Guy martin Vulcan bomber

[Lazadude]

Scuffers said:

really?

Link?

Apparently, the photographer said it in a catch up article:

cameraman said:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/20/george-yo...

Yostake said that of the six who were there that day, only he and Luttrell are still alive.

All of them were diagnosed with cancer at one time or another, CBS reports, although Yostake said that after chemotherapy and surgery last year for stomach cancer, he's now healthy.

Yostake said he knows a lot of cameramen who filmed nuclear tests died of cancer, adding that he's not certain it was related to the blasts.

Obits for them doesnt mention anything, but then I wouldn't expect them too.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Plumbbob#J...
http://lompocrecord.com/lifestyles/announcements/o...
http://www.legacy.com/obituaries/dallasmorningnews...

[Scuffers]

pretty sketchy then.....

[Beati Dogu]

They were all in their 70s or 80s though it seems. The camera man, George Yoshi_take filmed other nuclear tests and only died a couple of years ago following a stroke, aged 84.

[RizzoTheRat]

Scuffers said:

Eric Mc said:

Voodos had Genie missiles, didn't they. That would have atomised a whole squadron of Vulcans.

they still had to get pretty close to start with (6 mile range) and some 1,000ft blast radius

(would have been idea during WWII against incoming bomber formations though)

What would the Russians have been flying at that time? Badgers were a bit quicker but presumably the main of any Russian attack force would have been big formations of Bears using tactics similar to WW2?

[Eric Mc]

Bears and Bisons.

The US thought the Russians had more Bisons than they really did.

[Scuffers]

RizzoTheRat said:

What would the Russians have been flying at that time? Badgers were a bit quicker but presumably the main of any Russian attack force would have been big formations of Bears using tactics similar to WW2?

yes, but with nuc's, one assumes the incoming bombers would not be anything like in formation?

[IanMorewood]

gareth_r said:

He and Sandy Woodward make a good case.

63 bombs, and one hit the edge of the runway. I don't think that's what kept the Argentinian fast jets off the Falklands.

Edited by gareth_r on Monday 30th November 13:04

Sharky has a point after all he shot down more enemy aircraft in 1982 than the entire royal air force managed in the proceeding or subsequent 20years.

Sandy Woodford on the other hand struggled on the concept of how air support worked and really only used his limited air power to perhaps a quarter of its full potential. He could if using it more appropriately have saved lots of servicemen lives and saved many more from some horrific injuries.

(The flip side to my own argument though is it could have risked a carrier being hit by an airstrike, but then given proper CAP cover the raiders should probably have been intercepted).

[RizzoTheRat]

Having met Julian Thompson and Mike Clapp last year they reckoned they all got got a lot more sympathy for each others positions/actions years later when they started reading each others biographies. The chain of command was somewhat confused and they all had different objectives and were working off different information. Its easy to say things could have done differently with hindsight, even Woodward has said that, but he could only act on the information and orderes he had at the time.

[Eric Mc]

Read Jerry Pook's book on Harrier operations in the Falklands for yet another (and not altogether complimentary) view on air operations in the war -

[DS240]

Enjoyed the program. Nice seeing the plane in that detail and hear a bit of background info.

Agree, these programs don't need constant drama built in. It's almost dumbed down too much.

Dooley does seem to be the go to voiceover man at the moment.


I remember watching the full documentary on the Falkland island mission. What a bonkers mission at the time. When you try and calculate the resources used to bomb a runway!!!

[gareth_r]

DS240 said:

....I remember watching the full documentary on the Falkland island mission. What a bonkers mission at the time. When you try and calculate the resources used to bomb a runway!!!

The Navy calculated that the Harriers could have dropped 1300 bombs on the Port Stanley airfield with the fuel used by one Vulcan and the tankers.

Edited by gareth_r on Thursday 3rd December 10:31

[RizzoTheRat]

But did they have that much fuel and that many bombs available, and would it have been seen by the Argentinians as a potential threat to the mainland?

[Scuffers]

Stupid comparison.

What would have happened if the argies had not withdrawn fast jets from stanley?

How vulnerable would the approaching task force have been?

It was more a statement than a military achievement.

[gareth_r]

Scuffers said:

Stupid comparison.

What would have happened if the Argies had not withdrawn fast jets from Stanley?

How vulnerable would the approaching task force have been?

It was more a statement than a military achievement.

They weren't withdrawn, they were never there.

[djdest]

Exactly, so by showing we had the capacity to bomb the runway it put them off/stopped them running the jets out of there, which would of made it a lot harder to take back

[gareth_r]

djdest said:

Exactly, so by showing we had the capacity to bomb the runway it put them off/stopped them running the jets out of there, which would have made it a lot harder to take back

IIRC the runway was too short.

[RizzoTheRat]

Long enough for Mirage/Dagger and Skyhawks to operate from but without full payload according the assessments at the time, plus one of the later blackbuck raids to was bomb the area beyond the runway to hamper any efforts to extend it

[anonymous-user]

Scuffers said:

It was more a statement than a military achievement.

I've never heard it said, but i wonder if the effect was also to un-nerve the Argies, into considering that their mainland could also be bombed by a nation thousands of miles away?

IE the fact the UK could bomb a small island a few hundred miles off the coast of Argentina must have raised a few eyebrows, and caused a few to wonder "could they bomb us" if things escalated.

(in reality, the practicalities of bombing mainland Argentina from such a distance would have been insurmountable, but at the time, it'd make you think!)

[98elise]

gareth_r said:

DS240 said:

....I remember watching the full documentary on the Falkland island mission. What a bonkers mission at the time. When you try and calculate the resources used to bomb a runway!!!

The Navy calculated that the Harriers could have dropped 1300 bombs on the Port Stanley airfield with the fuel used by one Vulcan and the tankers.

Edited by gareth_r on Thursday 3rd December 10:31

Ignoring the fact that the Harriers needed to be shipped to the Falklands

[gareth_r]

RizzoTheRat said:

Long enough for Mirage/Dagger and Skyhawks to operate from but without full payload according the assessments at the time, plus one of the later blackbuck raids was to bomb the area beyond the runway to hamper any efforts to extend it

The RAF actually said "During the night of 3/4 May a Vulcan B2... flew the 'Black Buck 2' mission, almost identical in detail to the first. The area to the western end of the runway was heavily cratered in the attack, preventing any possible extension of the airfield for high performance combat aircraft.". That doesn't make it appear that the intention was to hit "the area to the western end of the runway".
http://www.raf.mod.uk/history/OperationBlackBuck.c...


A quick search found this "In 1960, the NATO standard (for runway repair) was the ability to repair three craters from 750lb bombs within four hours.". How long would it have taken the Argentinians to fill one hole?

Presumably it would be even quicker to fill holes that weren't even on the runway, but were actually in a location where you wanted to dig for foundations anyway.

But I'm just an old cynic.

Edited by gareth_r on Thursday 3rd December 12:31