Discussion
V8 Fettler said:
There was no sense in losing Ark Royal with no immediate replacement available.
In the same way it made no sense to retire the Harrier. We are an island nation without the ability to project fixed wing firepower from sea until at least 2019-2020. Having served on the old Ark Royal for 3 years, 6 years on the Invincible (Including the Falklands Conflict) and 2 years on Illustrious I can testify that having the ability to launch fixed wing aircraft from anywhere in the world is an invaluable asset.If we had have had the old Ark Royal during the Falklands conflict I am sure the war would have been over a lot quicker. We only had the Sea-Harrier at the time which could only carry 2 x Sidewinders and Guns. The Phantom, apart from being over twice as fast and greater endurance, carried 4 x Sidewinder and 4 x Sparrow plus cannons. The buccaneers could carry out in flight refueling and the Gannets AEW. Remember that the Gannet could also transmit their RADAR picture back to the ARK where it could be looked at by Ops Room crew in a more comfortable environment to determine what were or were not viable targets.
Speculatore said:
V8 Fettler said:
There was no sense in losing Ark Royal with no immediate replacement available.
In the same way it made no sense to retire the Harrier. We are an island nation without the ability to project fixed wing firepower from sea until at least 2019-2020. Having served on the old Ark Royal for 3 years, 6 years on the Invincible (Including the Falklands Conflict) and 2 years on Illustrious I can testify that having the ability to launch fixed wing aircraft from anywhere in the world is an invaluable asset.If we had have had the old Ark Royal during the Falklands conflict I am sure the war would have been over a lot quicker. We only had the Sea-Harrier at the time which could only carry 2 x Sidewinders and Guns. The Phantom, apart from being over twice as fast and greater endurance, carried 4 x Sidewinder and 4 x Sparrow plus cannons. The buccaneers could carry out in flight refueling and the Gannets AEW. Remember that the Gannet could also transmit their RADAR picture back to the ARK where it could be looked at by Ops Room crew in a more comfortable environment to determine what were or were not viable targets.
V8 Fettler said:
Eric Mc said:
It did make sense to retire these assets - immediate economic sense.
However, immediate economic sense is not the only kind of sense there is.
It was probably those bean counters again EricHowever, immediate economic sense is not the only kind of sense there is.
Speculatore said:
Remember that the Gannet could also transmit their RADAR picture back to the ARK where it could be looked at by Ops Room crew in a more comfortable environment to determine what were or were not viable targets.
Are you sure about that? That doesn't really square with anything I've read about the Gannet, even the yanks didn't have data transmission like that for the E2s until the 1980s.Eric Mc said:
It did make sense to retire these assets - immediate economic sense.
However, immediate economic sense is not the only kind of sense there is.
Healey's hatchet job had made it near impossible to retain her beyond 1978; she was pretty tired and the early scrapping of Eagle(she was in better material condition than Ark but was not converted to operate F4s as a cost saving measure; consequently when the Vixens were retired Eagle went with them.) meant that what maintenance and refit she received was piecemeal and had to fit operational requirements. Running a single aircraft carrier is an expensive way of maintaining face while enduring long periods of non-availability.However, immediate economic sense is not the only kind of sense there is.
Edited by hidetheelephants on Tuesday 12th August 19:32
IanMorewood said:
V8 Fettler said:
The Buccs would have had a field day in the Falklands, rules of engagement permitting.
Care to explain what extra they would have added to the mix? Phantoms on the other hand .....hidetheelephants said:
Speculatore said:
Remember that the Gannet could also transmit their RADAR picture back to the ARK where it could be looked at by Ops Room crew in a more comfortable environment to determine what were or were not viable targets.
Are you sure about that? That doesn't really square with anything I've read about the Gannet, even the yanks didn't have data transmission like that for the E2s until the 1980s.Edited by hidetheelephants on Tuesday 12th August 19:32
IanMorewood said:
V8 Fettler said:
The Buccs would have had a field day in the Falklands, rules of engagement permitting.
Care to explain what extra they would have added to the mix? Phantoms on the other hand .....That said, the Argies would have to have been completely insane to invade if we had still retained that capability, so it wouldn't have happened.
V8 Fettler said:
With the Phantoms committed to air defence, I should imagine that the Buccs might be used in some sort of maritime strike role and possibly even low level ground attack...
The Argentine Navy mostly went home after HMS Conquerer showed what happened without adequate ASW cover so maritime strike wasn't that important in the conflict. In the ground attack and close air support roles in not sure how much better the Buccaneers would have been over the Harriers, neither could deliver precision weapons (laser guided bombs where used in small numbers towards the end of the conflict), I don't think the Bucc was ever cleared to use the 755 Cluster Bomb that the Harriers used a fair bit. Simply put the Harrier did an OK job in ground attack and was an exceptional fighter during the conflict. Had the conflict escalated the Buccaneers could have become important in striking targets on the mainland but that would have been a huge leap.
Phantoms over the Falklands would have added loiter time, range and Meteor BVR missiles to the air defense scenario, I suspect that this would have stopped the AAF from flying although they may have tried their luck with IAI Daggers carrying the radar guided Mantra missiles.
All totally and utterly academic.
If the UK had possessed a full size "proper" carrier, the conflict would never have even started
As indicated by the fact that it never started during any period when the RN had proper carriers and their associated strike wings.
The book "Phoenix Squadron" is well worth a read.
It shows what the mere presence of a real carrier can do.
If the UK had possessed a full size "proper" carrier, the conflict would never have even started
As indicated by the fact that it never started during any period when the RN had proper carriers and their associated strike wings.
The book "Phoenix Squadron" is well worth a read.
It shows what the mere presence of a real carrier can do.
hidetheelephants said:
CobolMan said:
Speculatore is quite correct, the AN/ART-28 could transmit images from the AN/APS-20 back to the carrier.
Every day's a school day; that's a pretty fancy bit of kit considering it seems to have debuted in the 40s! 
IanMorewood said:
V8 Fettler said:
With the Phantoms committed to air defence, I should imagine that the Buccs might be used in some sort of maritime strike role and possibly even low level ground attack...
The Argentine Navy mostly went home after HMS Conquerer showed what happened without adequate ASW cover so maritime strike wasn't that important in the conflict. In the ground attack and close air support roles in not sure how much better the Buccaneers would have been over the Harriers, neither could deliver precision weapons (laser guided bombs where used in small numbers towards the end of the conflict), I don't think the Bucc was ever cleared to use the 755 Cluster Bomb that the Harriers used a fair bit. Simply put the Harrier did an OK job in ground attack and was an exceptional fighter during the conflict. Had the conflict escalated the Buccaneers could have become important in striking targets on the mainland but that would have been a huge leap.
Phantoms over the Falklands would have added loiter time, range and Meteor BVR missiles to the air defense scenario, I suspect that this would have stopped the AAF from flying although they may have tried their luck with IAI Daggers carrying the radar guided Mantra missiles.
Perhaps commence with a very early, very long range presence over the Falklands (see British Honduras 1972), Argentine navy scurries back to port (where it belongs) by approx April 15th, long before Belgrano sinking.
Permanently eliminating the runway at Port Stanley would be well within the Buccs' capability, something the Harriers and Vulcan(s) singularly failed to do, that could commence around April 17th (long before Black Buck). Any and all Argentine ground forces would be at risk from Bucc attack, April 17th onwards, Phantoms to subsequently provide air defence and supporting ground attack role as Ark Royal approaches the Falklands, perhaps leading to surrender when the rest of the British Task Force finally arrives?
Harrier ground attack opportunities were compromised by air defence role and fuel restrictions. Additionally, Bucc had a far better loitering capability than the Harrier, particularly with aerial refuelling option.
There are variables and unknowns, and would need Ark Royal to perform at peak efficiency, so best keep the meddling bean counters and incompetent politicians at a distance.
V8 Fettler said:
Permanently eliminating the runway at Port Stanley would be well within the Buccs' capability, something the Harriers and Vulcan(s) singularly failed to do,
How? With what? The Buccaneer would have had the same problem as the Harrier in this. To whit, in order to survive agains the Argentine air defences (ROLAND, radar laid 35mm Oerlikon, Tiger Cat) you'd need to carry out a FRA (First Run Attack). A re-attack against awake defences would be suicidal (and a waste of limited air assets). Furthermore, as the Harriers proved, you can not destroy a runway using laydown 1000lb bombs. The only way the Buccs could have done it would have been in a dive attack (as proposed for the SHARs) and that was rightfully binned as being suicidal!
V8 Fettler said:
Harrier ground attack opportunities were compromised by air defence role and fuel restrictions.
Initially maybe, far less so with the arrival of the GR3s which releaed the SHRs for AD duties. The SHARs being far less capable in air to ground anyway.V8 Fettler said:
Additionally, Bucc had a far better loitering capability than the Harrier, particularly with aerial refuelling option.
A bit of a red herring this. Firstly the endurance/range was better than the arrier but to what end? The Buccaneer was designed for long range Strike/Attack, specifically Anti-Shipping (originally for tossing the RED BEARD nuclear weapon against the Soviet Sverdlov Class cruisers) as well as Interdiction. Given that the Argentine Navy showed a marked reluctance to engage the RN what anti-shipping task was there for the Bucc? Secondly what Interdiction targets were there (there weren't even any BAI [Battlefield Air Interdiction] targets)? Finally, while the Buccaneer had a SNEB capability (68mm unguided rocket), as did the Harrier, you are not seriously going to suggest it would have been any more useful for CAS (Close Air Support) than the GR3?Eric Mc said:
All totally and utterly academic.
If the UK had possessed a full size "proper" carrier, the conflict would never have even started
As indicated by the fact that it never started during any period when the RN had proper carriers and their associated strike wings.
The book "Phoenix Squadron" is well worth a read.
It shows what the mere presence of a real carrier can do.
With respect Eric, that's simply not true.If the UK had possessed a full size "proper" carrier, the conflict would never have even started
As indicated by the fact that it never started during any period when the RN had proper carriers and their associated strike wings.
The book "Phoenix Squadron" is well worth a read.
It shows what the mere presence of a real carrier can do.
The domestic situation in Argentina combined with perceived antipathy from the UK counted for far more than whether the RN had a 'proper' carrier. Had there still been an Ark Royal or similar in '82 it would have most likely been buggering about east of Suez at the time, or like Hermes et al, back in the UK and equally unable to prevent the initial invasion - an invasion that was predicated on an assumption that the UK would not respond, not whether it had the hardware to do so decisively.
The potential lack of ANY carrier was a major factor in signalling to the Argentine Junta that the UK had no real commitment to that area. In 1981 it had been announced that HMS Invincible was going to Australia and HMS Endeavour was being retired without a replacement.
These moves, plus the obvious signs that the UK was "declining" as a global power and not interested in the trappings of such power (such as full-on carriers) was all the encouragement Galtieri and his cronies needed.
However, this is a chat about Gannets, I thought, not really about the Falklands (which has been discussed many, many times previously, on PH).
A couple of months ago there was a very good article in Aeroplane Monthly about a crew who had to bail out of a stricken Gannet. It was an extremely complicated and fraught event for all involved.
These moves, plus the obvious signs that the UK was "declining" as a global power and not interested in the trappings of such power (such as full-on carriers) was all the encouragement Galtieri and his cronies needed.
However, this is a chat about Gannets, I thought, not really about the Falklands (which has been discussed many, many times previously, on PH).
A couple of months ago there was a very good article in Aeroplane Monthly about a crew who had to bail out of a stricken Gannet. It was an extremely complicated and fraught event for all involved.
Gassing Station | Boats, Planes & Trains | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff