The Falklands

Chocks away, chaps!

why didn't they just pop up and shoot the Vulcans down?..

Easier said than done really. There were no interceptor AAF based at Port Stanley, and no air intercept radar, so no aircraft nearby to shot it down. No point launching from the mainland, by the time you've got to the Falklands the Vulcan's long gone, plus you have to run the blockade of CAP Harriers.

Plus of course they didn't want the UK to know of the existence of the C5X model that they'd developed secretly with a defector (now known to have been Fidel Juan Catros de Argie-Bargie)

Correction: Britain had the equipment and ability to hit BA or anywhere else in mainland Argentina if it so wished.

Argetina could mount no such reply.

1.1megaton blue steel rocket propelled device right down their throats

Trident not all it was cracked up to be then?

Capn F that is your best post ever !!!

yes, sub launched, we could have put a missile anywhere we wanted, but a raid using conventional aircraft (especially one as vulnerable as a Vulcan) was never going to happen.

There were actually a number of Black Buck raids – not all successful. Some of them weren't targeted at the runway but at the radar installations.

The general view is that the Black Buck raids were partly for political reasons, partly to deny the airfield for resupply flights and partly to give the RAF a way to take part in the conflict.

Argentina never had "air cover" for the Falklands so it was never withdrawn. What happened was that the Daggers and Mirages were taken out of the conflict on the pre-text of defending the mainland from Vulcan raids, however it was actually more to do with their lack of effect and high attrition rate.

Given that the Argentineans fighters didn't have the fuel to loiter over the Falklands they'd have had virtually no chance of intercepting the Vulcan attacks. They'd have had a better, but still very limited, chance if the carrier could have stayed at sea however the attack on the Belgrano stopped that.

Berm Bandit – Member

1.1megaton blue steel rocket propelled device right down their throats

Trident not all it was cracked up to be then?

Always thought it was a case of us rattling the sabre somewhat. Why else go to that expense to perform an exercise that achieved what a group of landbased troops could achieve in a relatively straight forward mission.
My father in law flew Vulcans, i get the same stories drilled into me every f*ckin Christmas…

The main point of the Vulcan raids was to allow the RAF to contribute.

Quite so, I remember my Father, who in '82 had just done what turned out to be his last operational posting to a Phantom sqn, checking the runway length at Port Stanley and be very relaxed about the chances of any involvement.

The Argentineans did have the equipment to lengthen the runway at Port Stanley but decided not to for several reasons:

1) After the Belgrano they could only re-supply by air and the runway plates were very big and heavy (although they could have been carried)
2) The'd also have needed fuel storage facilities (and a way to get the fuel there) which was also difficult post-Belgrano
3) They'd also have needed a way to protect the airfield (and the aircraft stationed there) from the Harriers and from the UK special forces

On balance they decided that the wouldn't be able to get the runway operational for fast jets and keep it that way so didn't try.

I know my memory is a bit dodgy, being an old farty an all but isn't the historical accuracy suffering a tad here? The first raid was before the task force were actually on station, and the point of nailing the runway was so that they couldn't fly fast jets off the island thus denying the A's air force time over target, and the opportunity to attack the task force. Interestingly, the day of that attack is also the day that SAS and SBS were inserted onto the main island… a matter of record.

Again as I recall the task force stood off to the offside until this had been accomplished thus out of range.

More significantly the Trident missile deployed at that time and also designated the C4 was not deployed at the time, as it had been superceded by the vastly superior C5. Awesome piece of kit with multiple military applications, so clearly all of this about what the RAF could and couldn't do is basically irrelevant

The runway at Stanley was the re-supply route for the Argentineans (and the only one once their fleet had returned to base and it was clear re-supply by sea was going to be risky) so it was thought important to try and deny it to the Hercules transports that were being used. Something that was almost a complete failure. The Vulcan raids would have been more important (and probably more effective) had the Argentineans tried to station fast jets there as there would have been soft targets to attack i.e. the fuel storage and the aircraft themselves.

The carriers stood out to the east of the islands (by a couple of hundred miles) throughout the conflict and that wasn't related to the use of Stanley but instead to make attacks more difficult. That had the effect of reducing the time the Harriers could spend over the islands, but not to the same extent as the Argentineans had to contend with.

More significantly the Trident missile deployed at that time and also designated the C4 was not deployed at the time, as it had been superceded by the vastly superior C5. Awesome piece of kit with multiple military applications, so clearly all of this about what the RAF could and couldn't do is basically irrelevant

If my recall is correct our bomber subs would have been carrying Polaris at the time, not Trident. Not that it's of any relevance which system we had. The Argentineans would have known we had the means to use nuclear weapons against them, but also that there was never the slightest chance that it would happen. Nukes being held by the likes of use aren't any kind of deterrent in that type of conflict.

but there were other modifications too…

If my recall is correct our bomber subs would have been carrying Polaris at the time, not Trident.

Nope Trident C4 definately came into service in 1979, no question on that one. However, by 1982 they had upgraded it to the C5 variant with multiple tactical and logistical dial up variants possible. Accordingly the concept of an airborne attack by a

1.1megaton blue steel rocket propelled device

was never a practical or realisitc option, so to that extent I'm agreeing with you Steve.

Top Trumps anyone?

Argentine Navy

The Norman

Think we're still streets ahead of le Armada!

So, have we decided to invade Argentina yet?
If so, can I put in an order for some meat – best damn steak I've ever tasted whilst out trekking somewhere between Cerro Torro & Mt Fitzroy.

Nope Trident C4 definately came into service in 1979, no question on that one

In service where? In the USA or UK? We didn't even ask the USA for Trident until '82…

Ti

I think you're on to something – a pre-emptive strike! Turn right at Ascension and steam straight up the River Plate, they'll never see it coming………..oh wait…….

Careful Captain! Isn't that the ghost of the Scharnhorst?

epicsteve – Member
The main point of the Vulcan raids was to allow the RAF to contribute.

So, 1(F) Sqn were not there on Hermes?…and the one remaining chinook, was that the Royal Navy version?

Heard some interviews with Argentinian public on radio 4, they sounded pretty defeatest and more worried about food and water than oil.

Fight! Fight! Fight!

In service where? In the USA or UK? We didn't even ask the USA for Trident until '82…

I think you may be confusing the c64 variant of polaris with the C4 Trident. The C64 was certainly the final version of its type, but I'm pretty sure you'll find it was out of service and replaced by C4 Trident by 1981 ,which was almost immediately upgraded to C5 which was what was being deployed in 82

Berm Bandit.

The Vanguard class submarines which carry Trident did not enter service until 1994, the Resolution class submarines only ever carried Polaris missiles which received upgraded missiles & warheads (Polaris A3TK) in the early 1980's but these certainly were not Trident.

If what you are saying is correct and that the Royal Navy did deploy Trident equipped bombers the 1980's then you have access to information that is not in the public domain!

This is a good source of information on the UK Nuclear weapons programmes;

http://nuclearweaponarchive.org//Uk/UKArsenalDev.html

Depressing stuff that so much money and scientific knowledge has had to be committed to such destructive weapons. 🙄

This is how it should be resolved.Bugsy Malone-style.

Let's re-arm!

was there for the last one!! ready for the next!! bring em on, have a few old scores to settle.

wormhole – Member

have a few old scores to settle.

Go on…….

What annoyed me was the difference in Army ration packs.
The Argies had a cow between 5, a sachet of wine each, 5 B&H, and a white hanky.
The Brits had Spangles, babies head and buscuits AB.
Oh! and putees, remember those lovely throw-backs to WW1?
Along with shirts hairy, it made men of us!

At least you got proper rifles…

Unless you were armed with a chefs hat and a spatula of course….. 😉

(s'possed to be a pic of an SLR doesn't seem to be uploading – previews o.k!!!!) 😳

Oh! and putees, remember those lovely throw-backs to WW1?
Along with shirts hairy, it made men of us!

Ah, Jersey Heavy Wool's for goalposts….

El-bent, start by working out how you do BVR combat with the GR9.

Well, there's this Helicopter the RN have called ASAC or airborne early warning and what it does is allow you to "spot" trouble from a distance. Granted the GR9 doesn't have BVR missiles or radar and roughly the equivalent missile they had in 82, and considering the AAF have the same generation of aircraft they had in 82 also with no BVR, will not have the fuel to mix it with RN harriers, then the ASAC capability will be obvious in helping Harriers achieve the best position for intercept.

Of course this wouldn't have been a problem if the FAA harriers with blue vixen and proper BVR hadn't been scrapped. Rumour I've heard is that they didn't fit into the RAF's concept of what JFH was all about.

Then work out air combat without a main runway. Then crack on with getting troops out of the 'stan (they will stop elsewhere before coming home)

Well there's these ships the RN has…what are they called? That's right Aircraft carriers. You work it out.

Why would we need to withdraw troops from Afghan? Granted, some of the capabilities would be withdrawn, but we would withdraw forces from closer to home first.

The thing about conflicts like this is what lessons you should be learning. Your comments show you haven't been taught the right ones.

That's why theres an airbase on the Islands, that's why the RN re-generated it amphibious force, that's why there are two aircraft carriers being built. I could go on.

I'll just add that Mount Pleasant is capable of supporting the E3 Sentry. If it looks like things might heat up I'm sure one can be sent south quickly enough.

And what do you think the first target for the Fuerza Aérea would be?

What do you think has been the one mission they've been practicing for over and over again for the past twenty years?

Yep, working out how to hit the runway at MPA… deny the airfield, and we'd be in the shit! Eggs in one basket…

Two new Aircraft carriers being built? yeah, and when will we see them? 2014 at the earliest, in service date, god only knows – and what are we going to put on them… oops, nope, we've got nothing to park on them till 2017 at least… and then no source code!

Helo borne AEW – great for defending a fleet, no good for projecting air power at range!

What is that old rusting hulk in the sound? Looks like a 19th century steam ship in ONE piece. Ideas?

Ah a clipper

http://www.submerged.co.uk/stanley%20eighteen%20big.jpg