HMS EAGLE in the Falklands

Reader mode

Ramontxo

Donor
As I understand it, the sistem give warning when illuminated by a radar. So an aircraft without radar (or non using it) could close without warning and fire a sidewinder or use its guns. Of course it will still need to be vectored by (for example) a Royal Navy frigate...
 

JamesHunter

Ramontxo said:
As I understand it, the sistem give warning when illuminated by a radar. So an aircraft without radar (or non using it) could close without warning and fire a sidewinder or use its guns. Of course it will still need to be vectored by (for example) a Royal Navy frigate...
Click to expand...
Or a chillian radar post which is what they should have been expecting at that time.
 

Ramontxo

Donor
I remember reading in Airforces Monthly how a Arab ex RAF Hunter fly by a exchange British Pilot bounced an American fighter in some joint exercise. When asked how he was able to do it without radar assistance (which the American would have detected) he said he use the old "Eyeballs Mark one"....
 

Cryhavoc101

JamesHunter said:
The Mirage is an interceptor, its kind of in the job description it will be facing other jets and many South American nations had upgraded to simular grades of fighters by that point. Surely you needed some warning even if its only for short range weapons?
Click to expand...

In reality prior to 1982 all that had been required of the Argentine Airforce was the ability to bomb some native farmers, bully Chile and provide a resonably decent transport aircraft to dispose of all those horse traqualised students and the odd nun over the Atlantic.

To the best of my knowledge Brazil and Chile were not running radar equipped BVR missile fighters.

They were not planning on taking on a top tier opponent and in the case of the Falklands beleived that it would be treated like India's Annexation of Goa in 1961 and that Britain would not fight over it and the whole thing would be an effective and relatively bloodless coup and the international community would effetively shrug and move on.

So all this means that RWR is something else that has to be serviced by a 2nd tier airfroce that does not really have the 'tribal' expertise to do so.
 

JamesHunter

Cryhavoc101 said:
In reality prior to 1982 all that had been required of the Argentine Airforce was the ability to bomb some native farmers, bully Chile and provide a resonably decent transport aircraft to dispose of all those horse traqualised students and the odd nun over the Atlantic.

To the best of my knowledge Brazil and Chile were not running radar equipped BVR missile fighters.

They were not planning on taking on a top tier opponent and in the case of the Falklands beleived that it would be treated like India's Annexation of Goa in 1961 and that Britain would not fight over it and the whole thing would be an effective and relatively bloodless coup and the international community would effetively shrug and move on.

So all this means that RWR is something else that has to be serviced by a 2nd tier airfroce that does not really have the 'tribal' expertise to do so.
Click to expand...
Ah I see, more fool them I guess
 

Hammerbolt

Ramontxo said:
Also the Argentinian Mirages were modified when buy by taking their radar illumination warning off for a question of cost (the saving being less than expected as Dassault work in modifying the aircrafts was not cheap)
Click to expand...

Waaaaaa?! That's one of the dumbest ideas I've ever heard. Did they think they'd face WWII planes?!
 

NOMISYRRUC

flasheart said:
The Type 82 Destroyer HMS BRISTOL was in company with the Type 42 Destroyer HMS EXETER and the Type 22 Frigate HMS BRILLIANT providing a picket west of the Falkland Islands. Their mission was to provide early warning and to disrupt incoming Argentine air attacks aimed at the Amphibious group unloading ground forces in San Carlos Water.

HMS BRISTOL was something of an oddity within the Royal Navy. The sole member of her class she had originally been designed to escort the cancelled CVA-01 class aircraft carriers. When that program had been cancelled as a result of the 1966 defence review her sisters had also been cancelled and instead it had been decided that the RN would be equipped with Type 42 Destroyers that provided comparable capability only in a smaller and cheaper hull.

BRISTOL had survived the defence review and commissioned just under a decade ago. Since then due to her large size she had been mostly used as a testbed for new technologies but had also found herself escorting HMS EAGLE and until her recent retirement HMS ARK ROYAL on various deployments. There were however a number of question marks hanging over her future. The ship was large, manpower intensive, expensive to operate and with HMS EAGLE having previously been planned to retire later in the year she was soon to find her designed role superfluous. For a ship of her size she also had rather limited capabilities. Though she had a flight deck she had no hanger which prevented her from carrying a permanently embarked helicopter and she was not equipped with SSM’s meaning she had virtually no ability for ASUW. However, one thing she did have going for her and the reason why she had been given this mission was her Sea Dart SAM system and her command and control facilities.

In conjunction with the Sea Dart equipped HMS EXETER and the Sea Wolf equipped HMS BRILLIANT Captain Alan Grose would be in command of a “missile trap”. HMS EXETER commanded by Captain Balfour was the newest of the Type 42’s and was equipped with the latest Type 1022 long range air search radar. This radar was much better able to deal with back ground clutter and low level targets. With the loss of HMS GLASGOW at the hands of a sea skimming Exocet missile this new capability was an extremely welcome addition to Grose’s force. Therefore, HMS EXETER would concentrate on lower level targets while HMS BRISTOL would deal with the higher level ones. HMS BRILLIANT would be providing shorter range point defence.
Click to expand...
Would Bristol have been better off in this situation with the Type 988 radar she was designed for instead of the Type 965 she was completed with?
 

HBsennah94

NOMISYRRUC said:
Would Bristol have been better off in this situation with the Type 988 radar she was designed for instead of the Type 965 she was completed with?
Click to expand...
Depends. What exactly are the tech specs and the pros and cons to each other? Not all of us are experts in that regard...:neutral:
 

fester

sonofpegasus said:
if the average hit ratio for a missile is say 75% then sometimes to maintain that average 100% of launches will hit and sometimes none will hit. So for the point of this timeline six out of Eight is plausible, especially if it is balanced by more misses later. If Sky flash has a range of 50Nm/75km then it is a pity that there is not a way to hang a few on the Gannets, If their radars were compatible. It might be complete stupidity on my part but having you AEW aircraft able to self defend at long range seems like a good idea. They do not venture onto harms way bit if harms comes their way then at least they can bite back.
Click to expand...


The job of a Gannet is to direct fighters to a threat and then run like hell if there is a significant threat coming in their direction. Giving the aircraft missiles that require the aircraft to stay pointed at an enemy fighter and likely to get into range of the enemy fighter (if it is a first line aircraft of a first rate air force) is inviting the loss of a very rare and very high value asset.
 

JamesHunter

sonofpegasus said:
I agree but they did stick air to air missiles on the Nimrods!!
Click to expand...
Nimrod's a jet and much more able to run away if needed (they only need to clear the turnback radius of the mirage's to be safe so its somewhat survivable with enough warning), in contrast a Gannet is a fairly slow prop job that could easily end up in pieces if a Mirage gets too close to it. Also from a purely cold blooded point of view Britain has alot more Nimrods than serviceable AWACS Gannets and can probably afford to lose the former more than the latter at this point. IIRC those Gannets on Eagle are literally all that's left so if they go that's it for any form of airborne early warning.
 

Hammerbolt

I remember reading, many years ago, that the idea of putting Sidewinders on the Nimrod wasn't for self-defense (cause, what would be the point...) but in case it found an enemy (in this case, argentinian) recon aircraft, like a 707 or a Neptune.
 

NOMISYRRUC

I'm browsing through my copy of Jane's Fighting Ships 1969-70. On page 313 there is the following paragraph about HMS Eagle.
REFIT. During the refit at HM Dockyard Devonport, from Sep 1966 to Apr 1967, more powerful catapults and arrester gear were installed to receive the new Phantom aircraft. Recommissioned 6 Apr 1967.
Click to expand...
 
FriendlyGhost

FriendlyGhost

Hammerbolt said:
I remember reading, many years ago, that the idea of putting Sidewinders on the Nimrod wasn't for self-defense (cause, what would be the point...) but in case it found an enemy (in this case, argentinian) recon aircraft, like a 707 or a Neptune.
Click to expand...
That was indeed the primary driver from what I've heard - the 707 was specifically mentioned in the RoE iirc.
Self-defence did enter into it a bit though: where the MR2s usually worked, they'd get some warning of inbound fighters and have somewhere to run towards (the UK, normally) whereas in the South Atlantic there was no air defence system to warn them and friendly, defended airspace was a lot further away. So having a missile or two to fire off in the direction of a threat before high-tailing it out of there was thought to be a useful idea - how useful it would actually have been is debatable, of course.
 
Reader mode
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top
Top