Exocet missle: Is this missle deadly or was the Royal Navy complacent?
Brian Elliott
>While flipping through the channels this past week I ran across a cable
>program about the Falklands war. The Argentinians sank two Royal Navy
>ships on their first two attempts with the Exocet. Unbelieveably they
>were able to get within 30 miles of the fleet to deploy the cruise
>missle. The radar techs said they had something on their screen but they
>didnt know what it was.
>Now I'm not saying that the Royal Navy is not competent after all I dont
>know all the facts just what I saw on cable. The Royal Navy appears to
>have committed two "boners" by allowing the atendards(sp) within 30 miles
>of the fleet and by not responding quick enough once the missle was deployed.
>I'm sure this topic has been discussed before but I'd like to hear how
>this situation could have happened. Maybe I should be giving credit to
>the Argentine Air Force.
What it did show is how successive governments shut their ears to the
things that people with some expertise tell them.
Since the government of that day had retired HMS Ark Royal and
replaced her with three pocket helipads (one of which, in any case,
was due to be sold to another country at the time of the Falklands)
naval experts had continued to point out the lunacy of any move which
excluded the provision of long range airborne early warning.
However, with Britain having very few interests east of the Greenwich
meridian, the RAF chiefs argued that the Navy had no need of airborne
radar cover and that the mighty Nimrod AEW1 would provide all possible
radar cover and so no replacement for the Gannet AEW3 was produced.
In fact, the radar fit in the Shackleton AEW2 was even older than that
fitted in the Gannet!
So we sent a taskforce down to the South Atlantic with no long range
radar cover. Recipe for a complete disaster.
In addition, with so few Sea Harriers available they were tasked with
point defence covering the main assets of the fleet (the carriers)
which were some distance away from the islands themselves. There was
no long range interceptors available until after the cessation of
hostilities.
All in all - it was a miracle that more ships weren't lost one way or
another.
Exocet? Yes Glamorgan was hit offshore by a land based missile while
Sheffield was lost whilst being towed. The merchant vessel 'Atlantic
Conveyor' was sunk by an Exocet unfortunately carrying much needed
heli-lift capability.
In the early part of the camapign the Argentine aircraft were coming
in so low that their bombs didn't have time to arm themselves and
either bounced off the ships or went right through them. One ship
(Ambuscade?) was lost while the EOD guy was trying to defuse an
unexploded bomb.
Yes, the Argentine flyers should be given a lot of credit for what
they did. However, a lot of blame should be laid at the feet of the
British government (especially Margaret Thatcher despite all her
prattling to the contrary).
Bob Caissie
In article <DFwx8...@news.uwindsor.ca>, pe...@uwindsor.ca (Pegg James Ds.) writes:
|>
|> While flipping through the channels this past week I ran across a cable
|> program about the Falklands war. The Argentinians sank two Royal Navy
|> ships on their first two attempts with the Exocet. Unbelieveably they
|> were able to get within 30 miles of the fleet to deploy the cruise
|> missle. The radar techs said they had something on their screen but they
|> didnt know what it was.
|>
|> Now I'm not saying that the Royal Navy is not competent after all I dont
|> know all the facts just what I saw on cable. The Royal Navy appears to
|> have committed two "boners" by allowing the atendards(sp) within 30 miles
|> of the fleet and by not responding quick enough once the missle was deployed.
|>
|> I'm sure this topic has been discussed before but I'd like to hear how
|> this situation could have happened. Maybe I should be giving credit to
|> the Argentine Air Force.
|>
|>
I saw a similar show where a British pilot said "we would have
been better off with an American strike carrier, deploying the
F-14 with its phoenix missiles".
BC.
Paul Coggan
Scotland, as an ops officer with 12 Squadron. The previous posts have mentioned the skill
of the Argentine Navy pilots and the Exocet obviously was a deadly piece of hardware.
I venture to suggest that had 12 squadron and 208 been deployed earlier, with Buccs you
would have seen devastation of the opposing fleet most swiftly. I have seen the Bucc at
low level and films of the Bucc 'toss bombing' - an old technique, and believe me (though I
am very obviously biased!) that was pure unadulterated SKILL. I'm sure some of the ground
people in the radar units at Red Flag will testify to how low the Bucc used to fly.
Paul Coggan
Pegg James Ds.
Damien Burke
|> program about the Falklands war. The Argentinians sank two Royal Navy
|> ships on their first two attempts with the Exocet. Unbelieveably they
|> were able to get within 30 miles of the fleet to deploy the cruise
|> missle. The radar techs said they had something on their screen but they
|> didnt know what it was.
Er? Sank TWO ships? Try none! The Sheffield got hit by an Exocet whilst
communicating with HQ; the Exocet was picked up on radar but a combination of
confusion about a 'friendly' missile type and other factors enabled the missile
to close on the ship without being fired on. The warhead isn't thought to have
exploded, but the fire caused by the impact and break up of the missile caused
the ship to be abandoned. It was later abandoned during an attempt to tow it
back to the UK, and sank in heavy weather. There was one other Exocet hit on
an RN ship; I think it was the Glamorgan, and as I remember it was from a
land-launched Exocet.
|> Now I'm not saying that the Royal Navy is not competent after all I dont
|> know all the facts just what I saw on cable. The Royal Navy appears to
|> have committed two "boners" by allowing the atendards(sp) within 30 miles
|> of the fleet and by not responding quick enough once the missle was deployed.
One of the lessons learnt was that without decent long range radar cover you
leave your fleet open to such attacks. Modified Sea Kings do the job these
days. At the time of the Falklands, warning of attack was down to the radar
operators of invidividual ships, any Sea Harriers in the area and troops on
the ground (both on the islands and on the Argentine mainland).
|> I'm sure this topic has been discussed before but I'd like to hear how
|> this situation could have happened. Maybe I should be giving credit to
|> the Argentine Air Force.
Actually the Etendards were Argentine Navy. By all accounts (including many
RN personnel - e.g. my father who was unlucky enough to be on the Coventry
when Skyhawks bombed her) the Argentine pilots were incredibly skillful
pilots let down by poor quality bombs. There was at least one occasion where
a ship's mast was damaged by an Argentine aircraft PULLING UP to avoid the
ship - now that's low flying! And they often flew that low all the way from
their bases to avoid detection.
--
[ Damien Burke | Software Engineering | Email: D.M.Burk...@cs.bham.ac.uk ]
[ My opinions are MINE, I tell you!!! | WWW: http://www.cs.bham.ac.uk/~dmb ]
TZ
HMS Sheffield was not the only ship sunk by an Exocet. The _Atlantic
Conveyor_ was also struck by an air-launched Exocet meant for one of the Brit-
ish carriers. The ship burned stem to stern, and was a complete loss.
--TZ--
Juan Carlos Barroux R. - SunService
>
> Actually the Etendards were Argentine Navy. By all accounts (including many
> RN personnel - e.g. my father who was unlucky enough to be on the Coventry
> when Skyhawks bombed her) the Argentine pilots were incredibly skillful
> pilots let down by poor quality bombs. There was at least one occasion where
> a ship's mast was damaged by an Argentine aircraft PULLING UP to avoid the
> ship - now that's low flying! And they often flew that low all the way from
> their bases to avoid detection.
>
> --
> [ Damien Burke | Software Engineering | Email: D.M.Burk...@cs.bham.ac.uk ]
> [ My opinions are MINE, I tell you!!! | WWW: http://www.cs.bham.ac.uk/~dmb ]
I have always wondered what would have happened if the Argentinians
used kamikaze tactics during this war. The return probability of the
Argies was kind of low anyway so why not try to make it really count
for something???
I guess that we would have Malvinas instead of Falklands today...
Greetings,
j.c.
Damien Burke
I've heard the only way the F-15s could find the Buccs was by following the
trail of sand kicked up by the exhausts. True or no, it sounds good!
Damien Burke
|>
|> I have always wondered what would have happened if the Argentinians
|> used kamikaze tactics during this war. The return probability of the
|> Argies was kind of low anyway so why not try to make it really count
|> for something???
Their chances of return weren't _that_ low!! Kamikaze techniques are utterly
useless militarily; a pilot can make rather more attempts at destroying a
target if he comes back each time, after all.
|> I guess that we would have Malvinas instead of Falklands today...
Maggie would have nuked Buenos Aires before she let the Falklands go. I heard
one plan was that if the war was going badly, a RN sub would drop a Polaris
(minus warhead) into the city as a warning, and the next one would be live...
Maggie eh? Sane as you or me. <screeeeeam, wibble wibble>
Paul Jonathan Adam
> While flipping through the channels this past week I ran across a cable
> program about the Falklands war. The Argentinians sank two Royal Navy
> ships on their first two attempts with the Exocet. Unbelieveably they
> were able to get within 30 miles of the fleet to deploy the cruise
> missle. The radar techs said they had something on their screen but they
> didnt know what it was.
>
> know all the facts just what I saw on cable. The Royal Navy appears to
> have committed two "boners" by allowing the atendards(sp) within 30 miles
> of the fleet and by not responding quick enough once the missle was deployed.
How do you detect them? There's the problem: radar horizon. The RN at that
point had no airborne early-warning radars. The advance warning for the
fleet was a Type 42 destroyer acting as radar picket: but with a radar
horizon of 20-odd miles, it was easy for them to be caught. Both Sheffield
and Coventry were lost because they were isolated and vulnerable.
Once the missile has been fired, detecting it (a very small-RCS target at
low altitude) is tricky, especially since Sheffield was unable to use
her ESM gear (which would have allowed her to detect the Etendard's radar
and also the emissions from the Exocet) since she was transmitting data
by Satcom and this interfered with her ESM.
Atlantic Conveyor was a merchantman with no defensive systems: the first
Exocet which hit her was directed at a warship, but was defeated by chaff
and jamming. It sought another target and hit Conveyor. She was left in
place, and a second Exocet attack was made which again hit her (and wasted
Argentina's last AM39).
But the problem was simply that we had no airborne early warning and
so could only detect the Argentinians when they came over the horizon:
and they used the same air-search radar as us, and trained extensively
in how to avoid it by low flying and "pecking the lobes".
> I'm sure this topic has been discussed before but I'd like to hear how
> this situation could have happened. Maybe I should be giving credit to
> the Argentine Air Force.
Navy, not Air Force: they were Argentinian Navy Super Etendards. And yes,
all those Argentinian pilots deserve respect: they demonstrated a
great deal of courage and skill and forced considerable changes in the
RN (from Phalanx and lots more light AA guns to better EW and Sea King AEW.2).
--
"When you have shot and killed a man, you have defined your attitude towards
him. You have offered a definite answer to a definite problem. For better
or for worse, you have acted decisively.
In fact, the next move is up to him." <R.A. Lafferty>
Paul J. Adam pa...@jrwlynch.demon.co.uk
Brian Elliott
> I venture to suggest that had 12 squadron and 208 been deployed earlier, with Buccs you
>would have seen devastation of the opposing fleet most swiftly.
Fine, I agree totally.
One problem. Deployed where and operating from what?
Had we had a real aircraft carrier then we would have deployed the
Gannet (retrieved from museums etc) then we would have more warning of
the incoming. Hopefully, we would also still have had Buccs &
Phantoms which would solved all the problems. I seem to recall that
had the conflict gone on for a long time then there were plans to pull
Bulwark out of storage which would have been a large carrier at least.
Unfortunately Hermes had the ski jump so was fairly useless for
launching Buccs etc. Although having seen what the Russians do with
SU33s etc I wonder.
Simon Thompson
anyone start counting up what would have happened if.... (The RN fleet subs had
been given their head, argentines had had the sidewinder ect ect....)
We should all just shout at the Foreign Office for cocking up and allowing
the war to start in the first place when the right signals at the right time
would have stopped it dead (for instance sending prompt military reinforcements
when S.Georgia was taken).
Perhaps a large number of British and Argentine men would have been spared death
if this had happened.
Si.
Sean Malloy
>In article <DFwx8...@news.uwindsor.ca>, pe...@uwindsor.ca (Pegg James Ds.) writes:
>|> While flipping through the channels this past week I ran across a cable
>|> program about the Falklands war. The Argentinians sank two Royal Navy
>|> ships on their first two attempts with the Exocet. Unbelieveably they
>|> were able to get within 30 miles of the fleet to deploy the cruise
>|> missle. The radar techs said they had something on their screen but they
>|> didnt know what it was.
>
>communicating with HQ; the Exocet was picked up on radar but a combination of
>confusion about a 'friendly' missile type and other factors enabled the missile
>to close on the ship without being fired on. The warhead isn't thought to have
>exploded, but the fire caused by the impact and break up of the missile caused
>the ship to be abandoned. It was later abandoned during an attempt to tow it
>back to the UK, and sank in heavy weather. There was one other Exocet hit on
>an RN ship; I think it was the Glamorgan, and as I remember it was from a
>land-launched Exocet.
Let's see if I remember the information I got years ago...
The Sheffield was boarded by a damage control team and put under tow,
but the team had to be taken off and the ship cut loose from the tow
due to weather conditions; it rolled excessively, took on water
through the missile impact hole, and broke in half when the flooded
ship got repeatedly crested on waves (crest-to-crest distance roughly
equal to hull length, putting excessive torsion on the ship). The
Glamorgan was hit just forward of the helo hangar, the missile warhead
exploded, and the ship was back in action within 24 hours. The
Atlantic Conveyor was hit just forward of amidships, and sank due to
insufficient compartmentalization.
It is interesting to note that, of all the Exocets launched by the
Argentines, only the MM38/40 Exocets -- the land-launched model --
functioned properly; the AM38/40 air-launched missiles suffered
warhead, guidance, and engine failures, and none actually locked onto
a target, flew to impact, and detonated. It should be pointed out here
that the MM38/40 Exocet is delivered in a sealed launch canister which
neither requires nor permits technicians to fiddle with the missile.
(The above information was from a presentation I attended, given by
Leftenant Lane, RN, who had gotten out of CIC aboard HMS Coventry
before it sank after being iron-bombed by the Argentines.)
--
Sean R. Malloy | American Non Sequitur
Naval Medical Center | Society
San Diego, CA 92134-5000 |
mal...@cris.com | "We may not make sense,
srma...@snd10.med.navy.mil | but we do like pizza"
Chong Y. Chow
>In article <44ve6o$g...@male.EBay.Sun.COM>, bar...@licancabur.ebay.sun.com (Juan Carlos Barroux R. - SunService) writes:
>|>
>|> I have always wondered what would have happened if the Argentinians
>|> used kamikaze tactics during this war. The return probability of the
>|> Argies was kind of low anyway so why not try to make it really count
>|> for something???
>
>Their chances of return weren't _that_ low!! Kamikaze techniques are utterly
>useless militarily; a pilot can make rather more attempts at destroying a
They were in WWII when the USN was huge. But in this case, the Argentines
had a lot more planes than the RN had ships. Also one of the Argentine
pilots said after the war he would have crashed into one of the carriers
if they could have found it (according to Airforce Inetrnational? It was
one of those airplane mags).
Anyways, if the fusing on the bombs were better, they would have gotten
a lot more ships. There were several instances where 500 lbers were going
through the sides of ship unloading supplies and troops.
>target if he comes back each time, after all.
Say you are out of ordnance and the trip back home seems in doubt because
there are four harriers blocking the way and your side has miraculously
located the carriers. Well, one heroic blow could change the war.
>
>|> I guess that we would have Malvinas instead of Falklands today...
>
>Maggie would have nuked Buenos Aires before she let the Falklands go. I heard
>one plan was that if the war was going badly, a RN sub would drop a Polaris
>(minus warhead) into the city as a warning, and the next one would be live...
>Maggie eh? Sane as you or me. <screeeeeam, wibble wibble>
I wonder why Maggie didn't send the fleet over to Hong Kong and renegotiate the
99-year lease?
The Crown colony was worth a hell of lot more than the Falklands.
Subhendu Kumar Misra
: I wonder why Maggie didn't send the fleet over to Hong Kong and
: renegotiate the 99-year lease?
: The Crown colony was worth a hell of lot more than the Falklands.
Simple:
China would have kicked the crap out of England, and the US
wouldn't have helped England either, because it would have turned
messy and the US wouldn't want to get its nice shiny ships dirty. :)
Its a hell of a difference pounding Iraq with a lame Navy (heck Army
and Airforce ;-) ), than it is to take on China with 150 odd subs etc.
-- SKM
Matt Clonfero
> However, with Britain having very few interests east of the Greenwich
> meridian, the RAF chiefs argued that the Navy had no need of airborne
> radar cover and that the mighty Nimrod AEW1 would provide all possible
> radar cover and so no replacement for the Gannet AEW3 was produced.
> In fact, the radar fit in the Shackleton AEW2 was even older than that
> fitted in the Gannet!
A few points here: The Nimrod is deployed in two versions - the R Mk 1
(51 Squadron, ELINT) and the MR.2 (The rest, maritime recon). The AEW
version would have been the AEW.3
Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but the radar used by the AEW Sea Kings
is the same as the MR.2 Nimrods carry (Searchwater).
> In addition, with so few Sea Harriers available they were tasked with
> point defence covering the main assets of the fleet (the carriers)
> which were some distance away from the islands themselves. There was
> no long range interceptors available until after the cessation of
> hostilities.
No. The SHARs were tasked to cover the Landing Area (San Carlos). They
were also used for strikes until the RAF Harriers arrived.
> In the early part of the camapign the Argentine aircraft were coming
> in so low that their bombs didn't have time to arm themselves and
> either bounced off the ships or went right through them. One ship
> (Ambuscade?) was lost while the EOD guy was trying to defuse an
> unexploded bomb.
Colonel Jones of 2 Para threatened a significant proportion of the media
with legal action for their `right to know' attitude - including passing
details that the Argentine bombs were improperly fused, and that 2 Para
was about to attack at Goose Green.
Aetherem Vincere
Matt.
--
===============================================================================
Matt Clonfero (ma...@aetherem.demon.co.uk) | To err is human,
My employer & I have a deal - they don't | To forgive is not Air Force Policy.
speak for me, and I don't speak for them. | -- Anon, ETPS
Maury Markowitz
> It is interesting to note that, of all the Exocets launched by the
> Argentines, only the MM38/40 Exocets -- the land-launched model --
> functioned properly; the AM38/40 air-launched missiles suffered
> warhead, guidance, and engine failures, and none actually locked onto
> a target, flew to impact, and detonated.
I'm sorry, I'm not too sure what you are saying here. Are you stating
that the AN planes were launching what were supposed to be land-based
missiles, or that the hits that did take place were from land based
missiles?
Maury
Donny Chan
MK>Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
MK>Subject: Re: Exocet missle: Is this missle deadly or was the Royal Navy
MK>complacent?
MK>Date: Sat, 07 Oct 1995 01:26:17 +0100
MK>Organization: Rest
> In the early part of the camapign the Argentine aircraft were coming
> in so low that their bombs didn't have time to arm themselves and
> either bounced off the ships or went right through them. One ship
> (Ambuscade?) was lost while the EOD guy was trying to defuse an
> unexploded bomb.
MK>Colonel Jones of 2 Para threatened a significant proportion of the media
MK>with legal action for their `right to know' attitude - including passing
MK>details that the Argentine bombs were improperly fused, and that 2 Para
MK>was about to attack at Goose Green.
Fortunately, the Argies thought the Brits weren't that stupid and
didn't thought the reported attack would be realised.
---
* DeLuxe2 1.21 #6922 * Beam, kagayaku, flashback ni, yatsu no kage! Char!
Matt Clonfero
>
> >From: ma...@aetherem.demon.co.uk (Matt Clonfero)
> >Colonel Jones of 2 Para threatened a significant proportion of the media
> >with legal action for their `right to know' attitude - including passing
> >details that the Argentine bombs were improperly fused, and that 2 Para
> >was about to attack at Goose Green.
>
> The media had no way of knowing the operational impact of the stories
> they carried. Military control of the news media was very tight during
> the Falklands War. The British government controlled physical access
> to the war, communications links, etc etc.
Utter bilge. If you broadcast `2 Para ready to assault Goose Green' ON
THE BBC WORLD SERVICE you can expect the enemy to be listening. Likewise
for the fusing info. I dislike the media, but I credit them with *some*
intelligence.
Mic Chaudoir
Really ? One of the lessons of DS was that a smaller, technically
superior and well motivated force can slaughter a conscripted, low-tech
force. This is exactly what would have happened if the UK ever went
against China.
--
Name:Mic Chaudoir
E-mail:m...@nwu.edu
WWW:http://pubweb.acns.nwu.edu/~chaudoir/micpage.html
-----------------------------------------
"I'm close enough to trip the wire"-KMFDM
*****************************************
"Intel Pentium:The error inside"
*****************************************
Trent Reznor: "I watch MTV because I am morbidly fascinated with how bad most of what I'm seeing is."
Steve Le-Vien
> Another bit of remembered trivia: the Brits found a retired navy officer
> whose hobby had been to poke around the Falklands and who wrote an
> unpublished guide to its harbors. It was on the basis of his manuscript
> that British commandos made their first landing.
Hardly trivia. It was Ewen Southby-Tailyour, Royal Marines. He commanded
the Royal Marines detachment on the Falklands 1977-1979, and spent much
time sailing around the Falklands. He was not retired at the time of the
invasion and his considerable knowledge and expertise was used during the
recapture.
Read his book 'Reasons in Writing'. Excellent.
"If I was to name one man whose knowledge and expertise was irreplaceable
in the planning and conduct of the amphibious operations I would, without
hesitation, name Ewen Southby-Tailyour."
Major-General Julian Thompson
--
___________________________________________________________________
____
\ / Steve Le-Vien AFTN: EGGWZPZX
|| Air Traffic Services Manager tel: +44 1582 395230
|| London Luton Airport, UK fax: +44 1582 395381
|| sle...@eggw.demon.co.uk My views, not LLA Ltd
Matt Clonfero
> >Utter bilge. If you broadcast `2 Para ready to assault Goose Green' ON
> >THE BBC WORLD SERVICE you can expect the enemy to be listening. Likewise
> >for the fusing info. I dislike the media, but I credit them with *some*
> >intelligence.
>
> Are you saying that the media would or would not broadcast information
> about the bombs etc? As I remember it, this was the case and it
> caused the task force commanders at Northwood to clamp down even more
> on what was being sent back by reporters.
I was saying that I think that the media should have known that this
information would be used by the enemy - that's the intelligence I
credit them with. Assuming this intelligence, not broadcasting is a
matter of common sense - which the media lacks in a big way.
Brian Elliott
Andrew Toppan
: This is somewhat unrelated, but related. You know what I mean. I
: think it was back in 1987 the USS Stark (type?) was hit accidentally
: by two Exocet missiles. Anybody have details? What happened? Is the
: Stark still around?
An Iraqi figher hit Stark with two Exocet missiles. One exploded,
one just burned. She was nearly lost, but was saved by excellent
damage control efforts. 37 people died. The ship was later repaired
and is still in service.
--
Andrew Toppan --- el...@wpi.edu --- http://www.wpi.edu/~elmer/
Railroads, Ships and Aircraft Homepage, Tom Clancy FAQ Archive
"I am Pentium of Borg. Arithmetic is irrelevant. Prepare to be approximated."
Juan Carlos Barroux R. - SunService
>
> > >Utter bilge. If you broadcast `2 Para ready to assault Goose Green' ON
> > >THE BBC WORLD SERVICE you can expect the enemy to be listening. Likewise
> > >for the fusing info. I dislike the media, but I credit them with *some*
> > >intelligence.
> >
> information would be used by the enemy - that's the intelligence I
> credit them with. Assuming this intelligence, not broadcasting is a
> matter of common sense - which the media lacks in a big way.
In these inteligences games I sometimes wonder if this was not leaked
with the express purpose of confounding the Argies. Think about it;
you are the Argie intel guy and you read in the newspaper that the "2
Para will assault Goose Green". Would you believe that this is REALLY
a leak? Or would you believe that this is a misinformation scheme
intended for you to move your assets to Goose Green while the 2 Para
will be somewhere else?
Remember all of the Marines landing exercises just before the 100 hrs
land war in DS. All of those exercises had lots of media just looking
and reporting it to the Iraquies. Result: they tied up a lot of units
just waiting for an assault that did never come. Just what you would
want...
Briefly; you never know...
Greetings,
j.c.
Dean Ledger
bomb ally!
Dean
ex Electronic Warfare Petty Officer HMS EXETER (did the full conflict)
Dean Ledger
shot down by a 4.5" shell (so HMS AMAZON says) even though we fired two
Seadart missiles at it.
I can assure you that from interception to explosion was terrifying, my
colleagues on the Sheffield reported this missile but noone belevied them
even the radar guys got told it was false contact.
Dean
HMS EXETER (full conflict vet)
S Standiford
: I intercepted the Exocet missile on our EW equipment that was finally
Dean,
Do British war ships employ a radar missile defense system like our
(American) Aegis system?
I, for one, was somewhat horrified by the effectiveness of Argentian ASM
attacks. Later the USS Stark to our attention over here in the states.
Is this, in your opinion, a problem with defensive systems, or a problem
with the procedures used to employ them?
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Fourth Horseman |
+----------------------------+------------------------------------------+
| horse...@aol.com | "We're going to cut them off, then we're |
| s.stan...@m.cc.utah.edu | going to kill them." -General Powell |
+----------------------------+------------------------------------------+
S Standiford
: Hong Kong is leased, and the lease is up. It's going back to the
: original owners, and perhaps to Hell as well, but nobody's Navy, Army,
: or Air Force is going to hold it and keep it a busy economic hunting
: ground. By the time the fighting was done, it would just be smoking
: rubble, good for nobody. What's the point?
Simply put, a Anglo-Chinese war over Hong Kong will not happen - its just
not worth it to Britain.
Matt Clonfero
> (And how did 2 Para have anything to do with bomb fusing assessment??)
Seeing as they were entirely supported from the sea, improving the
effectiveness of Argentine attacks on the RN would have a detrimental
effect on 2 Para. Look no bullets.
Anyway, just because they're sailors and Col. Jones was a para, doesn't
mean that he didn't care.
Matt Clonfero
> In these inteligences games I sometimes wonder if this was not leaked
> with the express purpose of confounding the Argies. Think about it;
> you are the Argie intel guy and you read in the newspaper that the "2
> Para will assault Goose Green". Would you believe that this is REALLY
> a leak? Or would you believe that this is a misinformation scheme
> intended for you to move your assets to Goose Green while the 2 Para
> will be somewhere else?
Even assuming that I believed this for locations of troops, broadcasting
`Argentine bombs hit some (3?) of our ships today, but sis not explode due
to incorrect fusing.' as an intel. ruse is a bit dumb when that was the
problem. And I'm sure it was con-incidence that, the day after the
broadcast, the percentage of duds dropped dramatically.
et...@deltanet.com
>Another bit of remembered trivia: the Brits found a retired navy officer
>whose hobby had been to poke around the Falklands and who wrote an
>unpublished guide to its harbors. It was on the basis of his manuscript
>that British commandos made their first landing.
This sounds a little bit like a somewhat distorted account of Ewen
Southby-Tailyour. My information comes from "The Battle For The
Falklands" by Max Hastings and Simon Jenkins. According to them,
Southby-Tailyour was a Major in the Royal Marines at the time of the
invasion. Furthermore, he had some serious first-hand experience of the
Falklands:
In 1978, Southby-Tailyour commanded the marine detachment in the
islands.... He spent much of his tour at sea, exploring every
creek and settlement along the coastline. He could claim to know
the Falklands as well as any man alive, and wrote a navagational
guide to the islands for private circulation.
Perhaps because of this experience, Southby-Tailyour led the initial
flotilla during the landing at San Carlos.
Southby-Tailyour sounds like a very interesting character; I'd jump at
the chance to hear his war stories from the Falklands!
========================================================================
et...@deltanet.com Eric Chevalier Compu$erve: 76010,2463
et...@netcom.com --------------------- Prodigy: GCXJ11A
http://www.deltanet.com/users/etech
========================================================================
David P Benjamin
[fighting over HongKong, previous poster unknown]
: >
: > China would have kicked the crap out of England, and the US
: > wouldn't have helped England either, because it would have turned
: > messy and the US wouldn't want to get its nice shiny ships dirty. :)
: >
: > Its a hell of a difference pounding Iraq with a lame Navy (heck Army
: > and Airforce ;-) ), than it is to take on China with 150 odd subs etc.
: Really ? One of the lessons of DS was that a smaller, technically
: superior and well motivated force can slaughter a conscripted, low-tech
: force. This is exactly what would have happened if the UK ever went
: against China.
Uh, huh. The Argentines came perilously close to knocking the Royal
Navy out of business with a handful of Exocets. The PRC Navy has
over 1000 ASMs just on board their ships. Include an unknown number
of ASMs carried by Badgers and Bisons, and Flankers to play with
the Harriers and you have a world of hurt. I imagine the Chinese have
more aircraft than the RN has SAMs. If the RN got within 200 miles
of HongKong I'd be surprised.
Where would the RN's closest base be, anyway? With and without Australia?
--
David Benjamin--Auburn University GRA, Instructional Media Group
M.A. candidate in Political Science/International Relations
http://www.auburn.edu/~benjadp Tour the U.S.S. Alabama!
Steve Le-Vien
[snip bits about Exocet missiles]
> As I recall, the Gannet AEW3 was a single engine, 3 seat (pilot and
> two radar operators) turboprop AEW aircraft that flew from the
> Ark Royal.
The Gannet was actually twin engined, two modified Mamba ASM 3
engines operating through a common gearbox - a Double Mamba -
driving two contra-rotating propellers. It could fly on one
'half'.
CharlesSmith
to be in the same bandwidths as the Exocet search/track radar.
Basically, the HMS Sheffield over-loaded her own ECM gear which would
have given warning of the incoming missile as soon as it's search radar
went online.
The Argentine pilots trained against their own type 42 destroyers so they
knew about the low level hole in the radar lobes. Therefore, using a
simple radar detector, they could "peck" the lobes almost all the way in
without being detected.
Not only were they deaf to the threat but blind as well.
Yours, Charles R. Smith SOFTWAR Richmond, VA
10060...@compuserve.com
>Nevertheless, the Argentines lashed up a "bomber" in the form of a
>Hercules, I think it was, refueling from drums carried aboard. I think
>the intention was to roll explosives out the back door. It was not a
>successful mission, but the QE II left for home in quick order, so it
>accomplished that much at least.
The Argentinian Hercules 'bomber' actually did hit a British ship, the
tanker 'British Wye', fortunately the bomb bounced (this was well
north of the war-zone if I remember correctly and the British Wye
wasn't part of the Task Force). However I don't think there was ever
any real intention to take the QE II closer than South Georgia, she
was too large and too much of a prestige target to run her into the
beach-head and the narrow waters of Falkland Sound.
David
David Gillon + "You can lead a man to coffee...
10060...@COMPUSERVE.COM + ...But you can't make him think"
Matt Clonfero
> I understood the Sheffield was using her Satcom link - which just happens
> to be in the same bandwidths as the Exocet search/track radar.
> Basically, the HMS Sheffield over-loaded her own ECM gear which would
> have given warning of the incoming missile as soon as it's search radar
> went online.
No. The SATCOM interferes with the ESM gear in general. Sheffield was
up on the SATCOM, and wasn't radiating her air search radar. Coventry detected
the attacking aircraft when it `popped up' for a look with it's radar
(Argave, UK codename `Handbrake.') Coventry also got an ESM reading, and
tried several times to convince the fleet air defence control in Invincible
that an attack was underway. However, Invincible was convinced that `AIR RAID
WARNING - WHITE' meant that an attack was not possible. Sheffield never saw
the missile on radar, even though she was using the picture generated by
Coventry over the Link system.
> The Argentine pilots trained against their own type 42 destroyers so they
> knew about the low level hole in the radar lobes. Therefore, using a
> simple radar detector, they could "peck" the lobes almost all the way in
> without being detected.
>
> Not only were they deaf to the threat but blind as well.
Coventry saw the plane and the missile, and detected the radar.
Juan Carlos Barroux R. - SunService
>
> The Argentinian Hercules 'bomber' actually did hit a British ship, the
> tanker 'British Wye', fortunately the bomb bounced (this was well
> north of the war-zone if I remember correctly and the British Wye
> wasn't part of the Task Force).
A couple of questions:
1) How did the Argentinians did the targeting? They must have used an
old WWII sight.
2) How can a bomb bounce of tanker? Surely the fuse would has been
armed by then.
Greetings,
j.c.
Juan Carlos Barroux R. - SunService
Can somebody post the technical data on the different models of Exocets?
As far as I can remember the different models are:
MM38 (The original one)
AM89 (Air-Sea)
MM40 (Extended range)
SM39 (Sub-Sea, not used outside Franēe AFAIK)
MM40 Mod.2 (Terminal maneuvering, anti CIWS)
Greetings,
j.c.
David P Benjamin
Eric Gross (egr...@mailer.fsu.edu) wrote:
:
: >Uh, huh. The Argentines came perilously close to knocking the Royal
: >Navy out of business with a handful of Exocets.
: Well, not actually.
: More correctly, the Argentinians came perilously close to knocking out the
: Royal Navy with a handful of obsolete aircraft and iron bombs. Three ships
: took Exocet hits -- Sheffield, Atlantic Conveyor and Glamorgan. Bombs got
: Coventry, Antelope and Arrow (If I remember the names correctly) and also the
: landing ships that were later written off. Many more RN ships were hit by one
My point being that the Exocet attacks were much more efficient than
the iron bomb attacks. Did the UK get any of the Mirages during an Exocet
attack? Had the Argies more Exocets (and more Mirages), they wouldn't have
been reduced to risking A-4s on iron bomb raids. So obviously, the more
ASMs you have, the better your chances (everything else being equal). If the
Argies had the ASM inventory that the Chinese have today, we'd be calling
those islands the Malvinas.
: The Exocet is a deadly weapon. Ask the dead in the Falklands Task Force or
: aboard the U.S.S. Stark. However, the Exocet is really lacking in range and
: warhead size for modern fleet engagements. If you really want to take out
: a U.S. CVBG, you don't use Exocets. (See the interminable thread on this
: subject in rec.sci.military.naval.) It is still very useful against smaller
: combatants and merchant vessels, and as the Sheffield proves, even a single
: unexploding missile can ruin your day if everything goes south on you. (And
: that's pretty much why Sheffield was lost -- just about everything that could
: have gone wrong did.)
It does seem kind of silly to compare warhead vs. warhead when comparing
ASMs when the really killer damage is done by the leftover fuel that the
missile carries.
Now if I were going after a CVBG, I wouldn't go for the carrier first off.
I'd try and sucker the air wing into a battle of attrition, and attack the
pickets first. You'd have to make it a several days battle and hope that
you had the numbers of aircraft, ASMs, and motivated pilots to pull it off.
Then you'd have to do it 12 more times. :-)
--
David Benjamin--Auburn University GRA, Instructional Media Group
M.A. candidate in Political Science/International Relations
http://www.auburn.edu/~benjadp Tour the U.S.S. Alabama!
I do not speak for Auburn University, and vice versa.
Joseph P. Hillenburg
>for example the US fleet now has the Phalanx CIWS on almost every ship
>The Royal Navy now uses the Dutch Goalkeeper and vertical Seawolf as
>point defense.
Don't forget that the cannon in the Goalkeeper is from the US.
>Also lots of modifications were made in the procedures of course,
>Since this was the FIRST sea war where both countries had MODERN
>weapon systems. (remember that the Royal Navy also uses Exocet)
Would that be Used at this point? I think for the last 12 or so years
all new-build RN ships have had Harpoon instead of Exocet.
--
Joseph P. Hillenburg
Email: mailto:johi...@indiana.edu
WWW Page: http://copper.ucs.indiana.edu/~johillen/
Jared Nedzel
>My point being that the Exocet attacks were much more efficient than
>the iron bomb attacks. Did the UK get any of the Mirages during an Exocet
^^^^^^^
>attack? Had the Argies more Exocets (and more Mirages), they wouldn't have
^^^^^^^
>been reduced to risking A-4s on iron bomb raids. So obviously, the more
>ASMs you have, the better your chances (everything else being equal). If the
>Argies had the ASM inventory that the Chinese have today, we'd be calling
>those islands the Malvinas.
I assume you mean Super Etendards. The Exocets were fired from Super
Entendards and from a ground launcher. Argentine Mirages were used
for air-to-air and for dropping iron bombs. I don't think the Argentine
Mirages were able to carry the Exocet.
>David Benjamin--Auburn University GRA, Instructional Media Group
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jared Nedzel jne...@netcom.com
Just because I'm paranoid doesn't mean there isn't someone out to get me
-------------------------------------------------------------------------