. I will post it when I get it, and have translated it.
Suspicion breeds confidence
It is doubtful that Argentine Type 42s received the fix that solved the problem of hot diesel exhaust venting on the the aft 909 causing it to fail. In that case I would recommend a low level run in from port and starboard quarters. Although not at the same time!
The shockwave effects are impossibly complex on a warship as some parts of the structure are incredibly tough, whilst others are not. The shockwave propagation does wacky things when funnelled between hardened surfaces. Hard structure has a bit of a habit of transmitting the shockwave into unintended places on the ship. In equal regard otherwise exposed parts of the ship can suffer relatively little damage.
In the hope that either the systems or the fleshy things are degraded by the airburst effects the next package of aircraft would execute a more accurate delivery profile, with bombs impact-fused at a suitable selection of delays to cause carnage at multiple deck levels. Given the level of ship-saving techniques taught to many navies you may also choose to leave the odd bomb aboard that is fused to go off a little while after the attack. No point leaving anything to chance.
Wrecking warships with 1000lb bombs is easy. Getting to the point of weapon delivery is the challenging bit.
Hello,
According to early planning, to attack warships the FAS (Fuerza Aérea Sur - South Air Force Command) recommended Zuni (127mm) rockets and 500lb (and heavier) bombs. To attack landing craft, the recommendation is to employ up to 250lb bombs and FFAR (70mm)rockets.
However, just before ops starting, the FAS realized the bombs gives more bang for the buck, so all antiship missions were armed with bombs (from 500lb and up to 1000lb).
The MB339 Macchi which attacked Argonaut on May 21st, 1982, was configured for armed recon (with rockets and gun pods). In fact, when landed the pilot (Lt. Crippa) asked for a bomb load for a re-run, but the higher echelon rejected another sortie (because the attack waves were en route from the mainland).
Regards!
According to early planning, to attack warships the FAS (Fuerza Aérea Sur - South Air Force Command) recommended Zuni (127mm) rockets and 500lb (and heavier) bombs. To attack landing craft, the recommendation is to employ up to 250lb bombs and FFAR (70mm)rockets.
However, just before ops starting, the FAS realized the bombs gives more bang for the buck, so all antiship missions were armed with bombs (from 500lb and up to 1000lb).
The MB339 Macchi which attacked Argonaut on May 21st, 1982, was configured for armed recon (with rockets and gun pods). In fact, when landed the pilot (Lt. Crippa) asked for a bomb load for a re-run, but the higher echelon rejected another sortie (because the attack waves were en route from the mainland).
Regards!
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Home
Posts: 3,399
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Don't worry, I have plenty of experience when it comes to weapon effects and targeting. Like quite a few on this forum I also got reasonably good at chucking practice bombs at ships by day and by night. So no, no assumptions needed.
Returning back to the thread, the Argentineans did a pretty good job of getting dumb bombs into RN ships, despite rather rustic systems and the RN shooting back. If the 13 bombs that hit but failed to go bang had fused correctly then the outcome of the RN to continue to operate would have been challenged. I'm struggling to think of an occasion where a ship has survived a correctly functioning 1000lb bomb. I guess it must have happened but it would be a pretty rare event.
http://www.naval-history.net/F62-Fal...ships_lost.htm
Returning back to the thread, the Argentineans did a pretty good job of getting dumb bombs into RN ships, despite rather rustic systems and the RN shooting back. If the 13 bombs that hit but failed to go bang had fused correctly then the outcome of the RN to continue to operate would have been challenged. I'm struggling to think of an occasion where a ship has survived a correctly functioning 1000lb bomb. I guess it must have happened but it would be a pretty rare event.
http://www.naval-history.net/F62-Fal...ships_lost.htm
Last edited by Just This Once...; 9th Dec 2015 at 19:30.
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
JTO, indeed things certainly improved after Torey Canyon.
I remember watching FA2s practically riding 28lb PB into the target. The trick would have been to avoid being there when they went bang.
I wonder had those dud bombs exploded, would the aircraft have survived?
I remember watching FA2s practically riding 28lb PB into the target. The trick would have been to avoid being there when they went bang.
I wonder had those dud bombs exploded, would the aircraft have survived?