Could we fly 'blackbuck' today?
Discussion
Just wondering... if things went Pete Tong way down south again would we be able to fly a 'Blackbuck' mission today? Could a Typhoon or Tornado with our re-fueling capabilities (domestic or imported airframes from EU/Nato??) get close enough to Port Stanley/Mount Pleasant to drop something on them??
In reality I guess we wouldn't... a tomahawk or two fired from one of Barrow's finest would do the job better and with less risk.
In reality I guess we wouldn't... a tomahawk or two fired from one of Barrow's finest would do the job better and with less risk.
c7xlg said:
Just wondering... if things went Pete Tong way down south again would we be able to fly a 'Blackbuck' mission today? Could a Typhoon or Tornado with our re-fueling capabilities (domestic or imported airframes from EU/Nato??) get close enough to Port Stanley/Mount Pleasant to drop something on them??
In reality I guess we wouldn't... a tomahawk or two fired from one of Barrow's finest would do the job better and with less risk.
Why would you want to? It didn't work in 82 and I can't think of a reason it'd be any different today. Libya demonstrated the ability of a Tornado to fly oodles of miles to drop some tin from afar, but it really isn't an ideal way to do business...In reality I guess we wouldn't... a tomahawk or two fired from one of Barrow's finest would do the job better and with less risk.
I'm reading a Patrick Robinson fiction book right now that is based on the Argies invading again (and us having bugger all navy to do anything about it). Under this scenario the first thing the argies did was take over Mount Pleasant.
So my theoretical scenario is that the Falkands have fallen... Mount Pleasant taken. Could we strike them from the air from Ascension? this is quite a bit further than Libya-UK. How many top ups would a Tornado need? and could our new A330s buddy refuel to put one/two of them close enough to the falklands to top off the Tornado/Typhoon on its return?
So my theoretical scenario is that the Falkands have fallen... Mount Pleasant taken. Could we strike them from the air from Ascension? this is quite a bit further than Libya-UK. How many top ups would a Tornado need? and could our new A330s buddy refuel to put one/two of them close enough to the falklands to top off the Tornado/Typhoon on its return?
Eric... just run with the scenario ok!! Maybe it was a team of 10 Argie snipers smuggled in from a fishing boat. Few shots into the Typhoons to make them scrap, take out a few people wondering around and sneak up at 03:00 on christmas day and put some plastic on the radar and missle sights. Wouldn't be that hard.
Eric Mc said:
No need to. Black Buck was a mission out of desperation. We have permanently based air assets based in the Falklands these days.
Was there not another angle though.1. that is showed we could from a distance directly attack their mainland, something they couldn't do in return.
2. that this ability could have been used to deliver something far more catastrophic.
Absolutely. But we can still do that using other resources - such as submarine launched cruise missiles or cruise missiles launched from ships.
The Falklands are much more secure militarily now compared to the situation in 1982.
Obviously, that requires at least one ship or submarine to be in a position to be able to launch such an attack - but I understand that there is always at least one submarine in and around the South Atlantic at any time.
The Falklands are much more secure militarily now compared to the situation in 1982.
Obviously, that requires at least one ship or submarine to be in a position to be able to launch such an attack - but I understand that there is always at least one submarine in and around the South Atlantic at any time.
t out of them from 1000 miles away - no need for any air strikes. c7xlg said:
In reality I guess we wouldn't... a tomahawk or two fired from one of Barrow's finest would do the job better and with less risk.
You answered your own question 
As others have said, Tonka's can get there, but we no longer have enough AAR assests to get a couple there ...and back (assuming you mean exact same scenario as BB) in one go as with did with the Vulcan and 16 x Victors.
Always wondered why we didn't send Bucs down to the Falklands back in 1982, apparently the 710 tank wasn't big enough. The Tonka was considered untested and discounted hence the Vulcan being the only option. Since then of course Tornado and Typhoon have been flown down from Accession, admittedly without weapons but it's within range, not sure we have the tanker capacity mind for a round trip with more than one Tonka.
Is it not the case that the modern commercial aircraft derived tanker aircraft have greater capacity for dispensable fuel on board? They also have a greater range themselves, than the Victors did, surely. At least Atlantic crossing range? I don't know the figures, or the comparisons with 1982 in service AAR kit, but if it is the case that the current fleet has longer range and greater capacity, then with multiple crews aboard the tankers it would require fewer airframes to provide a similar service to the combat aircraft flying the mission? Surely the Typhoons/Tornados also require less fuel overall than the Vulcan did to cover the same ground, and they do it far faster than the old delta ever did, thereby requiring less loiter time from their AAR assets? It would also be easier on ordnance too. Black Buck required carriage of 21 x 1,000lb bombs, but a couple of guided weapons (LGB/RGB) would do the same (or more) damage more accurately than a stick of freefall iron lobbed from an aircraft that wasn't really designed for that kind of bombing.
I may well be talking out of my arse here, but the Vulcan was probably closer to the Lancaster in terms of technology, than it was to Tornado/Typhoon - things have moved on a great deal. The RAF and RN may well be smaller than they were, and we lack the capacity to launch fixed wing assets from a pitching deck, but as a nation, I'm sure we've opened up a fairly significant technological advantage over those belligerent Argies. All they seem to operate are a bunch of Mirage derivatives and some 40 year old re-manufactured Skyhawk/FightingHawk airframes, unless you count the training fleet which is nothing more than glorified Alphajets with 30mm guns and hardpoints for c1,500kg of stores. If the air defences on the Falklands don't take their eye off the ball, so to speak, I can't see how their offensive capability would get anywhere near Mount Pleasant before being picked off by the RAF with their Typhoons and high-tech weapon systems.
Maybe Black Buck is old hat, anyway. We should seek our inspiration from Jimmy Doolittle, and fly a pre-emptive one-way mission to put a single piece of ordnance accurately onto the fountain outside the Presidential Palace in Buenos Aires - it would make a huge point, prove our resolve, and drive a wrecking ball through their government's credibility without loss of life. If we could recover the delivery aircraft too, so much the better. Show 'em who's boss, eh?
I may well be talking out of my arse here, but the Vulcan was probably closer to the Lancaster in terms of technology, than it was to Tornado/Typhoon - things have moved on a great deal. The RAF and RN may well be smaller than they were, and we lack the capacity to launch fixed wing assets from a pitching deck, but as a nation, I'm sure we've opened up a fairly significant technological advantage over those belligerent Argies. All they seem to operate are a bunch of Mirage derivatives and some 40 year old re-manufactured Skyhawk/FightingHawk airframes, unless you count the training fleet which is nothing more than glorified Alphajets with 30mm guns and hardpoints for c1,500kg of stores. If the air defences on the Falklands don't take their eye off the ball, so to speak, I can't see how their offensive capability would get anywhere near Mount Pleasant before being picked off by the RAF with their Typhoons and high-tech weapon systems.
Maybe Black Buck is old hat, anyway. We should seek our inspiration from Jimmy Doolittle, and fly a pre-emptive one-way mission to put a single piece of ordnance accurately onto the fountain outside the Presidential Palace in Buenos Aires - it would make a huge point, prove our resolve, and drive a wrecking ball through their government's credibility without loss of life. If we could recover the delivery aircraft too, so much the better. Show 'em who's boss, eh?
Eric Mc said:
The Falklands are much more secure militarily now compared to the situation in 1982.
No they aren't, that's just the perception. The military contingent is a shadow of the shadow it was in the years immediately after Corporate, and two Typhoons won't hold off everything.donutsina911 said:
Why would you want to? It didn't work in 82
In what way didn't it "work"?Edited by anonymous-user on Friday 6th September 06:47
yellowjack said:
I can't see how their offensive capability would get anywhere near Mount Pleasant before being picked off by the RAF with their Typhoons and high-tech weapon systems.
Think asymmetric unconventional warfare.The Falklands are monumentally remote, unihabited and very, very dark at night. Half a dozen chaps from El Herefordio could wreak a fair amount of havoc before it even becomes apparent they're the ones doing it.
Getting them ashore wouldn't be too difficult either, given the massive rise in commercial shipping around the islands.
Crossflow Kid said:
Eric Mc said:
The Falklands are much more secure militarily now compared to the situation in 1982.
No they aren't, that's just the perception. The military contingent is a shadow of the shadow it was in the years immediately after Corporate, and two Typhoons won't hold off everything.Gassing Station | Boats, Planes & Trains | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff