Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Aircrew Forums > Military Aviation
Reload this Page >

Harrier in Op CORPORATE

Military Aviation A forum for the professionals who fly military hardware. Also for the backroom boys and girls who support the flying and maintain the equipment, and without whom nothing would ever leave the ground. All armies, navies and air forces of the world equally welcome here.

Harrier in Op CORPORATE

Old 20th May 2016, 20:09
  #41 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Posts: 148
Only the 2 inner pylons were wet, so 100 gal tanks carried outboard were for later use on the inboard pylons. Steve Jennings gives an interesting insight into the introduction of the 330s, and Chris Burwell describes an eventful landing in Goose Bay with them, both in volume 1 of Harrier Boys. Also in there are tales from Mike Beech, one of the pilots that flew down to join the Task Force. They had to jettison the big tanks, something never trialled before then, followed by their first deck VLs. The size of the tanks also limited flap travel.
noprobs is offline  
Old 21st May 2016, 13:41
  #42 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 1,516
Haven't read the whole thread, nor the dudes book, and it's not really an area I want to start a bunfight in, but for the sake of balance I'll say this...

I've read one or two "derisory" remarks from the dark blue about the antics of the Nimrod fleet during the hot part of the Falklands War and bluntly...they are pretty much spot on.

There were some good guys doing good stuff in April/May 1982, but there were also a couple of total knobheads off the leash and this led to a couple of very well known and easily avoided SNAFU's which in true military fashion put everyone into complete denial mode...at the time and ever since.

And I don't need to go to the National Archives to know what went on....ken what I mean
The Old Fat One is offline  
Old 21st May 2016, 14:46
  #43 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: England's green and pleasant land
Posts: 697
Actually TOFO, no. I've no idea what you are referring to.

Please, for the sake of a logical thread flow, could you explain what exactly it is that you're on about?

Genuinely.
MSOCS is offline  
Old 21st May 2016, 15:10
  #44 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Tarn et Garonne, Southwest France
Posts: 5,283
Yeah, I don't get it either. I had a fair bit to do with the Nimrod guys in Ascension at that time (and the Victor guys for obvious reasons and the Herc guys) and I didn't get a sense of anything amiss.
Courtney Mil is offline  
Old 21st May 2016, 15:23
  #45 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: 350/3 Compton
Age: 72
Posts: 285
Originally Posted by exMudmover View Post
Hi Mogwi,

....[INo 1 (F) Sqn GR3s did not carry sidewinders at all during the conflict[/I]...

We did actually,

There was just one day when we had the chance of an AA engagement with the ‘winders. That was 19 May, our one and only ‘training’ day, before we began mudmoving ops, having arrived in theatre on 18 May.

We flew all that day with Limas, practising ACM. All switches had to be made ‘live’ to get acquisitions, but we found no real problem locking on the Lima with boresight aiming. Most of us had already fired a ‘winder on Aberporth, using the same technique. We thought it was a magic weapon.

We were briefed that we could become part of the local Task Group CAP whilst airborne and indeed GOV and the Boss were directed to intercept a suspected enemy B707. Unfortunately it turned away and no intercept resulted, much to our disappointment.

Later on we hoped the Navy might let us join in the CAPs, flying in company with SeaJets if they ran short of airframes, but it was not to be.

Regards
Hail exM!

You are, of course correct, I had forgotten the "training" day!

Check 6!
Mogwi is offline  
Old 21st May 2016, 17:22
  #46 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Swindonshire
Posts: 1,937
Originally Posted by MSOCS View Post
Actually TOFO, no. I've no idea what you are referring to.

Please, for the sake of a logical thread flow, could you explain what exactly it is that you're on about?

Genuinely.
It's a reference to my comment in post #8, answering a query by kghjfg. I noted that Cdr Ward's comments about the Nimrod fleet were difficult to reconcile with the records, and TOFO is responding to that.

(For clarity, Ward's argument in at least two lots of his writing utterly rejects TOFO's line 'There were some good guys doing good stuff in April/May 1982' and is that the Nimrod force served no useful purpose in any way, shape or form during Corporate, simply bimbling about just outside visual range of ASI.)
Archimedes is offline  
Old 21st May 2016, 18:57
  #47 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: England's green and pleasant land
Posts: 697
Oh, I see, it was Ward's comments. Shame that particular apple fell far from its tree afterwards.

Ground Attack Falklands was a better book IMHO.
MSOCS is offline  
Old 22nd May 2016, 04:26
  #48 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Planet Earth
Posts: 1,862
What great replies, amazing, thanks Gents for your enlightening information and for your service.
stilton is offline  
Old 22nd May 2016, 21:50
  #49 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: S W France
Age: 76
Posts: 208
Since we were flying 10 hr AAR sorties in the Victors to support the Nimrods, they must have had exceptional eyesight to be " just outside visual range of ASI ".
Tengah Type is offline  
Old 22nd May 2016, 23:39
  #50 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Hertfordshire
Age: 54
Posts: 784
I may be wrong here, but I suspect the events that TOFO are referring to involve a radar surface search mission off the Argentinian coast by a Nimrod, that reported that the Argentinians had sortied a small naval task group which possibly could threaten the supply lines (not that far fetched seeing that the Argentinian Air Force did attack tankers well to the north of the Falklands with Canberra's and a Hercules fitted with bomb racks on the wing tank pylons). In the end a sub was dispatched to check out the contacts which turned out to be a group of Japaneses trawlers because for some reason the Nimrod didn't attempt to do a visual check). The story is mentioned in both Woodward's book and Mike Clapp's book about the Amphibious Assault forces (which actually covers his AD plan for the AOA, and I suspect had he had the offer of a point defence by Winder equipped GR3 behind the SHAR CAP stations, he would have bitten 1 Squadron's hands off to get it).
MAINJAFAD is online now  
Old 23rd May 2016, 12:26
  #51 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: virginia, USA
Age: 53
Posts: 812
exMudmover and Mogwi, thanks so much for the replies- great to pull up a bar stool and listen in. I appreciate the info on the handling with the big tanks- they do sound like a handful.
sandiego89 is offline  
Old 23rd May 2016, 13:01
  #52 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 1,516
Yeah, I don't get it either. I had a fair bit to do with the Nimrod guys in Ascension at that time (and the Victor guys for obvious reasons and the Herc guys) and I didn't get a sense of anything amiss.
lol...I was Squadron Training Team specialist on the bit of kit in question, a Combat Advanced (B-cat in old money) Lead Dry and but nobody in theatre in April 82 had more hands on time on said kit than I did.

But yeah, wtf did I know.

MAINJAFAD, you are on the right lines, but I'm not commenting further because individuals could be easily identified and I have no wish to engage with any one on a personal level. This is something that massively p11ssed me of in 1982 and which was quickly covered up thereafter. As usual history has now been changed...as it always is.

And really it's not even the main point. The main point is this...

"the Nimrod force served no useful purpose in any way, shape or form during Corporate, simply bimbling about just outside visual range of ASI"
If that is indeed what the man said (I have no idea) it is largely true. The semi useful stuff we did do, didn't really bring much to the table, and anybody that says that the ops would not have continued exactly as they did, if the Nimrod had stayed at home is talking through their hoop.

So what? The kipper fleet still did the best it could, and it contributed massively to our countries security in so many other theatres, especially the Cold War, which was by an order of magnitude far more important that the Falklands Conflict. Maritime patrol remains central to our nation security and thank goodness it is coming back.

As for the Falklands - one hell of a lot of military folk from all arms did a magnificent job - focus on them

I'm out.

Last edited by The Old Fat One; 23rd May 2016 at 14:46.
The Old Fat One is offline  
Old 23rd May 2016, 15:14
  #53 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Swindonshire
Posts: 1,937
With respect, TOFO, I'm not believing anything other than this:


it's difficult to square his [Ward's] comment regarding [Nimrods] patrolling only around ASI when you're sitting in the National Archives holding the report of the Nimrod crew who got rather close to the mainland in your hand...).

Which - as far as I can see - does nothing other than suggest that Cdr Ward's comments about how far away Nimrods got from ASI/were away from the TEZ are wrong.


I merely assumed that it was reasonable to observe that, since there is rather a lot of evidence (archival and anecdotal) that shows that Nimrods went a bit further south than Ward says, it serves as a warning about needing to be cautious about taking everything he says as gospel. Which, of course, was in answer to a question about the quality of his account.


I don't know enough about the efficacy of Nimrod ops to comment about that. Which is why I didn't... (although I presumed that your comment about 'good guys doing good stuff' meant that it wasn't a picture of unredeemed hopelessness).


My apologies if you thought that I was attempting to comment about that via 20:20 hindsight and a small number of some scruffy files at Kew...
Archimedes is offline  
Old 23rd May 2016, 19:52
  #54 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Yorkshire
Age: 68
Posts: 194
I remember deploying with 2 Lightnings to Yeovilton during the FI work up. We flew against Cdr Ward. He got spanked and in debrief he said something on the lines of " You 2 have obviously flown a lot together", in fact it was the first time.
A brave aviator, but IMOP much of his book was opinionated nonsense.
MACH2NUMBER is offline  
Old 24th May 2016, 01:39
  #55 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Argentina
Age: 44
Posts: 68
Don't want to hijack the thread, but the Nimrod crews have my admiration.

Anyone recognizes this?

Marcantilan is offline  
Old 24th May 2016, 13:57
  #56 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Home
Posts: 3,399
This may be the strangest thread drift on PPRuNe for a while.

A solid Nimrodder slagging off their contribution to the Falkland conflict and everybody who was not a Nimrodder refusing to believe him?!?

Personally I have no knowledge whatsoever either way.
Tourist is offline  
Old 24th May 2016, 15:21
  #57 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Swindonshire
Posts: 1,937
I'm prepared to believe him - at worst it's a valid perspective so far unchallenged by his colleagues from the time; my point (which seems to have started it. Sorry...) was purely about how far away they got from ASI.

But you're right - it's the most peculiar thread drift we've seen for quite a long time.
Archimedes is offline  

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information

Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.