Another rant from the Bearded One
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: In the State of Denial
Posts: 1,077
Likes: 0
Received 146 Likes
on
28 Posts
Like it or not, the message is clear. If you want to be CAS or shoot down enemy aircraft in aerial combat, deploy to hot spots with the Royal Navy’s Fleet Air Arm. 
To be fair the FI campaign really was very much a Navy/Army affair. The Navy remember were the people who convinced Thatcher the islands could be retaken and then more or less isolated them and managed to get the troops onshore. Once the troops were there ashore it wasn't going to end well for the Argentinians. The RAF weren't that involved in most of the critical actions although bombing Stanley early did keep the Argies from using it for fast jets.
but then there have been other campaigns where the RAF have led the way - such as in the Middle East and the Navy have been doing logistics. That's why you have all three armed services.................
but then there have been other campaigns where the RAF have led the way - such as in the Middle East and the Navy have been doing logistics. That's why you have all three armed services.................
Islandlad,
...it all adds up to the RAF playing a significantly larger part in 1982 than the RN played in GW1 and GW2. The latter, frankly, was a farce, as a force of small ships and elderly wheezing helicopters were deployed purely in order to be seen to be there, at great cost - followed by airbrushing the RAF's role out of any part they could….
...it all adds up to the RAF playing a significantly larger part in 1982 than the RN played in GW1 and GW2. The latter, frankly, was a farce, as a force of small ships and elderly wheezing helicopters were deployed purely in order to be seen to be there, at great cost - followed by airbrushing the RAF's role out of any part they could….
Which navy was uniquely able and willing to take the lead in clearing the 1,300 mines laid by the Iraqis in the NPG during GW1 and open up the port of Umm Qasr for the seaborne delivery of humanitarian aid in GW2?
As you seem unaware, I’ll tell you. It was the ‘farcical’ Royal Navy in each of these cases.
FODPlod - re Atlantic Conveyor and the lost 3 of 4 Chinooks and 5 of 6 Wessexes etc. I think it depends on your point of view. You pays your money etc.
Following the "Handbrake" broadcast from Exeter there was lots of chaff in the air and having been decoyed by Ambuscade's the missiles acquired AC which had no defensive measures or point defence armament other than machine guns. So it could be down to lack of defensive fit.
If Hermes had still had a catapult she could have carried Gannets so the threat would have been detected earlier and disposed of by SHAR. So it could be down to lack of AEW. (My particular belief)
Later on SHAR 2 with AMRAAM could have possibly taken out the missile. So perhaps inadequate contemporary AAM fit. (I'm assuming there would have been a standing patrol if such a fit was available)
I assume there was no intelligence on the departure of the Etendards from Rio Grande. The routing using AAR to approach from roughly north-west seems to have come as big surprise. So perhaps lack of adequate intelligence and threat perception led to the AC being in a vulnerable position and the asset, Brilliant, that had a system designed to take out similar ASMs not positioned on the correct threat axis and Coventry was no longer afloat to be the forward picket north of the FIs.
A general observation is that the bulk of the SAM fit of the fleet was obsolescent (Sea Dart (except perhaps on Exeter)) or obsolete (Sea Cat and Sea Slug).
I think "a deplorable lack of air cover" is excessively harsh. With adequate warning SHAR would probably have eliminated the threat or caused the COAN/CANA pilots to abort. (On reflection I may have taken your comment too seriously
)
Apologies for the thread drift.
Regarding GWs1&2 my view is given the limitations of size and available equipment both the RAF and RN performed their assigned roles to the high standard one would expect
Following the "Handbrake" broadcast from Exeter there was lots of chaff in the air and having been decoyed by Ambuscade's the missiles acquired AC which had no defensive measures or point defence armament other than machine guns. So it could be down to lack of defensive fit.
If Hermes had still had a catapult she could have carried Gannets so the threat would have been detected earlier and disposed of by SHAR. So it could be down to lack of AEW. (My particular belief)
Later on SHAR 2 with AMRAAM could have possibly taken out the missile. So perhaps inadequate contemporary AAM fit. (I'm assuming there would have been a standing patrol if such a fit was available)
I assume there was no intelligence on the departure of the Etendards from Rio Grande. The routing using AAR to approach from roughly north-west seems to have come as big surprise. So perhaps lack of adequate intelligence and threat perception led to the AC being in a vulnerable position and the asset, Brilliant, that had a system designed to take out similar ASMs not positioned on the correct threat axis and Coventry was no longer afloat to be the forward picket north of the FIs.
A general observation is that the bulk of the SAM fit of the fleet was obsolescent (Sea Dart (except perhaps on Exeter)) or obsolete (Sea Cat and Sea Slug).
I think "a deplorable lack of air cover" is excessively harsh. With adequate warning SHAR would probably have eliminated the threat or caused the COAN/CANA pilots to abort. (On reflection I may have taken your comment too seriously
)Apologies for the thread drift.
Regarding GWs1&2 my view is given the limitations of size and available equipment both the RAF and RN performed their assigned roles to the high standard one would expect
Last edited by SLXOwft; 18th Aug 2020 at 16:02. Reason: grammar
To be fair the FI campaign really was very much a Navy/Army affair. The Navy remember were the people who convinced Thatcher the islands could be retaken and then more or less isolated them and managed to get the troops onshore. Once the troops were there ashore it wasn't going to end well for the Argentinians. The RAF weren't that involved in most of the critical actions although bombing Stanley early did keep the Argies from using it for fast jets.
but then there have been other campaigns where the RAF have led the way - such as in the Middle East and the Navy have been doing logistics. That's why you have all three armed services.................
but then there have been other campaigns where the RAF have led the way - such as in the Middle East and the Navy have been doing logistics. That's why you have all three armed services.................
Asturias - you are not the first in underestimating the contribution of 1(F).
Or the Victor Force doing long-range MRR so the fleet could have surface picture under EMCON.
Or the Hercules Force providing airdrop to the fleet of both stores and troops (and very nearly a gutsy raid on the mainland).
Or the Nimrod R1 providing ELINT and COMINT.
Or the Nimrod MR2 proving surface and sub-surface capability, both for the fleet and providing a problem up and down the Argentinean mainland.
Or the Victor Force providing AAR for all the above.
Or the SH force sailing south only to loose all-but-one aircraft to an Exocet.
... and so it goes on.
The Maritime component was the indeed the 'supported command' but it would be unwise to forget the 'supporting commands'. Nor should we forget the inviduals who volunteered from the RAF to support the RN directly, often with the briefest conversion to type and/or role. Remarkable courage.
Or the Hercules Force providing airdrop to the fleet of both stores and troops (and very nearly a gutsy raid on the mainland).
Or the Nimrod R1 providing ELINT and COMINT.
Or the Nimrod MR2 proving surface and sub-surface capability, both for the fleet and providing a problem up and down the Argentinean mainland.
Or the Victor Force providing AAR for all the above.
Or the SH force sailing south only to loose all-but-one aircraft to an Exocet.
... and so it goes on.
The Maritime component was the indeed the 'supported command' but it would be unwise to forget the 'supporting commands'. Nor should we forget the inviduals who volunteered from the RAF to support the RN directly, often with the briefest conversion to type and/or role. Remarkable courage.
JTO - to me the Victor "virtual SR.2" flights, especially to South Georgia and the very long ferry flights in single-seat single-engined Harriers are remarkable and remarkably unsung feats of airmanship.
However, without wishing to be seen as Sharkey in disguise, I do feel that the feats of the crew(s) of ZA718 have greatly overshadowed the RW efforts of the CHF, 3CBAS, the AAC and the FAA ASW in the popular imagination (flown by pilots of whichever service) except perhaps the Bluff Cove rescuers.
Addenda:
1) My reference to 1(F) was to their direct support of the land campaign which seemed pertinent to Asturias's post.
2) Regarding the Argentinian AN/TPS-43 my understanding was that (apart from the spoof sites) the risk of civilian casualties was deemed to high for an air attack. I assume a ground forces attack was deemed impractical/suicidal. However, I read somewhere of GR3s being "hastily wired" to take Shrikes - can any of those PPruners directly involved enlighten us to how seriously this was taken?
However, without wishing to be seen as Sharkey in disguise, I do feel that the feats of the crew(s) of ZA718 have greatly overshadowed the RW efforts of the CHF, 3CBAS, the AAC and the FAA ASW in the popular imagination (flown by pilots of whichever service) except perhaps the Bluff Cove rescuers.
Addenda:
1) My reference to 1(F) was to their direct support of the land campaign which seemed pertinent to Asturias's post.
2) Regarding the Argentinian AN/TPS-43 my understanding was that (apart from the spoof sites) the risk of civilian casualties was deemed to high for an air attack. I assume a ground forces attack was deemed impractical/suicidal. However, I read somewhere of GR3s being "hastily wired" to take Shrikes - can any of those PPruners directly involved enlighten us to how seriously this was taken?
Last edited by SLXOwft; 18th Aug 2020 at 19:02. Reason: Addenda
"although bombing Stanley early did keep the Argies from using it for fast jets."
No it did not! The runway was too short for fast jets.................also not one bomb hit it!!
No it did not! The runway was too short for fast jets.................also not one bomb hit it!!
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Well, Lincolnshire
Age: 69
Posts: 1,101
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"although bombing Stanley early did keep the Argies from using it for fast jets."
No it did not! The runway was too short for fast jets.................also not one bomb hit it!!
Well.........There is photographic proof that one bomb, may have had some, perhaps, accidental meeting with the runway surface. To look at it another way, what would be the point in totally destroying a runway that one could possibly use at a later date? One bomb, well or accidentally placed, perhaps gave the opposition a 'Think Again' moment thus preventing FJ ops from Stanley. Even though the opposition were well atuned to using RHAGS and other Arrestor Gear. Either way, to be at the receiving end of a stick of 'big bangs' must have concentrated the opposition's minds somewhat.
No it did not! The runway was too short for fast jets.................also not one bomb hit it!!
Well.........There is photographic proof that one bomb, may have had some, perhaps, accidental meeting with the runway surface. To look at it another way, what would be the point in totally destroying a runway that one could possibly use at a later date? One bomb, well or accidentally placed, perhaps gave the opposition a 'Think Again' moment thus preventing FJ ops from Stanley. Even though the opposition were well atuned to using RHAGS and other Arrestor Gear. Either way, to be at the receiving end of a stick of 'big bangs' must have concentrated the opposition's minds somewhat.
Next time you are driving through town have a passenger with an egg. As you cross an intersection at normal town speed tell him to plant it on a white stop line as you pass it.
Join Date: May 2017
Location: UK
Posts: 76
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Having operated from Stanley's runway in the last year... The filled in craters are still visible. The closest struck on the side of the runway, a spot now used for engine checks etc by the resident FIGAS Islander fleet, but outside the bounds of the current licensed runway. It felt more than a little poignant to taxi onto the crater site and stop for final pre-flight preparations. Locals are still happy that one of the raids demolished a building they'd wanted rid of for a while!
Surely, as frequently cited, the main aim of BB was to prove the capability?
Surely, as frequently cited, the main aim of BB was to prove the capability?
Couple of uncles on my old mans side served with the FAA during the Falklands, embarked both Invincible and Hermès. Anyhow regarding Desert Shield / Storm we didn’t reply any 9f the Invincible class with SHAR. Only offensive capability and good one was Lynx with Sea Skua scoring hits (I’ve got a copy of Weapons Free written by former SAS/MAS/PAS chief pilot about his adventures from recruiting office to the Arabian Gulf), Junglie Commando (including newly established Sqn) and maybe 3 BAS were around (?) .
What was the decision not to send Sharkey‘s old mob into Desert Storm was it one of the carriers under maintenance and other two different
parts often globe? I’m just chucking stuff into the wind here..
Post Storm, it was Op Provide Comfort and hardly finished cleaning thr desert sand off the Junglie Commandos of desert paint then they and 3 BAs got dispatched on Argus to protect the Kurds...
cheers
What was the decision not to send Sharkey‘s old mob into Desert Storm was it one of the carriers under maintenance and other two different
parts often globe? I’m just chucking stuff into the wind here..
Post Storm, it was Op Provide Comfort and hardly finished cleaning thr desert sand off the Junglie Commandos of desert paint then they and 3 BAs got dispatched on Argus to protect the Kurds...
cheers
I suggest that you read this book, fascinating.
https://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/...?ie=UTF8&psc=1
https://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/...?ie=UTF8&psc=1
YES the RAF made a contribution but it wasn't anywhere near as critical as the other two services in this war - other wars have been very different
BB meant that the Argentinean AF ops based in the islands were severely restricted - after all they had had enough time extend the runway if they'd got their act together
The closest struck on the side of the runway, a spot now used for engine checks etc by the resident FIGAS Islander fleet, but outside the bounds of the current licensed runway.
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 1,136
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Fascinating thread.
To summarise - we all accept the Sharkey is ‘right if arc’ in his bitterness towards another service but it seems he is not alone in his readiness to criticise others based purely on the hue of their uniform. Anyone who has contributed such a view is the same as Sharkey - just a different shade of grey.
To summarise - we all accept the Sharkey is ‘right if arc’ in his bitterness towards another service but it seems he is not alone in his readiness to criticise others based purely on the hue of their uniform. Anyone who has contributed such a view is the same as Sharkey - just a different shade of grey.
So the next paper to be released by this team of charlatans will posit that Black Buck 5 did not temporarily suppress the TPS 43 by damaging its waveguide assembly and fracturing the cable that connected the antenna to the Ops caravan. Or that Black Buck 6 did not completely destroy a Skyguard radar unit resulting in 4 enemy fatalities.
Whether the bomb hit the runway (or not), it showed the Argentinian government that we had the capability to strike them anywhere, anytime.
Anything else just an inter-service pi**ing contest.