Query on Vulcan/Falklands War?
 

Question for you guys, I understand a book has been published about the Vulcan attack on the runway in the Falklands during the war. Can anyone advise author and title please?

Roland White, Vulcan 607 (Bantam Press)

Subject of a thread hereabouts a while ago.

I have also ordered "Island Base" its taking 6 weeks to arrive! Capn Bob's thoughts should make an interesting read.

Horrendous Flak over the target....searchlights...intense fighter attacks on the way in and out from the target....did they even hit the runway by chance?:E

An article on another bombing mission...for perspective.

http://www.afa.org/magazine/Nov1997/1197lineback.asp

1. Fight smart, not hard.
2. Hit the runway, argentinian fast jets forced to operate at the limits of their endurance for the remainder of the conflict - mission accomplished.
3. We won our war in less than three months, including the time it took to get there- how did you guys get on? You had ten years so I'm sure it was an even bigger victory. :E

SASLess, never mind the irony, thanks for the link, I have been trying to get that info before.

Wash,

No disrespect meant....but after months of reading about the "great contribution" the Vulcan provided during the Falklands....I felt a bit of "perspective" would be useful.

As to Vietnam, imagine if we had done the B-52 thing from Day 1....and not pissed about with LBJ's message sending. If one thinks about it....we bombed our allies and never invaded the north...which seems an ass backwards way of fighting a war.


Pontius,

Having seen some B-52 strikes from way too close....they are in all correct usage of the word simply "awesome". To imagine 80+ of the things raining down bombs on the same target simply begs the imagination. In those days, they could carry up to 80,000 pounds of bombs each.

Or in other words the same bomb load as four Lancasters or twenty B17s

Absolutely! That's of course, assuming either of those birds was doing it at 400+kts at 30,000 ft..............

...and shooting down Mig 21's while dodging flocks of SAM's.:ok:

B-52D with Big-Belly mod carried 84 x 500lbs or 42 x 750lbs internal. External pods carried another 24 of either. Max load, therefore, 42K + 16K = 58K. Not sure if it was rounded up or bullets ´n chaff, but max weapon load was 60K.

The B-36 had a max bomb load of 84,000 lb..........

Come on thats like comparing the Spit with a camel.

The B52 is the most capable and awesome High altitude heavy bomber in the world, but it was designed long after the B-17 and the Lanc.

I'm sure that if designers were requested to that they could now design something ridiculous that would carry 160,000lbs of ordnance.

The same as the Victor but not as fast.

If you put dates on those 4 aircraft, you'll find the gaps between them aren't as big as you might think at first. The real difference in capability and aspiration was the jet engine.

...........One last time - the RAF DID NOT MISS THE RUNWAY.

Could've done better - but they didn't miss it:ok:


http://i21.photobucket.com/albums/b2...as/STANLEY.jpg

Bet the sheep in the ajoining field were terrified.

Skunk: I'll have you know they took great care to protect the civilian population!

My eyesight is not what it used to be....but do I see just the one single hit on the runway?

Sasless, your using too much chum.

Mike,

Looking at the bomb string on the earlier map....I would think a precision bombing attack would have straddled the runway about midpoint in the string vice only at one end or am I missing the point vice the bomb dropper?

Nice string of bombs at the West end of the runway in this photo.




http://www.raf.mod.uk/falklands/images/cas039.jpg

Ladies, ladies, please, can't we all just get along?

Good professional airmanship to accomplish the missions as complicated as they were. It is a strategic shame that the Vulcan was not replaced. It was a great bit of 'getting the job done' to get the refueling sets back on and carrying out the mission.

My admiration for the RAF remains for its ability to get the most out of not much (quantity is what I mean in most cases, not quality, but there is some of that as well), and the big picture of keeping the Mirages close to home vs messing with the task force did pay dividends.

What can you bring to the table now? BTW, the USAF is drawing down by 40,000 + over the next couple of years with more cuts projected beyond that.

Soon, we will be in not much better shape than the RAF and then what? Will we have the ability to stand up to China in the coming decades? Stay tuned...........

SASless, read the book.

And anyway:

1. They hit the target.
2. They achieved their strategic objective.
3. It was a hell of a feat - for all involved, not only the Vulcan crew.
4. It stands alone as such, regardless of others' feats on other occasions and in other conflicts and Services.

Indeed so, the book (which I've just read, and which is excellent :ok: ) states that there was a deliberate plan to drop the bombs at an angle of about 35 degrees to the runway orientation. That was clearly achieved from the graphics shown here.

The thinking was that this would ensure that at least one or two bombs would actually hit the runway (as opposed to a run straight along it, where there was more chance all 20-odd could miss the 45 yard wide runway to one side or the other).

When I last visited the Islands (6 years ago now), there were still plenty of big crater-like holes around the Western end of the airfield - that was 18 years after Black Buck.

That's absolutely right. I was at HQSTC at the time the attack was planned. An angled attack is statistically calculated to give the optimum chance of cutting the runway by getting 'at least one bomb' on target.

Am I wrong to assume the preferred placement of the bomb string is then centered upon the runway centerline with the concept being maximum chance to get a hit even if bombs released early or late?

SASLess you are quite right but don't overlook one crucial thing that a strategic bomber needed in the Cold War; accurate mapping. Accurate mapping tended to be produced for areas where accurate mapping was needed, like down town Moscow.

I don't know the available detail at the time but would be surprised if it fell well short of European standards. In the 70s, which is what we are talking about mapping-wize, the map accuracy was often less than 400 yards.

Conducting a radar attack on a no-show target depends on the accurate measurement of distance from an offset aiming point. The purpose of stick-bombing is to reduce the effect of one element of map and system induced errors; it worked.

Had we used a B52 we would have decimated the population and maybe killed a number of civilians too.

I see what you're getting at SASless however, the profile you are talking about would not have been possible with the nav kit the Vulcan was carrying on Black Buck.

The navigational inaccuracies that were part and parcel with the nav kit carried on the Vulcan & was quite a handicap. Bearing this in mind, the crew did well to find the Island, never mind the airfield!

Attacking with the 35 degree profile allowed for a greater degree of error on the bomb aimers part. This is in contrast to the 'down the centre line' approach, which would have only allowed an error in aiming equating to half of the width of the runway.

Having read Sharkey Wards book 'Sea Harrier over the Falklands' a few years ago, I seem to remember that he reckoned that four SHARs could have hit the runway far more effectively. Is this true or was it just sour grapes over the RAF getting involved in his air war?

Sharky Ward is a one man band according to his book.

It is true that the SHAR/GR3 guys could have had a pop at the runway however, they would have had to fly within the SAM & AAA umbrella.

The Flag Commander did not appreciate the usefulness of the SHAR's radar and as a result, he ordered them to be used in a manner which became very airframe & pilot intensive, reducing their availability for mud moving jobs.

I think the main issue in terms of why we used the Vulcan is simple & Sharky Ward did not get it at all. The political message passed from the British government to the Argentine leaders, via the Black Buck missions was one of capability and will to attack the mainland if required.

The message certainly got through & the Argie air defence fleet was deployed in a manner that protected the mainland but offered little cover over the Falklands.

Ah Yes

Maggie did know how to send a message bless her.

To a well known tune which I can't for the life of me remember the name, but there are a number of other songs/verses that it also covers.

"We are the vulcan bombers,
no f****** use are we.
We flew down from Ascension,
and dropped bombs in the sea.
And if we hit the runway
we shout with all our might
"Per Ardua Ad Astra"
F*** you jack I'm allright.

All meant in the best possible taste and Yes they did achieve the political aim.

Absolutely. Politically, Black Buck was a "Mine's far bigger than your's" statement.

I've just read Vulcan 607 and previously Sea Harrier Over The Falklands - both a great read for a layman like me. It did seem a little strange that Ward tried to reach the Vulcan with a breezy "Good Morning" when they would have been on their final run in to Stanley however. Just a thought!

Facinating posts here folks - even if I'm not qualified to do much other than injest the information and enjoy!

Cheers

Gareth

Pretty stupid thing for the Bearded Bull****ter to have done - even for him. Was he deliberately trying to alert the Argentine defences?

Can't help but get the feeling he doesn't / didn't have a great reputation. Was that due to the book or just in general??

Just sitting on the fence. Those Arg pilots gave a firkin good account of themselves. No one can say they never had balls. Imagine if they flew F14s Might be another story as to the outcome?

Perhaps I am a bit naive here....but sending the entire fleet of Vulcans to the mainland would have been just a bit more difficult. Where was the support package to come from as surely the Argies would have been just a bit more of a problem at home than they would have been at Port Stanley.

It was a stretch to do the Black Buck strikes as limited as they were....someone explain to me the assets that were in place/available and ready....for going to the mainland and survive to fight another day/night?

DoL - it was said at the time that their pilots' ability was no surprise. Emerson Fittipaldi had been the F1 champion and they still produce very good polo players.

1. Round trip wise BA is 900 miles less. A quick fag packet suggests 4 tankers only.

2. Who needs to send the entire fleet? One bomb, right place, would do the trick.

3. It is not the policy of HMG to confirm or deny whether the possibility of first use of nuclear weapons was feasible.

Indeed he had. Luckily, Brazil didn't invade the Falklands.:E

However, Carlos Reutemann was pretty useful in his day and there was some chap called Fangio a few years earlier. ;)