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

GlynD

grizzly1911 wrote: »

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I have read that they were using outdated radars on the ships themselves any idea whether the later systems would have helped?

You're quite right Sea Dart wasn't designed as an anti missile missile. Sea Wolf was however specifically designed for sea skimming missiles and was on several ships during the campaign and worked successfully. The system didn't help HMS Coventry because another ship passed in front of the Sea Wolf platform and broke the "lock-on" signal.

Force Majeure I think is what it's called.

The Falklands Task Force decimated the (very brave) Argentinian Air Force. That's not in question.

Andy_L

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.

Sheffield Board of Enquiry
http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/AboutDefence/CorporatePublications/BoardsOfInquiry/LossOfHmsSheffieldBoardOfInquiry.htm

The narative of the attack & analysis are the most relevant

Glasgow picks up the aircrafts search radars & then detects them on radar as they come over the radar horizon & calls the alert. However, for a number of reasons, Sheffield does nothing until its to late

Andy_L

grizzly1911 wrote: »

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.

Seadart was an area defence system. With the technology of the time that required sacraficing low level becasue you need a quick responding & fast missile due to the short range of detection (eg something like seawolf). These days you can do both with the one system.

Also, with the RN being totally devoted to fighting Russian subs in the N Atlantic the spec was to deal with that threat which was long range bombers firing missiles from outside the range of the defensive missile, thus only being able to engage the missile which, with the Russian technology of the day, would fly at a far higher altitude than Exocet giving more time to engage it

grizzly1911

Andy_L wrote: »

Sheffield Board of Enquiry
http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/AboutDefence/CorporatePublications/BoardsOfInquiry/LossOfHmsSheffieldBoardOfInquiry.htm

The narrative of the attack & analysis are the most relevant

Glasgow picks up the aircrafts search radars & then detects them on radar as they come over the radar horizon & calls the alert. However, for a number of reasons, Sheffield does nothing until its to late

Thanks for that link, will take a a better look later. Whilst picked up Glasgow and Hermes there seems little, at first glance to say what happened in Sheffield, leading up to the incident. There are a lot of deletions:think:

Interesting conclusion later on

2, The need for “layered” air defence is emphasised. Medium – range SAM must be supplemented by close range systems; a Point defence Missile System and close range gun armament, both independent from any Sea Dart control arrangements, would be complimentary to each other in this task. (MOD action required).


Seems obvious? Wondered if the recommendation was ever followed through.


Whatever, in the same way a an accurately launched torpedo is hard to evade, I expect that once an Excocet is on its way options are very limited.