Argentine fast jet weapons choice - Falklands
 

I am sure most of us will remember the Argentine attacks on the Navy in San Carlos. Quite a number of ships were hit by bombs that didn't have time to arm.

I always wondered why did their QWI's not select rockets for the job in the first place?

Less explosive power but much more chance of getting a useful hit - who cares if you sink it - just need it to limp away for the reminder of the conflict and job done.

Heavily damaging a few more destroyers or frigates might have been the margin between losing and winning for them.

If I remember right Buccs used to carry SNEBs for similar circumstances off Norway but they seemed to not get a mention in the last few years of ops?

TR

TR, you really raise 2 points:

Why didn't the ARG use SNEB?

Why did the Bucc stop using SNEB?

Last first, probably because there were better ways of attacking in the face of more effective CIWS.

Of course that doesn't answer the first question. Ask Marcantilian.

First attack on San Carlos on the morning of 21st May 82 was against HMS Argonaut by an Aermacchi using Cannons and Zuni Rockets. I suspect most of the Zuni's the Argentinians had were on the Islands for the Pucara's and Aermacchis to use and that the only Fast Jet attack aircraft they had that could use them was the Skyhawk. One of the Argentinian forum members like Marcantilan or CAW may know what the reasons were.

FIRST CONTACT: HMS ARGONAUT OFF FANNING HEAD - Maritime Prints

PN is quite correct. The Soviet CIWS mount was fitted to almost all soviet warships from small missile boats to the Kirov and Keiv class. The Kirov class had 8 of them per ship alone on top of all the SAM they carried.

RAF Buccs never planned to attack ships with SNEB. For the ASuW role TV Martel was the weapon of choice in the 70s and early 80s. This was replaced by the fire-and-forget Sea Eagle missile in 1986, which had a longer stand-off range and clever ECCM capabilities to penetrate Ships' defences and CIWS. The weapon of last resort was the 1000 LB bomb, which was tossed unguided from 3.5 miles until 208 Sqn were equipped with Pavespike and Paveway 2s in the late 80s, when laser designation improved the pK from a 6 ship attack.

Darvan, the SNEB was in its arsenal in the early days and possibly before BL755 and possibly anti-tank rather than ASuW.

SNEB
 

SNEB was not that accurate - fine against tanks but not ships - The match of Martel and Sea Eagle on the Bucc made it the perfect aircraft -weapon fit for the role - says he with 6 hrs total on Buccs ...

What was the accuracy of a toss attack? Sounds like a lottery and within a mile would be good.

I think the CEP for Medium Toss was about 500 feet; about 1000 feet for Long Toss; and about 1500 feet for 9 Second Varitoss. However, crews regularly achieved better accuracy, particularly with Medium Toss. Long Toss was a fully automatic attack and release (yes, even in a Bucc) that was originally conceived for attacking the Sverdlov class destroyer with a WE 177. Medium Toss was used for tossing 4 x 1000 LB slick bombs from the bomb bay when the Martel missiles had all been expended. And 9 Second Varitoss was used for.......well the less said about that the better!

I remember seeing something about Buccs using SNEBs in the Norwegian Fjords where a Martel would have been unusable due to the proximity of land returns. Mainly intended against soviet amphibious forces. Although google does not back me up with any reference.


I would have thought rockets would have been accurate enough against ships- just a couple of hits would most likely put a frigate or destroyer out of the fight - tanks are far small and harder to see!


Rockets give you a little bit of stand off and certainly more chance of living than trying to do a lay down with 1000 Lbs!!


I remember Pucaras had SNEBS at Goose Green but never heard of any of their fast jets.

I'm sort of scratching my head about why Martel would be confused by land returns, what variant are thinking of?

ER, as a standoff weapon maybe terrain masking?

Though I remember an Avro sales book for the Trykon (sic?) which could be launched down a river and guided around bends until it reached its target bridge. May be a fjord would block data links.

Although I am sure my friends Mariano or Christian might pop up here at any moment with an answer, I have just sent an email to one of the A4 pilots that I have contact with, one of the 4 pilots to attack Argonaut on the 21st, to see if he can shed any light on the subject.

Terrain masking will cause SNEB an issue as well

ER, oh come on, remember 633 Sqn with an in-off?

Seriously, SNEB is a short range LOS weapon whereas Martel was supposed to be BVR and theoretically, like the Trykon I mentioned, steerable around a river.

Some years ago I went to an Aero. Soc. lecture given by Graham Pitchfork describing his long working relationship with the Buccaneer. He started with a description of the early days with the RN and the anticipated means of attacking the Sverdlov class vessels. I can't remember his exact words but they were along the lines of " We were not planning to blast a few holes in them with iron bombs, we were going to vaporise the buggers"

Walbut

Would the Buccaneer not be destroyed by the bomb?

Nuclear ordnance for a mere destroyer? Take out the enemy's ASW?

An earlier point - SNEB not that accurate, so good for tanks but less so for ships. Isn't a ship a hell of a lot bigger, less mobile target than a tank? Granted the tank isn't firing back at attacking aircraft, but is a much smaller, more nimble target. How does relative inaccuracy make tanks preferable to ships for SNEB?

ZeBedie, why would you think that?

Now a good tactic would have been to sling one about 5-10 miles short then approach through GZ after the plume had fallen and deliver the coup de grace.

Darvan made a slip there, Sverdlov was a heavy cruiser, 4inch armour belt, 2 inch deck armour and very much an improved WW2 rather than a modern tin or aluminium can.

In contrast the Belgrano had a 5.5 inch armoured belt and 2 inch deck armour.