Pontius, given that the along track error caused the failure to straddle the target as planned, I cannot see how a shorter stick length could have helped - in fact, a shorter stick would have missed completely.

As for vulnerability, the attack at 8,000 feet gave more than ample opportunity for detection regardless of speed if the defences had been awake - or if they had listened to the 10 o'clock news!

Soddim, I think we are arguing from the same end. I was not suggesting they should have had an even tighter stick just that speed was a factor in bomb interval.

As for attack speed, the alerting time, from 45 miles could have been 10 minutes or less than 7. That would be quite significant and a longer time could have allowed the chickens more time to stop running.

PN - Does anyone know what the bomb distributor intervalometer setting was? Aircraft speed isn't the optimum way to affect the stick spacing.

Keesie, if I remember correctly, the third raid was intended to release airburst VT-fused bombs to damage parked aircraft. In fact they were released with tail only fusing so they exploded on impact but in any case they all missed the runway. The crater shown on the runway was from the first raid.

t7, I am sure they do. IIRC available settings were 0.09, 0.18, 0.24, 0.30, 0.45 etc. Whilst is would have been possible to set any of these there was a practical minimum that would minimise jostle. IIRC that would be 0.3.

At 360k you are talking of around 200 yards per second. 0.03 would therefore give you an interval of 60 yards.

Looking at a crater line on Google Earth I make the interval 53 yards. This suggests, at 0.3 interval, a speed of 315 kts.

My recollection is 40 odd year ago but I think it would be about right.

Thanks PN - sums seem about right.

Would not a single effective raid on the Argie National Command not have achieved positive results and saved a lot of blood shed perhaps? Just as if we had been effective in doing so during Gulf War 1 by whacking Saddam as the kickoff to the whole game?

The question really goes to what the Strategic Objectives were.....and how Assets or the lack of played into the decision making. If one does not have the capability then no matter how one would like to wage the war....necessity dictates the strategy employed.

Long Range Strategic Bombing during the Falklands really wasn't one of the choices now was it?

Thus, if the RAF was going to participate, lacking land bases and other forward operating areas.....the bag of tricks to be drawn from was quite small.

Simple example is the delay in getting the RAF Harriers into the action.....and sadly now BN came to be the only Chinook.

You must admit the British Military especially the RAF was at a great disadvantage in a lot of very serious regards.

There is a thread here discussing a "future" war over the Falklands....and many of the posts are quite similar to some here re capability, assets, and the like.

So what is new in War....particularly in far off places quite remote and distant from the Homeland and Allies.

In 1982 no nation had the capability. You had neither range nor effective weapons.

In 1992 that capability would have been marginal at best.

Keesje,

The labelling on that image is in error. That fall of bombs is not from the 3rd Vulcan raid but from Black Buck 2. The third Vulcan bombing raid carried out was Black Buck 7.

See image at following link.

Operation Black Buck - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The RN certainly had the ability to grant the Argie high command a spectacular demo. sunrise over the S Atlantic, "and the next one is for you".

The "failure" to attack the mainland was surely driven by very wise lack of political will to antagonise every nation in S and N America.

And they'd probably have got the ****ing forecast 100% correct for once!

Amen to that ............. 'Naval' and 'Met' should only appear in the same sentence with the words "No", "Not", "Nonsense", "Risible" etc.

I was asked on a Purple exercise why my forecast was different from the RN one.

"Mine is correct, sir!"

And it was.

That time .............

RN Met Man on HERMES giving us a briefing.

His briefing aids were OHP black & white transparencies only.

There was a deep low over the Falklands.

His opening line.....

"This is what we call a Zebra's arsehole......."

Succinct - understandable - accurate.

PN.....Thank you....my point exactly. Dropping dumb bombs without benefit of timely Intel....sorta ruled that option out.

The only bombs that hit that Runway were dropped by RAF Pilots, The first bomb out of 607 and a number that came off low level laydown attacks from a couple of 1 Sqn GR3s and a SHAR of 800NAS.

What on earth is that supposed to mean?

Some Tom Clancy-esque oo-rah political assassination might be something you would consider acceptable, but 'regime change' by such means is not normally on the agenda of civilised nations. The UK sought to expel the invaders from its sovereign soil, not to murder a Head of State. Anyway, who/what/where was this so-called 'Argie National Command' of yours......:rolleyes:

And is it proved in Eye-Rak - it wasn't just an issue with one Maddass Insane was it...?

And re. dropping bombs on the runway - IIRC that on a previous thread there was mention of the amount of damage dropping at low level compared to high level.


21 x 1000Lb bombs must have right put the sh**ters up a conscript army sitting out in the wet & cold.

Just had a look at an earlier link:
Sharkey's World: Black Buck - The Truth of the Matter

Seems a little disingenuous to use today's fuel costs! Making a black buck raid fuel cost £520,000, and cost per weapon a 'tad' high.
So in true geek style, did a little research, fuel at the time was around $0.92 a gallon (don't get me started on UK/UK gallons), or £0.50p (based on the exchange rate of the time.

Makes the cost of the black buck raids a more manageable £65,000 in fuel (basically divide all the costs by 8), or £188k (based on inflation), compare that to $1.45m for a tacit Tomahawk (yes I appreciate the numerous other incurred costs!).