AH - nzgunnie - the GR3’s of 1F were mostly tasked with air to ground ops from the carriers with the RN providing CAP as well as doing some strike themselves.
The FRS1’s were crewed buy a lot of RAF harrier pilots as the type had only just entered service with the navy and the mateys didnt have a lot of experienced harrier pilots - and it is a much harder jet to fly/fight than anything else on the books.
The RAF was well represented in the conflict.
Blackbuck was a success , the fact that the runway was hit at all, dumb bombs, at night , no GPS, no night vision was a miracle when you think about the USAF B52 taking off from Fairford to display at farnborough last year - and it missed Farnborough and displayed at near by Blackbushe!
Another reason Blackbuck worked was that it showed Galtieri that if Stanley could be bombed , so could B A.
Considering that people were dissappearing off the streets of Argentina at the hands of the Junta at the time , no one on the Islands would have ever considered a change of government.
Like Gibraltar a couple of years ago, the vote would have been 99.9% against change.
Oggy, the RN was very conversant with operating the Sea Harrier in both the strike roll and in the fighter roll by the time the Falklands happened. Your post suggests they hadn’t really got to grips with it yet which is not true. The aircraft was fully operational and tactics were well understood and sound. There were some RAF pilots flying with the RN squadrons, but they were in the minority. I could dig out the exact number (three maybe?) and even their names, but I’m not infront of my bookcase… and the effort seems hardly worth it for the sake of this.
The Sea harriers flew ground attack missions on almost every sortie they flew, nearly always flying with one 1000lb bomb on the centre line station to drop as they saw fit on the way to their CAP stations.
To suggest that it was a miracle that the Vulcans got there at all is not really fair to the guys who flew them, and they did have the Omega navigation system which was apparently very accurate. In my opinion the concept behind the raid was flawed, but the guys who flew it didn’t make that decision, and they did a fine job.
As I said in my post, if they could fly to BA, they could be shot down over BA, and that would have been a propaganda coup on a par with Gary Powers on trial in Moscow! No, it was a sterling effort, but does not qualify as a success, nor make the bombers particulary successful in a more general sense.
nzgunnie is right on the mark. I suggest anyone who disagrees to read a first hand account from “Sharkey” and then reconsider.
There were a “handfull” of RAF pilots flying the RN Sea Harriers. The Black Buck raids were not a success when you consider that the mission could have been more cost and tactically effective if they were carried out by the Sea Harriers. And as much as many do not want to admit it, there WERE some political aspects to the Vulcans (RAF) participating in the operation.
Again, read the book. BTW, Sharky is also critical of many of the RN’s tactical and strategic choices as well.
Oh…BUFF is a term of endearment just like SLUF, RHINO and WARTHOG. And for STS and SOF teams operating in Afghanistan and Iraq, a BUFF tossing JDAMs is probably the best looking aircraft they’ve ever seen. The point is perspective when it comes to the beauty of an aircraft (or a woman for that matter).
Never seen a Vulcan in flight, but I have had the opportunity to take an incentive flight on a BUFF in the IP seat (little bench between the AC and Co-pilot and it was impressive to say the least. Also seen them doing low-level bombing runs and they were also impressive. As I understand they also left quite an impression on the Viet Cong, residents of Hanoi, Taliban and members of the Iraqi Republican Guard. I would offer that the Argentine forces on the Falklands were more afraid of the SAS, Para’s and Sea Harriers then they were of the Vulcans (unless you lived NEAR the airfield which is where most of the bombs fell).
Let the RAF chest thumping and arrows fly.
If the test of whether an aircraft was (or still is) a success is if it is still in service, then the B-52 wins hands down.
Fine fine fine … but what actually as the “success” that was being sought in the Vulcan sorties - I still think it was intended as no more than a demonstration that it could be done. It was not easy on the crews! Of course it cannot be said that this op was a demonstration that the Vulcan was a “success” - maybe an attempt to show that the Bomber was a necessity? I wold love to know the “political aspects” . I think just this… the V Bombers - and for example the B52 were successful in that WWIII did not occur. The B52 is still around largely because of the availability of funds and proper planning. It is also a good aircraft. It will always be possible - with anything - to isolate one defect failue or item of poor judgement. The Navy did a superb job in the South Atlantic - as did the Army - BUT the Argentines were well equiped and save for some conscripts well trained (ask those who were there). Of course the Argentines were perhaps more scared of the Soldiers than the Airforce - they were more evident. However the man on the street did have more than that to think about!! It is highly probale that the V Bombers would have been more of a “success” - had been allowed to be!
I think some people may have missed the point of this thread… Were the V-bombers a sucess? not is the B-52 better… and cancelling an aircrafts operations for lack of funding does not really make it a failure, more a tribute to the economic policies of the country at the time. The V-bombers #1 Did thier job #2. Were piloted by skilled, brave airmen. (not really a character of the aircraft, but those same people I doubt would willingly go up time and again in the same airframe knowing it would lead them to thier deaths) #3. Adapted to suit other need once thier primary role had been nulified or filled by a more capable aircraft. (Witht the exception of the Valiant)
In light of those three statements I still say they were a resounding sucess
Dont forget that your compairing these aircraft to the standards that were available at the time… Most any current bomber will put the V-bombers to shame… until you upgrade them [:)] I think a Vulcan with current avianics upgrade and few structural modifications would still give many airdefenses a run for thier money
the RAF was desperate to get involved in the campaign, one of the key aspects of the navy losing its big aircraft carriers along with the phantoms etc. was the air force lobying parliment that it could provide fleet protection any where in the world!! the carriers that we have now only got into service through slight of hand by the navy, building them under the guise of through deck cruisers. how can the politicians cancel an aircraft carrier if your not officially building one!!
I think success needs to be elaborated on with these Bombers:
Adaptability: Were successful, but only to a point as this was a measure for the MOD to do somthing after they spent so much money developing these THREE aircraft…which is quite an expensive venture at the time especially for a cash strapped post second world war britain. I could see why the American might do such a thing, as at the time their economy was the strongest it has eveer been, but poor planning otherwise for an MOD with limited resources.
Deterrence: I think if you roll out somthing like a V-bomber, even if it couldnt get off the ground it made the point that the UK had a nuclear capability and has planes that look sufficiently cool enough to actually work.
Use and Purpose: I think the V-bombers were a great fuelling aircraft, but again taking on this role because there was already an investment made on them and for the fact that they were not used for their initial purpose, not even as a bomber, but rarely in a pratical manner in combat, makes me think its only slightly successful. If you build and tank and in the end make it into a fuel truck, it isnt a very good tank now is it! But man, what an obnoxiously cool fuel truck!
Funding: While R+D costs are high and the UK at thr time had limited funds, i think producing so many nice bombers is not a rationale way to spend on defence nor for the national budget. AS well, from accounts here i think that there could have been better ways to threaten Galtieri in Argentina during the Falkland conflicts than flying over v bombers and their spare parts to drop a small bomb on an airfield when a Harrier could have done it. As well, I do think many in British intelligence knew that Galtieri was only doing this act to preserve his political career, so dropping bombs on Buenos aires would have threated the population under this dictatorship as opposed to him…and having him there killed more argentines than anyone could have imagined…so what politcal statement can a Vbomber make against someone who already murders his own people…well, lets just say hes not Hitler or Saddam, and if the Vbomber did make that bomb run im sure it would be a complete failure in policy…its why people discredit Americans so much in their Foreign Policy…so for the fact that it didnt kill any innnocent people its a success with regards to the Falklands/Malvinas…but for a bomber maybe it wasnt the best idea in british planning…
Design: This is where those planes are a complete success! I think from a design perspective the V-bombers were very innovative and oddly beautiful for equipment at the time and even presently. They actually remind me of alot of the archetechure and design in london made in the 60s and 70s and i think they are really a piece of art and a reflection of the design culture at the time post second world war. Very space aged, cool, very moonraker…mr bond would be proud!!
I said at the begining that this one would run & run!
Upnorth, Have a pint for me, I can’t here!
nzgunnie, nice to know you’re still with us, not seen you on screen for ages.
Odd that no one has mentioned the Vulcan that went into Chile with a live anti-radar missile hanging under it’s wing.
If I may sum up here (cheeky, since it’s not my thread, but…) we’re all still here, WW3 did not occur, therefore the deterrent worked, therefore the V bombers were a success as part of the deterrent. If there had been no V bombers, or an inferior a/c had been built then the deterrent may not have worked, who can tell? and I’m glad it’s so.
Pete
Maybe my memory is fading, Probably is, maybe it was a Nimrod. Anyway, one of the two definately had to divert into a Chilean airport with a live missile on the wing. The pylon fit & electrics had been rather hurried & this thing decided it wanted to make a break for freedom. It was hushed up for a few days at the time, but we in the RAF knew about it. (What do you mean it’s still a secret? who are these men dragging me away? AARRGGHH) okay, I’ll come quietly.
Pete
I have two stories,the veracity of which is a bit iffy, but I will tell atleast one of them.
There was this exercise between the Brits and someone else with a big fleet in the Med.
On the first day the RAF was supposed to make an attack soooo.
Over horizon came, at an high FL several Canberras. The gents in the ships became fixated on the approaching a/c all guns, missiles and the Admirals Boots were aimed at the strike. When it was just about in range it made a 180. Jubilation all round!
Then … Whoosh Rumble and ROAR. Three Vulcans, so low that they needed perescopes, went through the fleet with the leader flashing to the Flag, Bang, Bang you’re DEAD…
I was told how it was done but I’m still not sure if the story is true.
We were at a BBQ at the time and the amber cordial was flowing well.
Dai
I’m pretty sure it was a Vulcan that ended up in Chile with an anti radar missile on it. I have a picture somewhere of the missile fit. It might have been a shrike but I’m not sure.
I know a Vulcan made an emergency landing in Brazil following failure of the refuelling probe, it fell off aparently! This was a few days prior to the Pope’s visit to Rio, so the Brazillian authorities were desperate to see the back of this thing parked next to the terminal building at Rio airport.
Not sure if it did get away from Rio prior to Il Papa turning up, but it did come home eventually.
In the interests of us all I asked two mates who (like me) are ex RAF & both of whom have a fair grasp of military history (trouble is, we’re all approaching a certain age!)
One said it was a Nimrod, the other confirmed it as a Vulcan, possibly one of the Black Buck mission a/c & the missile was a Shrike. If I remember rightly, it just armed itself & they had to divert in case it took out a friendly ship/aircraft or something.
Memory says it was a few days before the press got a hold of the story, by which time the panic was over.
And if Dai is going to play war stories… One of the guys we had out here was an ex Vulcan crewchief. They always went with ‘their’ aircraft on detachment, to keep an eye on the aircrew in case (HA!) they broke it. Normal position was sitting on the escape hatch!
This particular time they were Westbound for the States & Red Flag bombing comps.
Pilot spies large US carrier in distance & asks permission for low flyby, but didn’t mention a/c type… The carrier crew apparently looked DOWN on the Vulcan as it went by, The copilot had wanted to touch the wheels on the deck!
Pete
It was a secret becuase Chile was ‘neutral’ during the Falklands war, and I suspect the RAF may have wanted to keep their Vulcan and not have it impounded until the end of hostilities.
We had canberra PR9’s based in Chile during the war.
Everyone new that they were there.
If my memory serves me well I think that they were at Santiago international.
Black Buck Four: 3rd June
Missile strikes against Argentine Skyguard radar on the Falklands using American supplied Shrike Anti-Radar missiles on hastily improvised underwing pylons. During the 3rd June mission, the Vulcan sustained damage to its air refuelling probe and was forced to land at Rio de Janeiro in Brazil, where the aircraft was impounded until the 11th June, and the remaining Shrike missile was confiscated, This Vulcan was captained by Squadron Leader Neil McDougall.