Stanley Runway
Where were they?
At the risk of being a victim of a wah:
1. The RAF provided 25% of the SHAR pilots during Corporate and they scored approx 25% of the air-air victories. Rather more than a couple.
2. The replacement SHARs would never have got to the Task Force had they not been provided with AAR by the Victor Fleet. That would have left the Task Force eight SHARs light. That would have left the fleet with 20 SHARs to use in combat. Without the replacements, the SHAR force would have been down to 14 airframes by the end of hostilities.
3. 1 Squadron provided Harrier GR3s (again, AAR got them into a position where they could join the Task Force). These were used in several CAS missions, notably at Goose Green where they came in quite handy. They suffered five airframe losses. Without the GR3s and the AAR that got the SHARs to the carrier...
4. ASW and MR cover was not only provided by SK from the fleet, but from Nimrods and MRR from Victors.
5. Resupply of the fleet included airdrops from the Hercules fleet, including what was then (and may still be) the longest air transport sortie ever flown, weighing in at over 24 hours duration. The C-130s flew over 13,000 hours in support of the Task Force, while the rest of the AT fleet (or VC10s, as they were known) flew 4,000 hours.
6. And finally, but by no means least, in the case of Flt Lt Garth Hawkins, on a Sea King that took a bird in the engine and which went to the bottom of the ocean along with the SF team to whom he was the FAC and with whom he died.
At the risk of being a victim of a wah:
1. The RAF provided 25% of the SHAR pilots during Corporate and they scored approx 25% of the air-air victories. Rather more than a couple.
2. The replacement SHARs would never have got to the Task Force had they not been provided with AAR by the Victor Fleet. That would have left the Task Force eight SHARs light. That would have left the fleet with 20 SHARs to use in combat. Without the replacements, the SHAR force would have been down to 14 airframes by the end of hostilities.
3. 1 Squadron provided Harrier GR3s (again, AAR got them into a position where they could join the Task Force). These were used in several CAS missions, notably at Goose Green where they came in quite handy. They suffered five airframe losses. Without the GR3s and the AAR that got the SHARs to the carrier...
4. ASW and MR cover was not only provided by SK from the fleet, but from Nimrods and MRR from Victors.
5. Resupply of the fleet included airdrops from the Hercules fleet, including what was then (and may still be) the longest air transport sortie ever flown, weighing in at over 24 hours duration. The C-130s flew over 13,000 hours in support of the Task Force, while the rest of the AT fleet (or VC10s, as they were known) flew 4,000 hours.
6. And finally, but by no means least, in the case of Flt Lt Garth Hawkins, on a Sea King that took a bird in the engine and which went to the bottom of the ocean along with the SF team to whom he was the FAC and with whom he died.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Witney UK
Posts: 616
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tourist, have you ever wondered how a fair number of SHARs managed to catch up with the fleet at or even beyond Ascension, certainly not on their own, could it have been another RAF contribution by the Victors perhaps?. Archimedes you just beat me to it.
Last edited by Art Field; 7th May 2007 at 21:19.
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Lincolnshire
Posts: 547
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not to mention the difference a Squadron of F4s would have made with PD radars and SPIII missiles, had the AM2 matting actually arrived on East Falkland. I guess the Chinooks were not the only thing that was lost that day.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Home
Posts: 3,399
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
JFZ90
No, not really.
I think I judged my last post to be just about the right distance the other side of the truth to balance the rest of the pro RAF spin being put on the Falkland conflict at the moment.
Irritating, isn't it when somebody twists the truth..........
Do you remember when some idiot tried to say that the RN won the Battle of Britain not that long ago? Got on the RAF's t1ts didn't it. Well think about how the RN and might feel about the people on here's attempt to hijack the Falklands.
p.s. Geehovah, were you seriously going to argue my b@llocks with a what might have happened?
No, not really.
I think I judged my last post to be just about the right distance the other side of the truth to balance the rest of the pro RAF spin being put on the Falkland conflict at the moment.
Irritating, isn't it when somebody twists the truth..........
Do you remember when some idiot tried to say that the RN won the Battle of Britain not that long ago? Got on the RAF's t1ts didn't it. Well think about how the RN and might feel about the people on here's attempt to hijack the Falklands.
p.s. Geehovah, were you seriously going to argue my b@llocks with a what might have happened?
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: UK
Age: 44
Posts: 54
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Aaah, playing Devil's advocate - very philosophical. At least you've provided plenty of quotable material for the tabloids. They do seem to largely consist of PPRUNE and ARSSE 'cuts and pastes' these days.
I think I judged my last post to be just about the right distance the other side of the truth to balance the rest of the pro RAF spin being put on the Falkland conflict at the moment.
The only 'pro-RAF spin' came in the Torygraph article which endeavoured to claim that the Vulcan won the war - even the RAF website doesn't say that...
Also, bear in mind that the reason that the RAF case may be being pushed a little more strongly than you like may not be unconnected with very clear and concerted attempts made by some members (or ex-members) of the RN and Army to write the RAF's contribution to the Falklands out of history.
So its just banter then?
Does this mean ES-T is just writing to the papers for a bit of a laugh?
(imagines ES-T is some smokey gents club having a laugh with his old muckers about how he got some journos to print a letter in the daily rags implying that the vulcan never hit the runway at Stanley. He won a bet of £50 as his muckers reckoned no journo would be daft enough to fall for it, let alone print it......).
If it is just hoot then fair enough
Does this mean ES-T is just writing to the papers for a bit of a laugh?
(imagines ES-T is some smokey gents club having a laugh with his old muckers about how he got some journos to print a letter in the daily rags implying that the vulcan never hit the runway at Stanley. He won a bet of £50 as his muckers reckoned no journo would be daft enough to fall for it, let alone print it......).
If it is just hoot then fair enough
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: earth
Posts: 1,398
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tourist seems to believe that the demise of the fixed wing carrier was due to false claims by the RAF of ability to project air power worldwide . In fact, it was HM Govt that abandoned the strategy to project military power worldwide and withdrew all forces east of Suez.
The fixed wing carrier with all its essential supporting vessels simply did not fit into this new concept of ops and it is questionable that it does today. Had it not been possible to park the carriers so far East of the Falklands that the Harriers could barely reach their targets, it would not have been possible to protect them in the Falklands war.
Perhaps Tourist is unwise to put forward this argument today when all defence expenditure is up for grabs. If Gordon examines this topic he might get ideas.
As for the suggestion that the RAF tried to hijack the Falklands war - it is a fact that both the Navy and the RAF were supporting a predominantly Army land battle to retake the islands - both classic roles of naval and air power.
I doubt very much if anybody not in the Navy viewed the war as anything other than a fine example of what our three services could achieve together despite repeated defence cuts.
The fixed wing carrier with all its essential supporting vessels simply did not fit into this new concept of ops and it is questionable that it does today. Had it not been possible to park the carriers so far East of the Falklands that the Harriers could barely reach their targets, it would not have been possible to protect them in the Falklands war.
Perhaps Tourist is unwise to put forward this argument today when all defence expenditure is up for grabs. If Gordon examines this topic he might get ideas.
As for the suggestion that the RAF tried to hijack the Falklands war - it is a fact that both the Navy and the RAF were supporting a predominantly Army land battle to retake the islands - both classic roles of naval and air power.
I doubt very much if anybody not in the Navy viewed the war as anything other than a fine example of what our three services could achieve together despite repeated defence cuts.
TAC Int Bloke
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 975
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You mean kindly storing them in a NATO forward area and not squealing too much when we eeeeerrmmmmm "borrowed" them?
Well that was the story I was told shortly afterwards by a very drunk armourer, probably not true, but more romantic in an Ealing comedy style - "Some of our sidewinders are missing" sense.
Well that was the story I was told shortly afterwards by a very drunk armourer, probably not true, but more romantic in an Ealing comedy style - "Some of our sidewinders are missing" sense.
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Temporarily missing from the Joe Louis Arena
Posts: 2,133
Received 28 Likes
on
17 Posts
Didn't the US also aid the Argentinians as well?
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: firmly on dry land
Age: 81
Posts: 1,541
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Gainsey, that EOD Team was also responsible for the reintroduction of berets with DPM.
There was a wonderful photo of an EOD (I guess) officer over a bomb wearing his DPMs and wearing a brand new (the gold was gleaming) SD Hat. I know questions were asked in the corridors of power.
There was a wonderful photo of an EOD (I guess) officer over a bomb wearing his DPMs and wearing a brand new (the gold was gleaming) SD Hat. I know questions were asked in the corridors of power.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Home
Posts: 3,399
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mike
Not many I'm afraid
"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"
+2
"I, and virtually all my light blue colleagues, hold the other branches of the forces in high regard."
-1 Hmm
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.
-1 S-T's understanding of what air power was going to do to the ships in the harbour was excellent. Tim Collins may be a tw@t, but he is the closest thing we have had to a man with true leadership ability in a while.
"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."
-2 They yomped because you weren't there! The fact that you triad to be doesn't cut it. "Losers do their best, winners go home and f**k the prom queen" etc
"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."
-4 Erm, you are surely aware, as the Argentinians were, that the RN could have Nuked BA from plymouth, with a lot more accuracy, less cost and no risk to aircrew? You know, those dasterdly underhanded underwater boats? National deterant?
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.
-1 More a morale effect than any real military damage. Holes can be filled without any trouble, and the Argentinians were more than willing to lose aircraft in the pursuit of sinking our ships. To suggest that the fear of losing a/c in airfield strikes was the reason they did not operate from Stanley is illogical.
"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."
-1 Erm.. but we did.....
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.
Nearly docked you 10 for mention of a sea Typhoon (which I assume was a joke for so many reasons) We have all suffered vast cuts, and I think you would find it very hard to justify saying the RAF has taken the most pain. Primary importance would probably go to the Army at the moment, feet on the ground, apache etc, and we all have SH
"Dry your eyes princess and show a little respect for the light blues just as you demand respect for yourself! Muppet."
Nice finish though
Not many I'm afraid
"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"
+2
"I, and virtually all my light blue colleagues, hold the other branches of the forces in high regard."
-1 Hmm
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.
-1 S-T's understanding of what air power was going to do to the ships in the harbour was excellent. Tim Collins may be a tw@t, but he is the closest thing we have had to a man with true leadership ability in a while.
"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."
-2 They yomped because you weren't there! The fact that you triad to be doesn't cut it. "Losers do their best, winners go home and f**k the prom queen" etc
"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."
-4 Erm, you are surely aware, as the Argentinians were, that the RN could have Nuked BA from plymouth, with a lot more accuracy, less cost and no risk to aircrew? You know, those dasterdly underhanded underwater boats? National deterant?
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.
-1 More a morale effect than any real military damage. Holes can be filled without any trouble, and the Argentinians were more than willing to lose aircraft in the pursuit of sinking our ships. To suggest that the fear of losing a/c in airfield strikes was the reason they did not operate from Stanley is illogical.
"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."
-1 Erm.. but we did.....
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.
Nearly docked you 10 for mention of a sea Typhoon (which I assume was a joke for so many reasons) We have all suffered vast cuts, and I think you would find it very hard to justify saying the RAF has taken the most pain. Primary importance would probably go to the Army at the moment, feet on the ground, apache etc, and we all have SH
"Dry your eyes princess and show a little respect for the light blues just as you demand respect for yourself! Muppet."
Nice finish though
Stanely Runway:Black Buck
Pse see below - reply to Daily Telegraph
BLACK BUCK
Colonel Southby-Tailyour is a remarkable man: few know the environs of the Falkland Islands better than he does; his contribution to the success of our invasion force in 1982 was more than vital – it was fundamental. Thus, his views deserve attention. However, I do have comment on his recent letter (“Effects of bombing Stanley Runway”– 4 May 2004).
The Vulcan raid was the opening salvo of the War; thus, it made a decisive statement of our intent. Moreover, 21 x 1000lb bombs arriving out of the darkness, in total surprise, had more than a deleterious effect on the morale of the conscript defenders at Stanley airfield who were already living in poor conditions; this dramatic arrival of the British also had a real affect on the morale of the residents of Stanley. Later, Vulcan anti radar sorties significantly impinged on the Argentine use of their radars. Also, the Argentine Government could never be sure that a subsequent attack might be made on a mainland base. As to their use of the runway at Stanley, while it was certainly too short for normal fast jet operations, Squadron Leader Withers attack ensured that they did not have use of it for emergency refuelling – which would have given them another option. While the Vulcan sorties should certainly be viewed alongside the outstanding contribution of Harrier and Sea Harrier operations, the Vulcan missions had a part to play in the context of the war. Whatever one’s view of the results, these were remarkable missions achieved by the efforts of planning staffs, Vulcan crews and the much too unsung Victor tanker crews whose contribution to the wider support of the conflict was remarkable.
Often, in these pages, we see inter-Service sniping; I am sure this was not the Colonel’s intent and nor is it mine: everyone gave of their best. Although much of all our efforts did not go as planned (and often they did not) the overall achievement of our forces was remarkable – and, at this juncture we should remember our success with humility and recognise the sacrifice of those who gave their lives and those who were injured to ensure the freedom of these remarkable Islands.
I should make clear that I am not entirely detached from these events!
Monty
Vulcan Detachment Commander, Ascension Island 1982
BLACK BUCK
Colonel Southby-Tailyour is a remarkable man: few know the environs of the Falkland Islands better than he does; his contribution to the success of our invasion force in 1982 was more than vital – it was fundamental. Thus, his views deserve attention. However, I do have comment on his recent letter (“Effects of bombing Stanley Runway”– 4 May 2004).
The Vulcan raid was the opening salvo of the War; thus, it made a decisive statement of our intent. Moreover, 21 x 1000lb bombs arriving out of the darkness, in total surprise, had more than a deleterious effect on the morale of the conscript defenders at Stanley airfield who were already living in poor conditions; this dramatic arrival of the British also had a real affect on the morale of the residents of Stanley. Later, Vulcan anti radar sorties significantly impinged on the Argentine use of their radars. Also, the Argentine Government could never be sure that a subsequent attack might be made on a mainland base. As to their use of the runway at Stanley, while it was certainly too short for normal fast jet operations, Squadron Leader Withers attack ensured that they did not have use of it for emergency refuelling – which would have given them another option. While the Vulcan sorties should certainly be viewed alongside the outstanding contribution of Harrier and Sea Harrier operations, the Vulcan missions had a part to play in the context of the war. Whatever one’s view of the results, these were remarkable missions achieved by the efforts of planning staffs, Vulcan crews and the much too unsung Victor tanker crews whose contribution to the wider support of the conflict was remarkable.
Often, in these pages, we see inter-Service sniping; I am sure this was not the Colonel’s intent and nor is it mine: everyone gave of their best. Although much of all our efforts did not go as planned (and often they did not) the overall achievement of our forces was remarkable – and, at this juncture we should remember our success with humility and recognise the sacrifice of those who gave their lives and those who were injured to ensure the freedom of these remarkable Islands.
I should make clear that I am not entirely detached from these events!
Monty
Vulcan Detachment Commander, Ascension Island 1982
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Uk
Posts: 182
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"They yomped because you weren't there!"
and they weren't there because the RN couldn't adequately defend its self from a missile, it had owned its self for several years prior to 1982
can't blame the crabs for that one
and they weren't there because the RN couldn't adequately defend its self from a missile, it had owned its self for several years prior to 1982
can't blame the crabs for that one