Stanley Runway
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: earth
Posts: 1,398
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Lt Col like many of us retired folk is obviously relying on a memory that is itself increasingly unreliable. In any case, even if the Vulcan raids did little but upset the Argies a bit it was still a contribution to the war effort. In fact, they did considerably more than that because after the raid the Argies had to defend BA from air attack. They also were precluded from doing what we did so soon after we occupied Stanley - that is operating fast jets off the airfield. Had they done so the losses to our forces would have been disasterous.
Bombed or not the Stanley runway was never long enough to accept fast jets.
With 09/27 coming in at about 918m the MB-339s could certainly have used themm, requiring only 620m/480m for take-off/landing at sea level. And assuming the Arentinians had managed to install a RHAG, then I'm guessing if they could fly their Super Etendard off a carrier they could have flown them from Stanley. Similarly, the Skyhawk, with its take-off run at 23,000lb - almost max gross weight - being only in the region of 830m could also have used Stanley. This would surely suggest, contrary to the Col's suggestion, that the runway at Stanley could have been used by the Argentinian FJs - with or without a RHAG depending on the ac type and wpns fit / fuel load etc. As such, the fact that the RAF managed to get a Vulcan payload over the runway and that there were no further FJ sorties from Stanley after the Black Buck raid suggests that the Col is incorrect.
If I were being generous, I could put the Col's comments down to the passage of time. However, I could probably equally argue that this is typical of the sort of comments about the RAF we have come to expect from certain quarters of our Armed Forces who seem keen to denigrate our achievements whenever possible.
Last edited by Melchett01; 6th May 2007 at 14:49.
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Temporarily missing from the Joe Louis Arena
Posts: 2,133
Received 28 Likes
on
17 Posts
Perhaps the Lt Col is just lashing out, still feeling a little sore after some of members of his beloved corps had a holiday in Iran?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: BATH
Posts: 375
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Stanley Runway
Meanwhile, will someone with personal and direct experience of the state of the runway at the end of hostlities, please put an appropriate letter in the Daily Telegraph Otherwise this fabrication will take on a life of its own. JP
Melchett et al
If I were being generous, I could put the Col's comments down to the passage of time. However, I could probably equally argue that this is typical of the sort of comments about the RAF we have come to expect from certain quarters of our Armed Forces who seem keen to denigrate our achievements whenever possible.
More than a little ungenerous I suggest, not to say offside. I appreciate that perhaps due to "the passage of time" you, and others, may well either have forgotten or be unaware that Ewen S-T was the man who tried so desperately to convince the Welsh Guards on board the SIR GALAHAD that, however tired or however unwilling they were to move ashore at Bluff Cove, they must do so before the cloud cover lifted and the Argentinian Skyhawks arrived.
They could have done so, they did not do so - with the tragic results that could so readily have been avoided if only they had heeded his advice.
So be generous, very generous, to a brave man who was there and who tried so hard to do the right thing when the Argentinian bombs were still falling - and had to watch it all happen exactly as he had predicted.
Jack
More than a little ungenerous I suggest, not to say offside. I appreciate that perhaps due to "the passage of time" you, and others, may well either have forgotten or be unaware that Ewen S-T was the man who tried so desperately to convince the Welsh Guards on board the SIR GALAHAD that, however tired or however unwilling they were to move ashore at Bluff Cove, they must do so before the cloud cover lifted and the Argentinian Skyhawks arrived.
They could have done so, they did not do so - with the tragic results that could so readily have been avoided if only they had heeded his advice.
So be generous, very generous, to a brave man who was there and who tried so hard to do the right thing when the Argentinian bombs were still falling - and had to watch it all happen exactly as he had predicted.
Jack
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: BATH
Posts: 375
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
stanley Runway
Jack. Of course, you are quite right, and i think I said in my original post, this is a distinguished and gallant officer. But that does not explain what he claimed in his letter to the Telegraph. Let us please get the facts straight, do you not agree? JP
Union Jack,
I am not for one second disputing the good Colonel's bravery or the role that he played during the war. But I do dispute his statement, as published in the national press about the use of Stanley's runway and the usefullness of the RAF's contribution to the overall effort. He clearly states that the runway could not take FJs, and yet the photographic evidence cleary proves him to be wrong.
That the MB-339s never got airborne, must in some part be due to the Black Buck raids, but unfortunately without asking the cdr of the 339 detachment, we will never know for sure. I'm sure if the Black Buck raids hadn't been mounted, then people such as Lt Col Ewen Southby-Tailyour would have been clamouring to demand to know why the RAF hadn't done any more to help out.
It is unfortunately becoming more and more common for people with little or no understanding of the RAF and how it operates to criticize us, and it is about time we stood up for ourselves. Unfortunately, when we do, then the same people that are all too ready to denigrate our efforts suddenly get offended. It seems the RAF is in a lose-lose situation these days. So don't be surprised if having been backed into a corner we come out fighting and "correct" a few misconceptions.
I am not for one second disputing the good Colonel's bravery or the role that he played during the war. But I do dispute his statement, as published in the national press about the use of Stanley's runway and the usefullness of the RAF's contribution to the overall effort. He clearly states that the runway could not take FJs, and yet the photographic evidence cleary proves him to be wrong.
That the MB-339s never got airborne, must in some part be due to the Black Buck raids, but unfortunately without asking the cdr of the 339 detachment, we will never know for sure. I'm sure if the Black Buck raids hadn't been mounted, then people such as Lt Col Ewen Southby-Tailyour would have been clamouring to demand to know why the RAF hadn't done any more to help out.
It is unfortunately becoming more and more common for people with little or no understanding of the RAF and how it operates to criticize us, and it is about time we stood up for ourselves. Unfortunately, when we do, then the same people that are all too ready to denigrate our efforts suddenly get offended. It seems the RAF is in a lose-lose situation these days. So don't be surprised if having been backed into a corner we come out fighting and "correct" a few misconceptions.
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
I have not read Alf Price's book: http://www.biblio.com/books/80196742.html
AIR WAR SOUTH ATLANTIC by Ethell, Jeffrey & Price, Dr. Alfred
It was written in 1984 and is based, using his usual technique, on interviews with primary sources, ie the pilots. Ethell covered the Argentine and Alf covered the British.
It might be both relevant and fascinating as it minimises the 'passage of time'.
AIR WAR SOUTH ATLANTIC by Ethell, Jeffrey & Price, Dr. Alfred
It was written in 1984 and is based, using his usual technique, on interviews with primary sources, ie the pilots. Ethell covered the Argentine and Alf covered the British.
It might be both relevant and fascinating as it minimises the 'passage of time'.
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Lincolnshire
Posts: 477
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The MB339's would have been extremely limited with no radar in what role they could have carried out from Stanley. Certainly the Vulcan raid was dramatic but of limited military value . It was however of a greater psychological value to the British as it forced an already tired and demoralised Argentine Army realise that they were against odds they couldn't counter.
It's interesting to speculate on what the Argentinians could have based there but obviously the Lear Jet flight into Stanley just prior to the war had produced a report which steared them away from fast jet operation.
Tactically it was the right decision for the Argentians as the Skyhawk and Super Etendard would have been distinctly a prime target for Harrier /Sea Harrier attack with BL755 sat at Stanley.
It's interesting to speculate on what the Argentinians could have based there but obviously the Lear Jet flight into Stanley just prior to the war had produced a report which steared them away from fast jet operation.
Tactically it was the right decision for the Argentians as the Skyhawk and Super Etendard would have been distinctly a prime target for Harrier /Sea Harrier attack with BL755 sat at Stanley.
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: NOTTINGHAM
Posts: 758
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have met the guy, had dinner with him at BRNC about ten years ago. A thoroughly charming and delightful character and an experienced adventurer to boot. Excellent dinner companion. However, he has a pathological aversion to the RAF!
The MB339s put in an attack Argonaut on 21 May. Pilot was awarded the Argentine equivalent of the CGC. Caused slight damage, including putting a hole through the radar (which is reported to have worked much better than before afterwards...)
AIUI, the strip at Stanley wasn't long enough to allow them to operate with their preferred anti-shipping weapon (500lb bombs) so they had to use 30mm cannon (podded) and Zunis, but they certainly flew. They were used at Goose Green, one being downed by a Blowpipe - apparently something that had an adverse effect on Argentine morale at the time. They withdrew about a week before the war.
In the grand scheme of things (and as I've said elsewhere, this was a scheme about which Admirals Lewin, Leach, Fieldhouse and Woodward were far more enthusiastic than the then-CAS), the ability of CAS aircraft to operate from Stanley was not the point. The point was to try to keep the Argentines' air superiority aircraft on the defensive/drive them out of range while making the junta worry about whether or not the British PM, who they'd realised was just slightly more bellicose than they'd thought would then turn the bombers onto the mainland.
The fact that they failed to appreciate that this was hugely unlikely was neither here nor there - they seem to have perceived that there was a risk and the moral effect of which air power theorists (and Bernard Montgomery) talk about came into play. Just as the RN (not the RAF) had hoped.
AIUI, the strip at Stanley wasn't long enough to allow them to operate with their preferred anti-shipping weapon (500lb bombs) so they had to use 30mm cannon (podded) and Zunis, but they certainly flew. They were used at Goose Green, one being downed by a Blowpipe - apparently something that had an adverse effect on Argentine morale at the time. They withdrew about a week before the war.
In the grand scheme of things (and as I've said elsewhere, this was a scheme about which Admirals Lewin, Leach, Fieldhouse and Woodward were far more enthusiastic than the then-CAS), the ability of CAS aircraft to operate from Stanley was not the point. The point was to try to keep the Argentines' air superiority aircraft on the defensive/drive them out of range while making the junta worry about whether or not the British PM, who they'd realised was just slightly more bellicose than they'd thought would then turn the bombers onto the mainland.
The fact that they failed to appreciate that this was hugely unlikely was neither here nor there - they seem to have perceived that there was a risk and the moral effect of which air power theorists (and Bernard Montgomery) talk about came into play. Just as the RN (not the RAF) had hoped.
More Navy sniping
Lt Cdr 'Sharkey' Ward made similar accusations in his book 'Sea Harrier Over the Falklands - A Maverick at war. Non the less an entertaining read. Slightly lost credibility when describing post conflict 'Cravatted RAF Hercules Pilots from Brize-Norton' [sic] looking for red ink entrys to thier logbooks. (Or whatever colour ink you use on active service)
Never ceases to amaze me the level of back-biting that arises from such excursions. The RN, certainly of that era, appear to be crab haters, who blamed anyone in light blue for the demise of the carrier fleet, the British Empire and possibly the Boer war. It follows that the Jet boys always get the TV coverage, fact of life - get over it.
I am personally of the opinion that the Black Buck raids were of limited military value, but they made great headlines and were a great boost to the morale of people sat at various stations (RAF & RN) in the UK, watching the news unfold daily, with anxiety.
Never ceases to amaze me the level of back-biting that arises from such excursions. The RN, certainly of that era, appear to be crab haters, who blamed anyone in light blue for the demise of the carrier fleet, the British Empire and possibly the Boer war. It follows that the Jet boys always get the TV coverage, fact of life - get over it.
I am personally of the opinion that the Black Buck raids were of limited military value, but they made great headlines and were a great boost to the morale of people sat at various stations (RAF & RN) in the UK, watching the news unfold daily, with anxiety.
Guest
Posts: n/a
[QUOTE]
The RN, certainly of that era, appear to be crab haters,
What do you mean, that era. With it's two car ferries, three trawlers and a handful of pedallo's, a large element of the RN would knife the RAF in the back at the drop of a hat.
They would very much like to carve up the RAF between themselves and the AAC. Pity they can't mount patrols off the coast of Iraq by sea.
Apologies to the small element not in this category who are consumnate professionals.
The RN, certainly of that era, appear to be crab haters,
What do you mean, that era. With it's two car ferries, three trawlers and a handful of pedallo's, a large element of the RN would knife the RAF in the back at the drop of a hat.
They would very much like to carve up the RAF between themselves and the AAC. Pity they can't mount patrols off the coast of Iraq by sea.
Apologies to the small element not in this category who are consumnate professionals.
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Annapolis, MD
Age: 86
Posts: 429
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Scroggs, you are right.
The good Lt. Col. must be having a "senior moment' or total memory failure. I remember the runway crater too and was in the Ops room when that tow line was planned. Remember the result too.
Bob C
The good Lt. Col. must be having a "senior moment' or total memory failure. I remember the runway crater too and was in the Ops room when that tow line was planned. Remember the result too.
Bob C
The bearded bull$hitter also broke radio silence trying to talk to the Vulcan as it was inbound on its first attack on Stanley airport......
His book has absorbent pages - so it has one use, at least. But only one.
His book has absorbent pages - so it has one use, at least. But only one.
The bearded bull$hitter also broke radio silence trying to talk to the Vulcan as it was inbound on its first attack on Stanley airport......
His book has absorbent pages - so it has one use, at least. But only one.
His book has absorbent pages - so it has one use, at least. But only one.
Why would he want to speak to the Vulcan?
Why did he even know it was inbound?
Where's the BS Beags?
Shaun
The RN, certainly of that era, appear to be crab haters,
What do you mean, that era. With it's two car ferries, three trawlers and a handful of pedallo's, a large element of the RN would knife the RAF in the back at the drop of a hat.
They would very much like to carve up the RAF between themselves and the AAC. Pity they can't mount patrols off the coast of Iraq by sea.
What do you mean, that era. With it's two car ferries, three trawlers and a handful of pedallo's, a large element of the RN would knife the RAF in the back at the drop of a hat.
They would very much like to carve up the RAF between themselves and the AAC. Pity they can't mount patrols off the coast of Iraq by sea.
WM lets not forget that the RN at the time was just managing to get back onto its feet having seen its carrier fleet decimated by the Govt. The RAF had persuaded the previous Govt's that the Navy wasn't needed anymore because Air Power could strike anywhere in the World (V Force). This meant the loss of ALL future Carriers and quite a few Naval Bases throughout the World...so bitter, probably.
Shaun
"Why would he want to speak to the Vulcan?"
Heaven knows why he broke OPSEC in that way. He was tasked to provide AD cover to the Vulcan raid, not to compromise it.
"Why did he even know it was inbound?"
All Britisn action was, of course, coordinated. The Vulcan attack was notified to the Task Force for operational reasons, fairly obviously.
"Where's the BS Beags?"
Read his book (don't buy it though) - and you'll find out.
Heaven knows why he broke OPSEC in that way. He was tasked to provide AD cover to the Vulcan raid, not to compromise it.
"Why did he even know it was inbound?"
All Britisn action was, of course, coordinated. The Vulcan attack was notified to the Task Force for operational reasons, fairly obviously.
"Where's the BS Beags?"
Read his book (don't buy it though) - and you'll find out.
He was tasked to provide AD cover to the Vulcan raid
Read his book (don't buy it though) - and you'll find out.
Is that because it contradicts your own opinions? Unlike some I've actually met him, and although contentious that doesn't make him a"bearded tosser". I will read his book ,as I shall also read the Vulcan book that is inbound.
Shaun
