Discussion
Ginetta G15 Girl said:
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?
. But that's not a problem, leave it to the RN and the FAA.Fix fusing issues. Combination of tossing and low level, some heave is useful but not essential. Would Argentinian air defence at Port Stanley have been fully effective by April 17th?
SHAR primary duty was air defence, hence reluctance to use to bomb the runway. Why wait for the GR3 when the runway can be closed at the earliest date?
For general ground attack, fuel restrictions still apply to the GR3 Harrier, not so much of a problem for the Bucc, particularly with mid-air re-fuelling as an option. Thus time on station for the Bucc can far exceed that of the Harrier.
Bucc endurance and range means that the Ark Royal can stay well away from Exocets but the Buccs can still offer substantial loitering time, this was an issue for the Harrier.
The Bucc was indeed designed for a maritime strike role, but its capabilities far exceeded that. Strategic bomber, ground attack, tanker, reconnaissance and more. But you know all this.
Use the Bucc for close air support of British troops on the ground? I think the intention would be to wreck the capability of Argentinian forces before the Task Force was anywhere near launching an invasion. I don't envisage the Argentinian conscripts being too enthusiastic about fighting the British troops after a couple of weeks of FAA attrition.
V8 Fettler said:
You must surely be (ex-) RAF with a can't do attitude like that . But that's not a problem, leave it to the RN and the FAA.
I shall ignore that piece of stupidity with the utter contempt it deserves.. But that's not a problem, leave it to the RN and the FAA.V8 Fettler said:
Fix fusing issues. Combination of tossing and low level, some heave is useful but not essential. Would Argentinian air defence at Port Stanley have been fully effective by April 17th?
SHAR primary duty was air defence, hence reluctance to use to bomb the runway. Why wait for the GR3 when the runway can be closed at the earliest date?
Lets have a look at this. Firstly it isn't a fusing issue, it's a case of how are you going to defeat a runway with 1000lb GP bombs? If you drop them at low level (where you might survive/avoid/defeat the LLADS) they will bounce off (it's called grazing). If you toss them, they will bounce off (as the SHARs found out). The only way to get a hole in the runway with this weapon is to drop it from altitude so that it has some momentum when it strikes the target such that it penetrates. Ergo you drop it from way above the capability of the LLADS (Low Level Air Defence Systems). Oh but you can't do that wih a SHAR/GR3/Buccaneer because they don't have the capability of putting the weapon on the target from height, OR you drop it in a 15-30 degree dive (which is going to get your limited air assets killed by the very LLADS you want to avoid!).SHAR primary duty was air defence, hence reluctance to use to bomb the runway. Why wait for the GR3 when the runway can be closed at the earliest date?
You state that: "some heave is useful but not essential" which clearly indicates you know nothing about runway denial because is total and patent tripe. If you don't have heave then anyone with a bulldozer, or even a bucket and spade, can merely fill the hole and fix the problem tout suite.
Why April 17? The Task Force didn't get there until April 30. Since the Argentines got to Stanley on April 2 anyway, by your date that gives them over 2 weeks to set up their LLADS. You think any Commander worth their salt isn't going to set up defences?
V8 Fettler said:
For general ground attack, fuel restrictions still apply to the GR3 Harrier, not so much of a problem for the Bucc, particularly with mid-air re-fuelling as an option. Thus time on station for the Bucc can far exceed that of the Harrier.
Bucc endurance and range means that the Ark Royal can stay well away from Exocets but the Buccs can still offer substantial loitering time, this was an issue for the Harrier.
I'll ask you again what you think the Bucc could do over the Falklands. It wasn'tt a CAS (Close Air Support) airframe - it didn't have the weapons aiming kit to do the job effectively. All the loiter time in the world isn't going to help you if you are the wrong airframe for the job.Bucc endurance and range means that the Ark Royal can stay well away from Exocets but the Buccs can still offer substantial loitering time, this was an issue for the Harrier.
Edited by Ginetta G15 Girl on Wednesday 13th August 14:24
Eric Mc said:
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.
Let's move back to the Gannet because you've said your bit eh? 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.
Regardless of Invincible, we had Hermes, Illustrious arriving imminently and Ark Royal to follow, so the 'lack of ANY carrier' is more than a little wide of the mark.
You mention HMS Endeavour. I assume you mean Endurance - the last HMS Endeavour was sold in 1946. Her proposed decommissioning was absolutely a factor in the assessments made by the Argentines and representative of the 'apathy' I alluded to....but nothing to do with your last post.
Yes - I meant Endurance 
.
And I have said my bit so won't belabour any more points on the Falklands War.
I like Gannets, I do. I really must get around to building a few models of them I have at least three in my pile of unbuilt kits.
Sadly, no mainstream manufacture has ever released a kit of the AEW version. Revell's AS1/4 and T5 are lovely however.
.And I have said my bit so won't belabour any more points on the Falklands War.
I like Gannets, I do. I really must get around to building a few models of them I have at least three in my pile of unbuilt kits.
Sadly, no mainstream manufacture has ever released a kit of the AEW version. Revell's AS1/4 and T5 are lovely however.
Ginetta G15 Girl said:
V8 Fettler said:
You must surely be (ex-) RAF with a can't do attitude like that . But that's not a problem, leave it to the RN and the FAA.
I shall ignore that piece of stupidity with the utter contempt it deserves.. But that's not a problem, leave it to the RN and the FAA.V8 Fettler said:
Fix fusing issues. Combination of tossing and low level, some heave is useful but not essential. Would Argentinian air defence at Port Stanley have been fully effective by April 17th?
SHAR primary duty was air defence, hence reluctance to use to bomb the runway. Why wait for the GR3 when the runway can be closed at the earliest date?
Lets have a look at this. Firstly it isn't a fusing issue, it's a case of how are you going to defeat a runway with 1000lb GP bombs? If you drop them at low level (where you might survive/avoid/defeat the LLADS) they will bounce off (it's called grazing). If you toss them, they will bounce off (as the SHARs found out). The only way to get a hole in the runway with this weapon is to drop it from altitude so that it has some momentum when it strikes the target such that it penetrates. Ergo you drop it from way above the capability of the LLADS (Low Level Air Defence Systems). Oh but you can't do that wih a SHAR/GR3/Buccaneer because they don't have the capability of putting the weapon on the target from height, OR you drop it in a 15-30 degree dive (which is going to get your limited air assets killed by the very LLADS you want to avoid!).SHAR primary duty was air defence, hence reluctance to use to bomb the runway. Why wait for the GR3 when the runway can be closed at the earliest date?
You state that: "some heave is useful but not essential" which clearly indicates you know nothing about runway denial because is total and patent tripe. If you don't have heave then anyone with a bulldozer, or even a bucket and spade, can merely fill the hole and fix the problem tout suite.
Why April 17? The Task Force didn't get there until April 30. Since the Argentines got to Stanley on April 2 anyway, by your date that gives them over 2 weeks to set up their LLADS. You think any Commander worth their salt isn't going to set up defences?
V8 Fettler said:
For general ground attack, fuel restrictions still apply to the GR3 Harrier, not so much of a problem for the Bucc, particularly with mid-air re-fuelling as an option. Thus time on station for the Bucc can far exceed that of the Harrier.
Bucc endurance and range means that the Ark Royal can stay well away from Exocets but the Buccs can still offer substantial loitering time, this was an issue for the Harrier.
I'll ask you again what you think the Bucc could do over the Falklands. It wasn'tt a CAS (Close Air Support) airframe - it didn't have the weapons aiming kit to do the job effectively. All the loiter time in the world isn't going to help you if you are the wrong airframe for the job.Bucc endurance and range means that the Ark Royal can stay well away from Exocets but the Buccs can still offer substantial loitering time, this was an issue for the Harrier.
Edited by Ginetta G15 Girl on Wednesday 13th August 14:24
April 17th, British Honduras is the clue, assuming peak performance from the Ark. I have no idea how quickly the Argentinians would take to transport, install and commission their anti-aircraft defences, hence question mark. I make no judgement re: capability of the Argentinian commander, but I doubt if he would expect Buccs overhead a mere 2 weeks after the task force left the UK.
You say CAS, I say ground attack. The Bucc isn't sophisticated enough to use in close support of British troops, but it can certainly operate in a ground attack role, see use by the South African Air Force over a period of 10 years. See also ability of Bucc to accurately attack the ground beneath a pursuing F15.
Whilst educating myslef on matters Bucc, I stumbled on this
http://warships1discussionboards.yuku.com/topic/18...
Last post page 1!
Post dissection? Just say no
donutsina911 said:
The Gannet is positively pulchritudinous compared to this little beauty. An American friends thinks they were assembled from scrap bit n'pieces.http://www.warbirdsresourcegroup.org/BARC/BARC_exp...
Gassing Station | Boats, Planes & Trains | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff