Falkland Islands under threat once more - huge oil reserves in peril

Andy_L

Road_Hog wrote: »

The Royal Navy flagship is a designated ship and is usually the prestige ship. The most prestigious ship is currently the HMS Bulwark and the point that I was making was that it isn't much of a (prestigious) flagship and is rather embarrassing to be our flagship.

Given a free choice the flagship is the ship most suited to the role, not the most prestigous. It used to be Ocean & the Invincible class carriers (which admitatadly in their day were both) but they have been supassed by technlogical developments that Bulwark, as a newer ship & designed from the start to fulfil the role, has benifited from

GlynD

grizzly1911 wrote: »

It was a good weapon that is engineered to fly at low level making it hard to detect and defeat, fired from an aircraft that wasn't detected.

The aircraft and the missile were both detected but too late because the task force didn't have over the horizon radar. That's a well known fact.

grizzly1911

GlynD wrote: »

The aircraft and the missile were both detected but too late because the task force didn't have over the horizon radar. That's a well known fact.

Can you give me a source for that definitive answer?

I have seen no mention of the plane, being detected pre launch, by this vessel.

I have seen various quotes on when the nissile was detected from within the "radar/guidance" system that couldn't be reconciled to pure visual.

grizzly1911

Andy_L wrote: »

and against defensive systems that were, mostly, designed to counter a different threat

I accept the Sea Dart was not designed to locate fast sea skimming missiles.

The fleet were well aware of the threat from Entendards one of the reasons the carriers were kept well away. I doubt they expected them to announce themselves "openly".

Low level flight to keep below radar is not new and would no doubt have been considered by our Cold War foe. I accept the "over the " horizon argument.

GlynD

grizzly1911 wrote: »

Can you give me a source for that definitive answer?

I have seen no mention of the plane, being detected pre launch, by this vessel.

I have seen various quotes on when the nissile was detected from within the "radar/guidance" system that couldn't be reconciled to pure visual.

Grizzly the answers are all out there because I pulled up a couple of sources to check my info before posting. (just in case the Mk1 brain is malfunctioning). The UK had no AWAC capability at that time. The US provided it for NATO and clandestinely provided it for the Falkland Islands Task Force following the first sinking by Exocet.

The reason the radar picket spotted the incoming planes and missiles on the first attacks were the excellent tactics used by the Argentinian pilots. They stayed low and only popped onto the radar plot for long enough to confirm their own appreciation of what lay in front of them, finally coming up for a few seconds to fire the missile. Most of the ships in the picket saw what was happening by the radar plot but it was too late to do more than take evasive action which doesn't work with Exocet. Exocet goes for the largest object it sees which is a mistake the Argentinians made. They continued to fire at the carriers but the missiles picked out the closer ships as larger targets, except for the time Atlantic Convey was sunk: those missiles were aimed at Invincible (from memory) but Atlantic Conveyor radar signature was larger so it copped it.

If Exocet hadn't been carried by British ships then Sea Dart would have engaged automatically. It didn't because it saw the IFF signature of Exocet as harmless. This was later changed but it was a vulnerability of the fleet at the start of the campaign.

No matter where you look you can find an Achilles Heel because retrospect is a wonderful way of being critical. In many cases though the only thing that was wrong was that systems needed a shakedown due to being designed for a different type of conflict.

Soounds like the story of the "wrong snow on the line" but it's true nevertheless.

GlynD

grizzly1911 wrote: »

I accept the Sea Dart was not designed to locate fast sea skimming missiles.

The fleet were well aware of the threat from Entendards one of the reasons the carriers were kept well away. I doubt they expected them to announce themselves "openly".

Low level flight to keep below radar is not new and would no doubt have been considered by our Cold War foe. I accept the "over the " horizon argument.

Regardless of air threat the carriers would have had a picket. That's how a carrier task force operates. Aircraft carriers never work alone.

geoffky

glynnD.We at times had 30 minutes notice of air red.And at other times they where overhead before we knew.

Andy_L

GlynD wrote: »

If Exocet hadn't been carried by British ships then Sea Dart would have engaged automatically. It didn't because it saw the IFF signature of Exocet as harmless.

Do you have a cite for that as I've never heard it before. I'd consider it unlikely as my understanding is that exocet doesn't carry an IFF transponder nor that Sea Dart has (had) an autonomous engagement capability unlike Seawolf

grizzly1911

GlynD wrote: »

Regardless of air threat the carriers would have had a picket. That's how a carrier task force operates. Aircraft carriers never work alone.

I know.

I also appreciate they are the vulnerable being up threat.

They are not throw away ships though.

grizzly1911

GlynD wrote: »

Grizzly the answers are all out there because I pulled up a couple of sources to check my info before posting. (just in case the Mk1 brain is malfunctioning). The UK had no AWAC capability at that time. The US provided it for NATO and clandestinely provided it for the Falkland Islands Task Force following the first sinking by Exocet.

I accept the point about no AWAC cover -any chance you could post a link re the aircraft being picked up by this vessel/? I am interested as I can't find a direct reference. I believe the "fleet" may have had some knowledge but not this vessel. I accept you point about the missile itself, and it being too late to act once it was launched, but if the aircraft were visible why is commentary silent on whether they were even targeted by Sea Dart?

The reason the radar picket spotted the incoming planes and missiles on the first attacks were the excellent tactics used by the Argentinian pilots. Doesn't this comment contradict itself?

If Exocet hadn't been carried by British ships then Sea Dart would have engaged automatically. It didn't because it saw the IFF signature of Exocet as harmless. This was later changed but it was a vulnerability of the fleet at the start of the campaign.

This may be the case, I haven't seen anything on that , but it seems a somewhat large oversight when we knew that Exocet was a major threat before the engagement commenced.

No matter where you look you can find an Achilles Heel because retrospect is a wonderful way of being critical. In many cases though the only thing that was wrong was that systems needed a shakedown due to being designed for a different type of conflict.

Soounds like the story of the "wrong snow on the line" but it's true nevertheless.

You are right that it is easy to be critical with hindsight and I appreciate that when things go t*ts up they usually happen big time with one thing following another.

We agree that Sea Dart wasn't designed for Excocets but low flying aircraft would have been in the design spec surely wherever they were flying from be it Eastern Bloc or Argentina. Without the over horizon capability I acknowledge they become less than useful on their own.

I have read that they were using outdated radars on the ships themselves any idea whether the later systems would have helped?