Stanley Runway
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 932
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sharkey Ward - OPSEC
timex,
I think that BEagle was referring to Sharkey Ward's call to the Vulcan as it was inbound in radio silence on BLACK BUCK 1 from his Sea Harrier - it was the FRS1s what were providing AD, not Lt Col Ewen S-T's LCUs...
More generally, I recall readimg somewhere that the Argies were about to / had trialled RHAG at Stanley, which, as already noted would have allowed it to take an A-4 det, and (possibly) Mirage III/V/Daggers, which could have materially changed the force composition over the islands.
Brave men all - very impressive.
S41
I think that BEagle was referring to Sharkey Ward's call to the Vulcan as it was inbound in radio silence on BLACK BUCK 1 from his Sea Harrier - it was the FRS1s what were providing AD, not Lt Col Ewen S-T's LCUs...
More generally, I recall readimg somewhere that the Argies were about to / had trialled RHAG at Stanley, which, as already noted would have allowed it to take an A-4 det, and (possibly) Mirage III/V/Daggers, which could have materially changed the force composition over the islands.
Brave men all - very impressive.
S41
Ah - the penny drops...We are talking at cross purposes - I was NOT referring to the courageous Lt Col Ewen Southby-Tailyour, but to someone else.....
A very great tragedy that Lt Col Ewen S-T's efforts to persuade the Welsh Guards to come ashore from Sir Galahad were not heeded by those responsible.
A very great tragedy that Lt Col Ewen S-T's efforts to persuade the Welsh Guards to come ashore from Sir Galahad were not heeded by those responsible.
Red On, Green On
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Between the woods and the water
Age: 24
Posts: 6,487
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
2 Posts
In today's Telegraph:
Sir - Ewen Southby-Tailyour (Letters, May 5) is wrong in his description of the damage to the Stanley runway.
As Commander, Royal Engineers, I was responsible for its repair immediately after the surrender. There was one large crater caused by a 1,000lb bomb from the RAF Vulcan raid, and four smaller craters resulting from earlier Harrier attacks. (The Argentines had also created dummy craters to confuse our aerial reconnaissance.) Repairing the large crater and the large area of runway took about two weeks and 1,000 square metres of captured Argentine runway matting.
Lt Col Southby-Tailyour is, however, correct in stating that Argentine aircraft were able to continue to use the runway, despite the bombing raids, by temporarily backfilling the craters. This, perhaps, is why his "recce" did not spot the true extent of the damage.
Maj Gen G.W. Field (retd), Sedlescombe, East Sussex
Sir - Ewen Southby-Tailyour (Letters, May 5) is wrong in his description of the damage to the Stanley runway.
As Commander, Royal Engineers, I was responsible for its repair immediately after the surrender. There was one large crater caused by a 1,000lb bomb from the RAF Vulcan raid, and four smaller craters resulting from earlier Harrier attacks. (The Argentines had also created dummy craters to confuse our aerial reconnaissance.) Repairing the large crater and the large area of runway took about two weeks and 1,000 square metres of captured Argentine runway matting.
Lt Col Southby-Tailyour is, however, correct in stating that Argentine aircraft were able to continue to use the runway, despite the bombing raids, by temporarily backfilling the craters. This, perhaps, is why his "recce" did not spot the true extent of the damage.
Maj Gen G.W. Field (retd), Sedlescombe, East Sussex
Potentially a bit off topic, but I found Sharkys book interesting in that when you digest his opinions/experience he makes a pretty good case for effective AD being critical to success, and in particular the key role of a capable radar equipped agile fighter to that end.
Whilst he moans about the RAF, he is therefore unwittingly outlining how important things like "air superiority" are, and reading between the lines if Typhoon was a naval asset / carrier capable its pretty clear he'd be its No.1 fan.
Whilst he moans about the RAF, he is therefore unwittingly outlining how important things like "air superiority" are, and reading between the lines if Typhoon was a naval asset / carrier capable its pretty clear he'd be its No.1 fan.
Supercharged PPRuNer
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Doon the watter, a million miles from the sandpit.
Posts: 1,183
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
". . . I smoothly applied power and climbed to 20,000 feet to await the arrival of the Vulcan. Dimming my cockpit lighting almost to extinction, I could see that the cloud cover over the islands was extensive. That was a pity, as I was hoping to be able to see the flash of shells and bombs exploding.
Twenty minutes or so later I heard the V-bomber boys check in. They were on a discreet frequency and so I welcomed them with ‘Morning!’ No reply came, so I didn’t persist. . .”
From ‘Sea Harrier Over the Falklands’, by Commander ‘Sharkey’ Ward.
Twenty minutes or so later I heard the V-bomber boys check in. They were on a discreet frequency and so I welcomed them with ‘Morning!’ No reply came, so I didn’t persist. . .”
From ‘Sea Harrier Over the Falklands’, by Commander ‘Sharkey’ Ward.
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Midlands
Posts: 47
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think we all know that the truth always seems to become somewhat embroidered in these post-war books. I'm sure the truth is in all of them somewhere; B20, The One That Got Away, Sea Harrier Over The Falklands etc.
The key is surely to read broadly enough to ensure that you are not misled by a single persons, well inteneded I'm sure, but somewhat colourful account of what they recall.
The key is surely to read broadly enough to ensure that you are not misled by a single persons, well inteneded I'm sure, but somewhat colourful account of what they recall.
There's another letter in todays Telegraph...
So the Herc supply drops, the RAF Harriers, the surviving Chinook etc. were of no importance at all...
N
Sir - Everyone seems to be missing the point when discussing the Vulcan mission to the Falklands.
It was a cynical attempt by the Air Staff to demonstrate that the RAF had a role in operations at a time when the Royal Navy, Royal Marines and Army were fighting the war successfully without the assistance of that service, other than a few seconded aircrew with the aircraft carriers. The lack of fixed-wing airborne early-warning and anti-submarine capability in the Task Force at the time was of much more significance.
Under-funding and under-equipping of the Fleet Air Arm have progressed today to a potentially disastrous level. Meanwhile, money has been lavished on the entirely redundant Air Force toy the Eurofighter, at the behest of the self-seeking occupants of the Ministry of Defence.
Lt Col B.M. Burton (retd), Little Barningham, Norfolk
It was a cynical attempt by the Air Staff to demonstrate that the RAF had a role in operations at a time when the Royal Navy, Royal Marines and Army were fighting the war successfully without the assistance of that service, other than a few seconded aircrew with the aircraft carriers. The lack of fixed-wing airborne early-warning and anti-submarine capability in the Task Force at the time was of much more significance.
Under-funding and under-equipping of the Fleet Air Arm have progressed today to a potentially disastrous level. Meanwhile, money has been lavished on the entirely redundant Air Force toy the Eurofighter, at the behest of the self-seeking occupants of the Ministry of Defence.
Lt Col B.M. Burton (retd), Little Barningham, Norfolk
N
Its a bit bizarre isn't it.
Not much is made of the fact that the first SHAR air-to-air vistory of the Falklands was by an RAF Flt Lt.
These type of views are so ingrained though, as though they really believe them, that it makes you wonder. It may be that when the senior ranks in the services are forced into making decisions and trade offs about what they invest in, I suspect its all too easy for them to say "well we would have had capability X, if it wasn't for the Y service wanting capability Z - not our fault, certainly not any reflection on the trade offs made within our own service etc....cough etc.". when briefing their own service on why they themselves have failed to get something delivered/prioritised.
Looks like this sort of cr*p is swallowed by the lower ranks hook line and sinker. I suggest any under funding of the FAA has more to do with Navy priorities (i.e. no. of grey ships = most important) than anything else.
Not much is made of the fact that the first SHAR air-to-air vistory of the Falklands was by an RAF Flt Lt.
These type of views are so ingrained though, as though they really believe them, that it makes you wonder. It may be that when the senior ranks in the services are forced into making decisions and trade offs about what they invest in, I suspect its all too easy for them to say "well we would have had capability X, if it wasn't for the Y service wanting capability Z - not our fault, certainly not any reflection on the trade offs made within our own service etc....cough etc.". when briefing their own service on why they themselves have failed to get something delivered/prioritised.
Looks like this sort of cr*p is swallowed by the lower ranks hook line and sinker. I suggest any under funding of the FAA has more to do with Navy priorities (i.e. no. of grey ships = most important) than anything else.
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Tennessee - Smoky Mountains
Age: 55
Posts: 1,602
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
JFZ90 - I disagree with your statement:
"Looks like this sort of cr*p is swallowed by the lower ranks hook line and sinker."
As an ex-SNCO, I guess I qualify as a "lower rank", although the comparative adjective depends on the position of the speaker. Assuming the position of "lower ranks", I find that my experience gives the lie to your statement.
No.1 objective is to defend the nation. That means sufficient ships and aircraft to deter in the first place, then patrol the coastline, ASW defences to protect supply lines, and a whacking great army should all else fail, and end up fighting on the beaches.
No.2 objective is to defend national interests overseas. That requires sufficient assets to sustain expeditionary warfare, meaning capital ships (aircraft carrier(s), LPDs etc), task group defence (submarines, frigates, destroyers), air cover (of whatever form), AT, SH, CAS, and of course a whacking great army to actually put boots on the ground, with the necessary armour, artillery, etc.
All this costs money. I dont think anyone in the trenches actually gives a monkey's which squadron the Harrier that just wiped out the enemy is from, FAA or RAF, so long as it did the job, on time, and without "own casualties".
Similarly, I don't think the RAF types care too much whether it's a soldier or an airman guarding the FOB they operate from, so long as it's done effectively.
I do find it interesting though, that the Army has boats and aircraft, the Navy has soldiers and aircraft, while the RAF has soldiers (although no boats any more).
Bottom line - all three services are required, and required to work together. All three services are required to be properly funded with the right kit to be able to work together.
"Looks like this sort of cr*p is swallowed by the lower ranks hook line and sinker."
As an ex-SNCO, I guess I qualify as a "lower rank", although the comparative adjective depends on the position of the speaker. Assuming the position of "lower ranks", I find that my experience gives the lie to your statement.
No.1 objective is to defend the nation. That means sufficient ships and aircraft to deter in the first place, then patrol the coastline, ASW defences to protect supply lines, and a whacking great army should all else fail, and end up fighting on the beaches.
No.2 objective is to defend national interests overseas. That requires sufficient assets to sustain expeditionary warfare, meaning capital ships (aircraft carrier(s), LPDs etc), task group defence (submarines, frigates, destroyers), air cover (of whatever form), AT, SH, CAS, and of course a whacking great army to actually put boots on the ground, with the necessary armour, artillery, etc.
All this costs money. I dont think anyone in the trenches actually gives a monkey's which squadron the Harrier that just wiped out the enemy is from, FAA or RAF, so long as it did the job, on time, and without "own casualties".
Similarly, I don't think the RAF types care too much whether it's a soldier or an airman guarding the FOB they operate from, so long as it's done effectively.
I do find it interesting though, that the Army has boats and aircraft, the Navy has soldiers and aircraft, while the RAF has soldiers (although no boats any more).
Bottom line - all three services are required, and required to work together. All three services are required to be properly funded with the right kit to be able to work together.
R280.
I agree with your sentiments, I was lumping all those below 1* outside certain corridors of influence as lower ranks, so wasn't trying to be "rankist" as such - could have worded it better to implying those outside some of the decision making processes believing some of the inter-service boll*x that is spouted. On reflection most see through such rubbish anyway, so my musings are probably invalid. Leaves you with the conclusion that this influencial characters are however just trying to cause trouble though doesn't it.
As you suggest, most don't care where the e.g. harrier came from - but this kind of makes the rantings of SW and EST harder to really sympathise with, no?
I agree with your sentiments, I was lumping all those below 1* outside certain corridors of influence as lower ranks, so wasn't trying to be "rankist" as such - could have worded it better to implying those outside some of the decision making processes believing some of the inter-service boll*x that is spouted. On reflection most see through such rubbish anyway, so my musings are probably invalid. Leaves you with the conclusion that this influencial characters are however just trying to cause trouble though doesn't it.
As you suggest, most don't care where the e.g. harrier came from - but this kind of makes the rantings of SW and EST harder to really sympathise with, no?
I did try to stay off of this thread - honest!
1. Whatever your views of Sharkey Ward, he DID successfully command 801 NAS during Corporate and bore much responsibility for defending the task force. He had also been responsible for much of the introduction into service of the Sea Harrier. The alleged attempts by some in the RAF to undermine the Sea Harrier and its capabilities and achievements, together with the hand of the Air Marshals in the decision of axe the Fleet carriers in the sixties probably made him a little bitter, frustrated and maybe paranoid. Likewise the lack of recognition given to the FAA and the RN ever since. But to call him a Crab hater is simplistic. He speaks highly of 1 Sqn RAF, and does mention the Harrier experts at Wittering.
2. Read One Hundred Days by Admiral Sandy Woodward, the task group commander. He comes to many of the same conclusions. Woodward's book was published first, and should convince the reader of the importance of carrier aviation per se and of organic air defence.
3. Anyone who writes a book based on their own experiences is influenced by their own prejudices and limited by what they know. Can anyone be 100% objective when writing about something they were personally involved in?
4. Many of the lessons learnt in 1982 have been forgotten, as shown by the premature axing of the Sea Harrier and the delays to the Future Carrier. I've listened to people talking about their experiences of being subject to air attack and being in a burning and sinking ship. Not at all nice.
5. One lesson so painfully evident that does appear to have be learnt and remembered is the need for the services to work together.
6. Why do threads like these end up as light blue versus dark blue, when we needed both to win in 1982 and do now?
1. Whatever your views of Sharkey Ward, he DID successfully command 801 NAS during Corporate and bore much responsibility for defending the task force. He had also been responsible for much of the introduction into service of the Sea Harrier. The alleged attempts by some in the RAF to undermine the Sea Harrier and its capabilities and achievements, together with the hand of the Air Marshals in the decision of axe the Fleet carriers in the sixties probably made him a little bitter, frustrated and maybe paranoid. Likewise the lack of recognition given to the FAA and the RN ever since. But to call him a Crab hater is simplistic. He speaks highly of 1 Sqn RAF, and does mention the Harrier experts at Wittering.
2. Read One Hundred Days by Admiral Sandy Woodward, the task group commander. He comes to many of the same conclusions. Woodward's book was published first, and should convince the reader of the importance of carrier aviation per se and of organic air defence.
3. Anyone who writes a book based on their own experiences is influenced by their own prejudices and limited by what they know. Can anyone be 100% objective when writing about something they were personally involved in?
4. Many of the lessons learnt in 1982 have been forgotten, as shown by the premature axing of the Sea Harrier and the delays to the Future Carrier. I've listened to people talking about their experiences of being subject to air attack and being in a burning and sinking ship. Not at all nice.
5. One lesson so painfully evident that does appear to have be learnt and remembered is the need for the services to work together.
6. Why do threads like these end up as light blue versus dark blue, when we needed both to win in 1982 and do now?
Last edited by WE Branch Fanatic; 7th May 2007 at 21:32.
Red On, Green On
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Between the woods and the water
Age: 24
Posts: 6,487
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
2 Posts
Why do threads like these end up as light blue versus dark blue, when we needed both to win in 1982 and do now?
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Home
Posts: 3,399
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The reason these threads always get to slagging, is that whilst the RN/RM and Army have hundreds of years of relatively unbroken trust in each other doing their job when required, we do not, however, trust the Royal Air Farce to find its own @rse with both hands.
This alone we could live with, but the temerity of the RAF to even contemplate turning up at events commemorating the Falkland conflict is astonishingly brazen.
As if a couple of exchange pilots, one chinook, and one bomb on a runway makes up for the fact that hundreds of people in the RN RM and Army died due to the RAF successfully lying about the RAF's ability to project air power anywhere in the world.
A lie that led to the demise of our big carriers. The demise of airborne early warning over the fleet. The demise of adequate airborne protection and attack. The demise of many warships with many crew.
Go on then RAF.
Where were you?
This alone we could live with, but the temerity of the RAF to even contemplate turning up at events commemorating the Falkland conflict is astonishingly brazen.
As if a couple of exchange pilots, one chinook, and one bomb on a runway makes up for the fact that hundreds of people in the RN RM and Army died due to the RAF successfully lying about the RAF's ability to project air power anywhere in the world.
A lie that led to the demise of our big carriers. The demise of airborne early warning over the fleet. The demise of adequate airborne protection and attack. The demise of many warships with many crew.
Go on then RAF.
Where were you?
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: UK
Age: 44
Posts: 54
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tourist you chimp
It is a sad fact that any poking from outside the British Armed Forces, whether it be MoD cut or a tabloid sting, results in destructive bitch fighting between the forces themselves. You, Tourist, have just demonstrated that with a deliberately provocative and uncharacteristically offensive post. If you're fishing, I'm biting:
I, and virtually all my light blue colleagues, hold the other branches of the forces in high regard. It is disappointing that such loyalty is often publicly not reciprocated by fusty old seniors of those services, notably Southby-Tailyour and Tim Collins whose understanding of the importance of air power is about as advanced as that of an 14 year old in the Army Cadet Force.
I am sure that all the ground forces who bravely fought in the Falklands also took a moment to contemplate the benefits of air power (for example Chinook airlift) as they yomped or tabbed with full equipment across the Falklands moorland. The fact that the RAF successfully prosecuted the longest range bombing raids in history, rendering Stanley unuseable to enemy FJs, and demonstrating that Buenos Aires could get nuked, was a tremendously significant achievment and it is distinctly ungracious of you, Tourist, and certain senior members of the other services to belittle the RAF's contribution. The war may indeed have been lost if Argentine FJ operations had not been pushed back to the mainland by the successful targeting of the runway and its secondary effects.
Do not forget the importance of SH and how advantaged the British Forces would have been had we not lost Atlantic Conveyor and all but one of its Chinnies.
I for one would be delighted to see the RN with angle deck carriers full of Sea Typhoons and Maritime AEW aircraft. The fact that the Army, RN and RM have to accept some cuts and not just the RAF (which has been decimated in the last 10 years) is no justification for open aggression towards the service which has gained the primary importance in modern war fighting, in its short life.
Dry your eyes princess and show a little respect for the light blues just as you demand respect for yourself! Muppet.
I, and virtually all my light blue colleagues, hold the other branches of the forces in high regard. It is disappointing that such loyalty is often publicly not reciprocated by fusty old seniors of those services, notably Southby-Tailyour and Tim Collins whose understanding of the importance of air power is about as advanced as that of an 14 year old in the Army Cadet Force.
I am sure that all the ground forces who bravely fought in the Falklands also took a moment to contemplate the benefits of air power (for example Chinook airlift) as they yomped or tabbed with full equipment across the Falklands moorland. The fact that the RAF successfully prosecuted the longest range bombing raids in history, rendering Stanley unuseable to enemy FJs, and demonstrating that Buenos Aires could get nuked, was a tremendously significant achievment and it is distinctly ungracious of you, Tourist, and certain senior members of the other services to belittle the RAF's contribution. The war may indeed have been lost if Argentine FJ operations had not been pushed back to the mainland by the successful targeting of the runway and its secondary effects.
Do not forget the importance of SH and how advantaged the British Forces would have been had we not lost Atlantic Conveyor and all but one of its Chinnies.
I for one would be delighted to see the RN with angle deck carriers full of Sea Typhoons and Maritime AEW aircraft. The fact that the Army, RN and RM have to accept some cuts and not just the RAF (which has been decimated in the last 10 years) is no justification for open aggression towards the service which has gained the primary importance in modern war fighting, in its short life.
Dry your eyes princess and show a little respect for the light blues just as you demand respect for yourself! Muppet.
Join Date: Feb 2000
Posts: 84
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tourist,
In answer to your question - at the bottom of the atlantic ocean still on board Atlantic Conveyor.
Your comment on the remembrance service denigrates the achievments' of the thousands of servicemen from all three services who served during the conflict, let alone those that gave their lives, regardless of cap badge.
Grow up son, and have some respect - you are a disgrace. As long as servicemen continue to perpetrate this childish attitude, we will never rid ourseleves of such small mindedness
In answer to your question - at the bottom of the atlantic ocean still on board Atlantic Conveyor.
Your comment on the remembrance service denigrates the achievments' of the thousands of servicemen from all three services who served during the conflict, let alone those that gave their lives, regardless of cap badge.
Grow up son, and have some respect - you are a disgrace. As long as servicemen continue to perpetrate this childish attitude, we will never rid ourseleves of such small mindedness
Tourist
A quick question I'd like an honest answer to.
Do you really :
a) believe in what you wrote in the post above, or
b) see it as a bit of banter you don't really believe but its a bit of fun
A quick question I'd like an honest answer to.
Do you really :
a) believe in what you wrote in the post above, or
b) see it as a bit of banter you don't really believe but its a bit of fun
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: In a shed
Posts: 70
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Goose Green....
Tourist,
In a professional capacity, I was at an anniversary event at Falklands Islands House in London 10 years ago.
It was for, in the main, those who had fought at Goose Green. To a man, those splendid soldiers were delighted to meet the RAF Harrier pilots, who they believed saved many lives on the ground by their actions during that particular bit of fighting.
Just one small example why the RAF should be welcomed at any Falklands 25 event.
In a professional capacity, I was at an anniversary event at Falklands Islands House in London 10 years ago.
It was for, in the main, those who had fought at Goose Green. To a man, those splendid soldiers were delighted to meet the RAF Harrier pilots, who they believed saved many lives on the ground by their actions during that particular bit of fighting.
Just one small example why the RAF should be welcomed at any Falklands 25 event.
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Lincolnshire
Posts: 547
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If you look at the picture, the stick cut the runway and one bomb hit the concrete. Seems like it did the job as planned. 4.5 k for Mirages was always tight.
It also spoiled an otherwise quiet night in Stanley Town for the occupiers who thought they were relatively safe
Lets not take it awy from the crews. The raid may not have been pefect but as piece of strategy I'd say it did its job.
BTW, you could feel the bump at about lift of even after the AM2 fix. On landing it was beyond the RHAG.
As for Tourist's comments..................
It also spoiled an otherwise quiet night in Stanley Town for the occupiers who thought they were relatively safe
Lets not take it awy from the crews. The raid may not have been pefect but as piece of strategy I'd say it did its job.
BTW, you could feel the bump at about lift of even after the AM2 fix. On landing it was beyond the RHAG.
As for Tourist's comments..................