The UK does not willingly scrap carriers; the spending decisions that result in the loss of the carriers are due to the Treasury’s stranglehold on all public spending; there is currently a belief within that particular organisation (which has inflicted outsourcing, value-for-money studies and efficiency savings on every Government department EXCEPT itself) that Defence is ‘not socially valuable’ consequently, we have severe overstretch of all our armed forces with reservists called up to fill in the gap and out-of-date designes refurbished as tankers or Maritime Reconnaissance duties
cmtaylor - you got that right. I wish with all my heart that we didn’t need a military service, but until other countries (and terrorists) stop committing acts of agression, we will always need an army/navy/airforce.
Because the military lacks “Social value”, the next time we’re attacked, our service people will pay a high price for their lack of forethought. It sticks in my throat that defence of our country & people isn’t considered politically worthwhile. Morons, the lot of them.
Would we be able to defend the Falklands now? I doubt it.
Good Day Sirs,
Mostly I spend time with people from Latin America and Argentina including having family from there, and they themselves see Argentina as a third world/developing nation…as does the UN, world bank, Evita and their own President…so I dont think there would be too much offence taken there…confusing them for a Brasilian, now that is wrong…
Argentina’s response while not rationale, does make sense to many in South America as for many in that part of the world those islands are property of Argentina and that is their position on the issue. I do not think invading was a proper response to the issue, but there are many who see the Falklands not as soverign Territory of the UK, but of Argentina. I understand you likely would not agree with this position, but there are two sides to every issue and i would not personally choose one or the other as they are both valid points of view.
To rescue citizens from a foreign conflict in someone else’s country as Americans in Iran, and solidfying your hold on a territory in dispute as in the Falklands is like comparing saving people from someone else’s land and claming that land as your own. Any country should attempt to rescue their citizenry from a foreign power, but the issue is whether or not that land belongs to Argentina or the Uk, not whether the Uk has a right to rescue Britons overseas. Because a British Diplomat becomes a hostage in Canada, does the UK have the right to invade Canada as well?? This was an event in history and the answer is quite clear, and you cannot justify taking over a disputed territory because some citizenry have been treated unfairly, the ends do not justify the actions. As in the case of the Falklands, Argentina was prepared to send the citizens of the Falklands to the UK unharmed according to documentary evidence…but the UK wasnt just interested about citizenry…its about the land as well, not just the people. So again, two very strong points of view from the Uk and Argentina, but lets remember that there are points of view on the issue at hand.
Using the US as an example to base the UK’s historic actions against probably isnt the greatest idea. Firstly the UK is not the US and does not have the world power the US holds, but even if it did would you justify the US right over disputed territory because its citizens might be in danger…this has caused alot of trouble recently in certain unnamed countries … dont you think basing actions solely on Principle might be harmful??
Cheers
Milan
I am beginning now not to be able to see the wood for the trees - one problem about thinking is that sometimes you can do to much of it, and then get spoilt for choice. Back to V Bombers… I think.
The Falklands were not, in accordance with accepted principles of international law, disputed territory. The Argentinians did, of course, attempt to create a fait accompli in relation to the territory by way of the invasion, and failed. Do you really think that it is acceptable behaviour to invade territory and then offer to deport the residents of that territory as a means of involving international disputes?
Well as already stated, the Vulcan was used in the Falklands to bomb the airfield at Port Stanley. It placed one bomb onto the runway, but that was intentional. Not because they missed with all the others, but simply because the approach was at 30 degrees to the runway. The reasoning behind this is to ensure that at least one bomb will hit the runway, imagine flying along it’s length, and missing by 50 feet with all your bombs! Or flying at right angles to it and having your bombs neatly straddle the runway. 30 degrees is calculated to give the best chance of hitting the runway.
However the Black Buck raid itself was pretty pointless. It needed such a vast amount of fuel, with tankers tanking the bombers, tankers tanking the tankers all the way there and back, that the FRS1s flying off the two carriers could have placed thousands of bombs onto the airfield for the same amount of fuel. Remember there were two Vulcans used, the second aircraft flew a good deal of the way as a spare, and needed tanking as well. I can’t find the exact figures right now, but if you read ‘Sea Harrier over the Falklands’ by LT Cdr Ward, the CO of one of the two Sea Harrier sqns, he had one of his Pilots do the maths and it was a staggering number of bombs that the Sea harriers would have been able to deliver for the same quantity of fuel.
The second Black Buck raid was a failure, all the bombs failed to arm and went in UXB, due to an electrical fault in the aircraft.
The RAF simply couldn’t bear to be left out of the war.
Spot on eight ace - a lot of people are brainwashed into the thinking that he who defends himself is wrong - not the agressor. However back to V Bomber (well slightly) - was it not perhaps (with Black Buck) to demonstrate that the mainland was not unassailable. The Argentines were very well equiped in fact on the Islands and had some very good soldiers and airmen (it suited the media to suggest that it was David and Goliath and the BBC helped the Argentines enormously with information that was crucial - e.g telling them that the Paras were about to attack Goose Green and also that their Bombs were failing to explode - not overshooting as they were.etc.). So just what can we believe about the Vulcan raid - save as everyone knows it was very expensive and really probably on its own not really worthwhile. However I am not so sure it was just an ego trip for the RAF. Sorry - digressed more than I intended.
Eighth Ace got it bang on… You can’t forget the history of hundreds of years of British sovereignty, the rights of the inhabitants of the Island etc. If the Falklands had been independent of the UK and Argentina had invaded, would the world have said “ah, so what? just deport the inhabitants and that’ll be fine”. The sole reason for the invasion wasn’t to “liberate” people that wanted to be British anyway, it wasn’t to take back the valuable resources of the Island (sheep and wind), it was to distract their oppressed populace from their current economic & social problems. Note that the Junta didn’t survive long after the defeat of ther forces.
The Black Buck raids weren’t anything to do with ego - they were, as Midupper rightly says, an flex of muscle to send a message to the Argentinians that the UK could bomb them from that range, and to deny them the use of the runway, whilst doing as little actual damage as possible, so that we could use it later in the conflict. It worked 100%. After Black Buck, all the Argie planes decamped to the mainland, denying them valuable loiter time over any British targets. If you don’t call that a success, then I give up!
A quick comment on the Harriers next. Indeed they could well have bombed the runway into oblivion from their base on the carriers. 2 questions would naturally spring to mind though. Where would they have got all the bombs from, and more importantly - WHO would have been protecting the task force in their absence. Remember that there were, I think, between 20 and 24 Harriers, and they lost 2 in a mid-air fairly early in the conflict, so we’re left with a force of 20+. That 5 of those birds to bomb a runway, and your fleet protection force is down by 25%. That doesn’t strike me as a particularely sensible action when you look at it that way.
Participating in that mission were a good number of V-Bombers, all of which did their job, and proved their worth. Even the bombs that didn’t arm must still have proved more disruptive than craters, as some poor soul would have to make them safe before removal and repair of the surface.
I cannot help but feel that there’s an element of Brit beating creeping into this thread. Just because we do it, doesn’t mean it’s wrong! [;)]
Apologies, an oversight on my part. I never considered Argentina a 3rd world country.
Isn’t Evita dead though?
Like calling an Australian a Kiwi, or a Canadian an American, let’s not go there.
While I appreciate there is support for Argentina’s postion in South America, the whole character of the Falkland islands is not Latin American, but English. Geographical proximity does not constitute a claim to sovereignty. After all Kuwait is next door to Iraq, it didn’t legitimise Sadam’s invasion of 1990 did it?
Forced re-settlement? It wasn’t acceptable when Hitler or Stalin tried it in the 1930s, it certainly didn’t gain respectability in the intervening 50 years.
You’re quite right the UK is not the US, however the US nationals were on US territory as defined under international law, and therefore the US operation would not have been to seize territory but to reclaim that which was legitimately American.
Your assertion that the Falklands constituted disputed territory under international law, is also erroneous.
The reference to Iraq and Afganistan is also misleading, as the operations by Coalition forces in both countries has not been in response to the defence of soveriegn territory, and is therefore not relevant to this discussion.
As for acting on principle, the Western Allie’s failure to uphold their principles between 1936 - 1939 lead directly to the Second World War. One of the key priciples that the Falkland islanders had was democracy, a concept alien to General Galtieri, and a concept the western world has defended repeatedly in the intervening 65 years.
I know we will never agree on this subject, but lets gets the facts straight at least.
Karl
As much as Im enjoying this thread, Im starting to think this is not the place… I can easily see this getting WAY out of hand. I would venture so far as to say that all points made here come from very stubborn people, myself included, and that further discussion at this point does more harm than good. Lets get back to airplanes and models shall we? And some one find a forum where this topic CAN get out of hand… (I still like juicy debates) [:D]
Point taken.[:D]
So, in retrospect the V-Bombers were a total success![;)]
Karl
couldnt resist it could ya? [:D]
Agreed… 110% successful, and they even smell nice too [;)]
Ahhhh yes! Fresh smelling, crisp white (glossy anti flash white) V-bombers!
Sounds like a new kind of breath mint with tooth whitening properties[:p]
“Nine out of ten dentists recommend “V-bombers” whitening mints! They come rushing Valiant(ly) from the box like flames from the forge of Vulcan into your mouth helping you secure Victor(y) over plaque and halitosis!”[:D]
No, I have NOT been drinking![:p]
I have a little cardboard V-bomber air freshener hanging from the rear view mirrorof my car, for that all day nuclear strike freshness.
It just can’t be beat!
BTW Mikeiw I saw the Victor fuselage on the M40 last week, can’t be much left to steal! Apparently they wanted it done properly so that got some Scousers in! [;)]
UpnorthHave you been on that Staropramen again? Or was it the Pilsner Urquell perchance?
Karl
A few final points,
V-bombers do smell nice…
International Law only helps those who have power in the international economic system, its not always fair to developing countries as those laws are made by developed nations, not underdeveloped ones. Lawyers are not always rights and a judge in the Hague does not always have a good political perspective on a political issue. You cant change the political opinion of 30 million people who have a strong arguement for soveringty because you dont agree with it. If that was the case then there would not be conflict in Ireland, Middle East, Taiwan, etc… If it was that simple then there would be alot fewer conflicts in the world.
Galtieri was a horrible creature and was the main cause for the war. While Argentinains often see the Falklands as historuically part of Argentina and any historical account not in Englsh would make this point, going to war was not popular and lead to the downfall of his regime…moreso as he did it to gain added support due to the economic crisis at the time and failed. There are many other reasons for American and Nazi conflicts but if we are speaking about the Falklands we must register that the political movement for Falklands was there for a very long time and according to their history before Galtieri. People there actually do not think those islands should belong to the UK and can justify it with a solid arguement. It might not be liked, but those are the facts.
Yes, I agree Harriers or another method of attack would have been more logical in the Falklands conflict. In reality the fact that those Harriers blew the Argentines out of the sky was most likely the reason the UK won that conflict, albeit with many losses. From most accounts the victory was attributed to the smelly Harriers as opposed to the nice smelling V-Bombers.
Cheers!
Milan
Back in the 50’s and 60’s the people of the USA and Canada had a false sense of security. Everyone believed the USAF and RCAF could destroy all attacking bombers sent over the North Pole to targets in the US and Canada. The truth is only a small percentage would have been intercepted and destroyed.
The intercepters at the time did not have the capability to detect and attack that many bomber aircraft. They were a one shot aircraft. The F-86’s, F-89’s and F-94’s relied on guns or unguided rockets. With the introduction of radar guided weapons the POK wasn’t that great. With the F-101, F-102 and F-106 the chances of interception increased but the radar on these aircraft were vacuum tube design and subject to failure. The F-102A, which I worked on had a radar fail rate of over 50% per flight. The F-106 was even worse. The F-101 wasn’t much better. With hundreds of bombers coming over the pole, over half would get through.
The same could be said of a large force of bombers striking targets in the USSR. They knew it would be impossible to stop them all. It only takes one nuke to destroy a city. That in itself was what kept the fingers off of the trigger. Why destroy another country when you will be destroyed in return.
So yes, the “V” bombers as well as the SAC bombers of the USAF were a success. As well as the Bears of the USSR.
It was the concept of “If you come after me with a ball bat, I’ll go after you with a sledge hammer”.
That added with submarine launched IRBM’s and land based ICBM’s was enough deterrent for the USA, UK, and USSR.
That they never were used for their original purpose tell you they were a success.
Gambrinus with a Becherovka chaser![xx(]
The point of calculating how many bombs could have been delivered by the Sea Harriers, for the same fuel used by the Black Buck raids, wasn’t to say they would have dropped that many, but to show what a waste of resources the Black Buck raid was.
The Argentine aircraft didn’t withdraw to the mainland because of the Vulcan raid, remember they were not operating the Mirages or even the A4s from Stanley anyway.
The opening day of the Air campaign (1 May) saw the Sea Harriers attacking the runway at Stanley as well, they carried out many strike missions and were not kept only for CAP. The attack by 800 NAS on Stanley was followed some time later by several inconclusive encounters between Daggers and Mirages, and Sea Harriers. It was later in the day that the Sea Harriers got their first kills, shooting down two Mirages, after which the Mirages were never really committed seriously again. This had rather more to do with the fact the Argentinian didn’t want to lose any more of them so cheaply, given the relative ease with which they were destroyed by the Sea Harriers, than it did with the Vulcan raid. These loses probably came as rather a surprise given that on paper the Mirage was a more capable fighter.
As the air war progressed, the Argentine aircraft would often turn for home when they were illuminated by the Blue Fox radars, rather than risk an engagement with the Sea Harriers.
The suggestion that by bombing Stanley the British demonstrated that they could bomb the Mainland as well is open to debate. If the British had ever become serious about attacking the Argentine mainland, I am fairly sure the RN Submarines could have done that with conventional warheads on their missiles (Polaris? I’m no expert in Naval matters), and the Argentinian knew that. I find it hard to believe the RAF would have risked losing a Vulcan over mainland Argentina.
Again there was absolutely no tactical purpose to the Black Buck raid, and the strategic value is debatable. It’s one useful outcome might have been to demonstrate once and for all that the British really were serious, and give the Argentinians a shock that may have lead them to go home peacefully. Unfortunately that wasn’t the outcome.
So were V-Bombers a failure? Even in the one war in which they were used (as bombers), they achieved little more than a grand gesture. That Grand gesture in itself could be considered a success, at the time it probably achieved exactly what it set out to do, but one Bomb, on one runway, once, could hardly be considered a success for a whole generation of bombers.
This is a very interesting debate and the slight digression into international polotics is, in my opinion quite pertinent.
It has often been argued that in a NATO context, all being under the protection of the American neuclear “umbrella” Britains independant neuclear deterrent was expensive and unneccesary. But the British isles are strategically important due to geography and the reinforcement of europe from the USA would not be viable were Britain lost. This makes the UK a prime target for a first strike that would cripple the alliances ability to fight a conventional war in europe. The theory is of course that such a first strike would provoke a neuclear response from the USA, but would any American president plunge his country into a full scale neuclear exchange to defend Britain? Whatever the true answer to that one the only important thing is that there should never come a time when the soviets might conclude that the USA might hesitate. That is the reason that the British have maintained a p*ss in the ocean deterrent force, so that whatever circumstances might arise within NATO, that first strike WOULD draw an (albeit limited) neuclear response. The V force was a success by continuing to exist until the arrival of the Royal Navys polaris submarines.
Finally, I know you have had Vulcan displays at US airshows in the past, but I for one would like to send one on an extended display tour of the US, after the noise has subsided, you will find yourself thinking…“Well THAT was a success”.