Nimrod recce of Argentine coast 1982
 

Did the much heraled recce flight along the length argentine coast actually happen. It seems that in FAA circles this event did not happen as advertised. Sharkey Ward seems pretty adamant that the Nimrod never got closer than 500 miles. I'm sure the answer is somewhere between the two. Hopefully someone can shed more light on this?

Falklands - The Air War:

MR.2P - XV232:

"On 15th May it took-off at 0805Z with Flt Lt Cowan and 201 Sqn Crew 7 (AARI Sqn Ldr Rudin & Wg Cdr Emmerson aboard) for a long range reconnaissance mission which lasted 19hrs 5mins, extensive cloud cover having prevented the use of satellite derived information.

The Nimrod was flown south to a point 150 miles north of Stanley and then west until approximately 60 miles of the Argentine coast. XV232 then tracked north-east at between 7,000ft and 12,000ft parallel with the coast and it's Searchwater radar was used to survey a strip 400 miles wide and 1,000 miles long, confirming that all Argentine warships were still fully blockaded in port by the threat of British nuclear-powered submarines. It was a fine day and the aircraft was vulnerable during some segments of that flight, but XV232 was successfully recovered to Wideawake without incident after a total of three AARs and having travelled 8,300 miles.

Similar extended range reconnaissance flights were tasked regularly during the next few days, culminating in the second record breaking flight by XV232 during the night of 20/21 May just prior to the landings at San Carlos. Flt Lt Ford and 206 Sqn Crew 5 (AARI Sqn Ldr Wingate & Wg Cdr Emmerson aboard again) departed Wideawake at 1715Z in the aircraft and followed a similar course to the one that had been flown on 15 May".......

If you believe all that Sharkey wrote in his book, you would believe that the Fleet Air Arm won the Falklands war with no assisstance from the RAF. If fact, I think the RAF were fighting on the side of the Argentines - according to him! I may be wrong as I had to put the book down before I got half way through.

If you believed everything in Cdr Ward's Book, everyone bar his own 801 Sqn were fighting for the Argentines, let alone just the RAF! He was particularly critical of the other SHAR unit, 800 NAS on Invincible, and its commanding officer Lt Cdr Andy Auld.

I know several of the aircrew involved in the Nimrod sorties down the Argentine coast from their subsequent AWACS postings. They recall seeing the lights of Buenos Aries and on one occasion having to retrograde from a Mirage III.

Possibly more interesting however were RAF and RN ops from more unusual locations! It'll be interesting if such aspects of Corporate become public in 2013 when the 1982 govt papers are released.

Regards,
M2

"Apparently" on board Endurance around late 81/early 82 was a young RAF photographer along for the wildlife and occasional grip'n'grins with the Capt.
Around late March, with the atmosphere turning distinctly murky in the South Atlantic, said photog was one of those shipped home.
Endurance returned to Stanley, from where our unlikely 007 (ooh, did I say that?) boarded a flight for the UK, which at the time went via a military/civvy airfield on the eastern Argie coast.
Now, being an eager aviation-orientated snapper, this chap took photos everywhere, more so if aircraft were around and at that Argie airfield there were lots.
Sprog returns to UK for a thorough pumping from the Int people who are also overjoyed that he took plenty of holiday snaps during the 24 hour stop-over.
In the blurry background of innocent looking pictures of shiny fixed wing holiday jets on the Argie mainland, were rows and rows of crates...later indentified as Ex:mad:ets in transit, thus confirming their existence in the Argie inventory.

:ok:

Talking Radalt

The crates were presumably clearly labelled 'Made in France' or 'Fabrique en France' or something like that. Is it any surprise I won't touch their wine!

the alledged activities of Black comets in chile has already been in the public domain since the Late 80's I read about it in the part work 'warplane'.

BTW is canberra air to air refuelable?


I would say in 2013 alot of the files will be distinctly empty having been weeded.

BTW is canberra air to air refuelable?

No.

"BTW is canberra air to air refuelable?"

Well, no, not strictly speaking. But it is my understanding that plans to fit PR9s with a probe for Corporate (to allow them to operate from Ascension and, if memory serves, South Africa) reached a VERY advanced stage, with full engineering drawings etc. and a robust conversion programme planned. In the event an 'alternative' solution was found for that op.

I believe that the drawings were dusted off more recently, not in order to extend PR9 range, but to allow two equivalent sorties (in terms of film footage/tape/targets) to be flown on one pressurisation cycle.

Pressurisation cycles are, I believe, a limiting factor in how long the PR9s can last. What a shame more aircraft were not kept in store when 39 down-sized to Flight strength (as 1 PRU) after Corporate....... Instead three went to Chile (back to Chile?) and several were scrapped.

At least one Canberra was AR (or is it AAR again?) capable. FRL used to do trials (dry only, I think) with a B2(?), but I think that it's now long since retired!

To think that once the RAF had 45 PR9s......and the last was built over 42 years ago.

it is a shame that canberra will soon disappear.
whilst traveling on the train from Belfast to bangor one afternoon i wittness a canberra doing a low pass over Belfast harbour air port very impressive.

There were rumours at the time that 5 or 6 RAF Canberra PR.9s were painted in Chilean AF colours and operated from Punta Arenas. Another rumour was of RAF Hercs in Chilean markings. :suspect:

In 1954/55, a Canberra was the first British jet to be fitted with AAR equipment as a tanker. This was B.2 WH734 on loan to FLR by MoS. With a hose drum unit fitted in the bomb bay, initial trials were carried out with a Meteor F8 as the receiver. WH734 later had a nose probe fitted to test a "buddy-buddy" AAR system with another Canberra, WK143. This Canberra trialed a pod-fitted HDU as well as one in the bomb bay. Both aircraft were eventually converted to TT.18 target tug configuration. :{:mad:

Shame the trials were discontinued though as the Canberras would have made an excellent tactical tanker and the RAF/MoD could have then used all those redundant B.2 airframes that were then becoming available. :{ :{

Think the 'probed' FRL B2s may have had non-functional probes, being used for 'dry' prods only.

The Canberras at Punta Arenas during Corporate were seen by a UK journo (Jon Snow if memory serves) who was familiar with the type from reporting on South Africa and Rhodesia. The Herc was 'spotted' according to legend because, though it wore full Chilean markings, someone had mis-spelt the air force's name as 'Fuerza Area Chile' instead of 'Fuerza Aerea Chile'....

So far, however, I haven't seen sufficient evidence to prove the stories of RAF aircraft (whether Nimrod R, Canberra PR or C-130) in Chile are any more than rumour or wishful thinking.

Instead three went to Chile (back to Chile?) and several were scrapped.

The three PR.9s that went to Chile in late 1982 were three airframes that had been in store at St Athan since the disbanding of 39 Sqn in May that year. They were XH166, XH167 ans XH173. It's said they were in "payment" for services rendered during the Falklands trouble.

:ok:

Jacko

WK143's probe could have been dry, but WH734 conducted trials as a "receiver" from WK143.

St Athan, where no-one sighted them, or Punta Arenas, where Jon Snow (?, who didn't log the serials) and a Chilean spotter supposedly did....?

Beags - I think the B-something-or-other [probably a hybrid] belonged to Boscombe. In Gib, whilst on a T17 det, a Canberra arrived fitted with a refuelling probe. Needless to say, it caused quite a stir! Anyway, a Gp Capt appeared in our det office and asked some very pertinent handling questions. I took him round the T17 and discussed flying the jet. Turns out he was head tp and was due to fly the Boscombe Canberra later, to/from Gib, never having flown a Canberra before...!

I got a guided tour of this wierd machine. It had probe mounted just forward of the canopy on the centreline and a single pressure fuel tank (normal Canberra tanks were not capable of taking flight refuelling fuel pressure); it had previously been used for AAR trials [don't know the details].

Anyway, said Gp capt did do a CT sortie in/out of Gib without incident!

Jacko

St Athan, where no-one sighted them, or Punta Arenas, where Jon Snow (?, who didn't log the serials) and a Chilean spotter supposedly did....?

Yup, that's where the three airframes were in storage since May 82. They were moved to Wyton where, after a brief conversion course for the Fuerza Aerea de Chile crews (supervised by 39 Sqn aircrews), they were flown out, in company with a Chliean Boeing 707, on 15 October 1982.

If Jon Snow didn't log the serials ask him why he missed them. As for your Chilean spotter. . ., well. . . . :hmm:

Ostensibly the 9s were to enhance the Chiliean PR capability along their border with Argentina. One of the three was lost on 24 May 1983. As far as I can make out the other two are still flying.

:ok:

Certainly there were some interesting operations in and around South America in the first half of 1982. Unfortunately, you'll have to wait until 2012 to find out what they were....:p

As always, the truth is somewhere between the reported facts and the fanciful rumours.....:suspect:

Your gen is duff, Beeayeate.

The two surviving Chilean Canberra PR9s haven't flown for years and both now belong to the Air Force museum. One has now been refurbished but the other lacks a tailfin and other parts.

I suspect that you won't be able to find hard evidence placing those Canberras at St Athan until after the war was over.....

Jacko
Your gen is duff, Beeayeate.

OK, it's a fair cop Jacko on that score. Completely forgot about the info my own website - senior moment there. :\ No excuses but I was basing my supposition on a mail I had some time back from a Chilean enthusiast. This was not written in English and the babblefish translation seemed to say the two were airworthy now. Obviously not so reading from your gen.

343
and
341

I suspect that you won't be able to find hard evidence placing those Canberras at St Athan until after the war was over.....

Don't understand what you're getting at here as that's what I said. :confused: I wrote that the three 9s were in storage at St Athan from May 1982 after coming off charge of 39 Sqn on its disbanding. Surely this means that they were at St Athan after the war was over. Didn't say that they were involved in ops during the war, did you think I did? If, however, you know different I'd be pleased to hear your gen. :D

I'm rather tempted to fill in a few missing pieces from this jigsaw, as I was heavily involved in the subject being discussed.

But I have a feeling that this info is not in the public domain and won't be until 2012, if at all. Although nowadays some people are arranging the book deals on their resettlement, and I'm amazed that these details haven't come out.

And I feel that Jacko knows exactly what occured, but is doing a bit of fishing to get us to bite.

So, why have I posted? Just to let you know that I'm watching with interest!

You're half right. I am fishing.

But I do not know exactly what happened at all, and haven't spoken to anyone reliable enough to lift it from the 'fascinating rumour supported by circumstantial evidence' category.

I do think that there was probably a plan to use Canberra PR9s from Chile, but don't have the faintest as to whether it actually happened or not. But I do also think that some of the PR9s were somewhere other than where the official line suggests. Those not at Wyton weren't sitting at St Athan, but could have been at Boscombe flying in support of some UOR, or could have been in Norway, Honkers, or any of their other regular haunts.

But after 21 years, I think that if it had happened, we would have heard something a tad more solid.....

Unless you know different! ;)

Please guys, let's be very careful here. Let's not make too many statements or speculate about aspects of the Falklands war that were classified and still are. It won't do anyone any favours and could get this post pulled by Danny. There is much of interest going on here without going too far...

Come on chaps,I think you've strayed off the point a bit and are letting that total J Arthur W****r............. Ward, off the hook.I find his comments offensive and appear to be made to satisfy his ego.


Perhaps he hasn't heard of his Naval comrades attempt to shoot down a V****r with a couple of S** D***s on one of those MR missions.


Never met the guy but I can imagine what he's like.:mad:

We're talking about the Falklands. 22 years ago. That's ancient history, and in view of the changed circumstances, that war represents a great case for an end to the blanket 30 year rule and for a proper Freedom of Information act.

There is no possible military reason for secrecy after this amount of time. It's like forbidding discussion of WWII SOE ops in 1966...... It happened but it was ludicrous, kneejerk secrecy run mad.

Mmmm. . . don't want to get caught up in one of Jacko's things so I'll fade. :hmm:

Just want to say, the info I posted came from not only a couple of books (same story in each) but also a few conversations with blokes in the Canberra Assoc. ;)

Finally, find myself in agreement with Jacko though. The fact of the three 9s is well known, and has been for at least 20 years, even though detail may still be blurred. Can't see the need for secrecy now except, maybe, for political reasons. :\

Beeayeate - the reaason for the secrecy is as it ever was, and ever will be, i.e. to protect the guilty!
This from one who spent the happiest three years of my 22 in uniform with 13(PR) Sqn. in Malta.

Kind regards,

TheNightOwl.:ok:

And I thought that this was a thread about 'the Mighty Hunter'.

Never mind.:confused:

Impiger
The French were created by God (deference to F18 Flower) for the express purpose of making wine for our delictation. Glad you're not drinking it; there's more for us.
This thread seems to have meandered off track, did the crabs take piccies of the Argie coast or not.
FEBA

Farefield
Don't ever join the secret service :cool:
Why don't you give us the low down on Sharkey, I reckon you're well acquainted with him :ok:
FEBA

Nimrod recce
 

I'm not surprised that no one has jumped in to say to confirm this incident, because I have seen no independant confirmation to say that it ever happened.

1. Did the RAF fly maritime patrol sorties in the area of the falklands task force? Yes. Adm Woodward made comments to this effect. He also said that the reports they provided were very poor. More often than not the wrong target was identified or misreported. Woodward gave the RAF a rocket over this and they went into a sulk.

2. Did they fly along the length of the Argentine coast 160miles out, dodging Mirages on the way to sanitise the ocean between Argentina and the falklands task force? There is no evidence outside of RAF folklore to support this. This not to say it didn't happen but given that the RAF was so keen to promote everything else it did in the Falklands, why stay so reticent about this? They could have awarded the crew the DSC!

The Falklands campaign in general revealed in many ways how little each of the Services knew about the others' operational techniques and capabilities at the time, and this generated false expectations and much bad feeling - as is shown in Sharky's book and Navaleye's post above. I was witness to one contretemps between the task force and a Nimrod that was entirely caused by different interpretations of the rules applying to aircraft within the task force zone. Before you leap on the Nimrod crew, their interpretation had been provided by the Senior Naval Officer's staff in Ascension....

It's easily done!

Anyway, there was a lot of activity away from the immediate Falklands area, but of direct relevence to the war, carried out by many agencies - including the RAF. The value of those activities is debatable, especially as (I would guess) the results never reached the intended recipients a lot of the time! As, I would imagine, the revelation of those activities could cause serious embarrassment to UK and foreign politicians of the day, it's likely that they will remain secret until 2012 - or later!

Navaleye,

"........no evidence outside of RAF folklore".........

Apart from ORAC's post on page 1 of this thread, taken from the best researched book on that war, and which gives you dates, aircraft serials, crew names and brief details of the missions which you'd prefer to think didn't happen.

But to make you happy, No.1 Squadron didn't take any GR3s down there, there were no nasty light blue folks flying SHARs, every Vulcan mission was a waste of time, and that Chinook (Bravo November) did nothing worthwhile. Furthermore the Paras achieved nothing (cos they were all poofs) and only the Royal Navy and Royal Marines did anything remotely worthy of credit in the Falklands.

Get over it.

Carry-On in the Falklands
 

I suugest that folks intrerested in following this thread read Nigel West's book Secret War in the Falklands. It goes into considerable detail about the shenanigans in the air (and sea). Nigel West's books are generally very accurate; anyway they make a good read.

Don't bother looking in my local library for a copy ... I still have it out. Must return it sometime.

Nigel West book
 

Yes, thanks I have it but haven't read it for sometime. I vaguely recall a court case where Mr West's character and reputation for accurate reporting was taken to pieces by a senior judge. I have taken his work with a pinch of salt since then. That said. he does have access to some folks at the centre of events at the time.

Jacko,

I'm very grateful to Orac for his post and published source. I have other equally well researched books on the subject that report events differently. The Fog of War creeps in everywhere. As a journalist, I'm surprised that you confuse my desire to get at the facts with single service bias. I have no axe to grind. I have never met Sharkey Ward, but his book does provide very good material for any student of the subject. After all, he was there and you and I were not.

BTW, I would be interested in hearing others views on the best books on the subject. Ethell and Price scores very highly IMHO for detailed research not long after the event.

In the last month have read Adm Woodward's book (100 days), Amphibious Assault Falklands by Mike Clapp and No Picnic by Julian Thompson. I'm still struggling with the last one (you can tell its been written by a soldier) but you could be forgiven for think that these guys were taking part in different wars. This is why I am reluctant to take any one source as gospel.

Because Dr Alf and Jeff Ethell produced their book in double-quick time, and because they worked alone, the book has strengths and weaknesses. They did an excellent job at going around and hoovering up interviews with aircrew, and as a result their (relatively slender) book was high on first hand accounts and incisive analysis from the perspective of those who fought, though it lacks the mind-numbing and tedious attention to detail of the Falklands - The Air War book, which had five named co-authors, tens of 'helpers' and which took four years to produce. It was also a 'labour of love' rather than a commercial proposition. As a result the 480 pages are so denseley packed as to be almost unreadable, but the book is a superb reference source, more detailed and better researched than the Price/Ethell volume.

The Ethell/Price book also gives much the same details of the Nimrod sorties as did ORAC. I refer you to pages 93-94.

With regard to the 'events' in Chile, West says little more than the earlier Duncan Campbell piece in New Statesman which first revealed the use of the Canberra PR9. He did refer to there being only three PR9s in Chile during the war (this may be an assumption based on the number provided to the Chileans post-war but I don't think earlier articles gave a number) and he did refer to the two RAF Hercules deployed as having been deployed for 'Sigint' purposes - which is also different to other sources, which assumed they were specifically deployed for Operation Mikado.

One of the few souvenirs my father brought back from the Falklands (losing your ship depletes your collection) was a photocopy of a glossy little leaflet the RAF had kindly sent to some of the ships, with nice piccies of the aircraft types and text on what each was up to in the war.

It had been re-titled by some navy wag as 'Laff alonga Raff' and widely viewed as a hilarious work of fiction akin to a child's short story, which indicated at least how inter-service rivalries were a thin veil for some real discontent about how the operation hung together.

Falklands air war
 

Jacko (or anyone),

have you had a chance to read Falklands Air War Chris Hobson, Andrew Noble? This came out a year or two ago but I haven't a chance to read it yet. Does it contain any new information?

Navaleyes,

What you have learned is one of the basic lessons of historical document analysis. It is essential when looking at any “account” of any event to look deeper than just the words on the page. You need to understand the author, the period in which the document is written and the intended audience. All of these have an effect on the “truth” as it is written. This explains why over all the texts you have read you are seeing such a disparate “recollection”. A further problematic issue is the reader of any given document. It is exceptionally difficult to divest oneself of any preconceived notions. We all have them; anyone who says they do not is a liar. It is a simple part of the human psychological make-up.

What does this all mean? Simply put take everything with a pinch of salt and you will not go too far wrong. So far each of the accounts you have read from those who were there has had an agenda.

Cheers

BHR