Jump to content

Sea Harrier Over The Falklands


Daniel Cox

Recommended Posts

Dave,

 

I have to agree with you on Burden et al's "Falklands The Air War" for being the best factual account, dispassionately written; a masterpiece.  Yes, it could be updated (as I have done for the Harrier SIG with the FRS.1 and GR.3 tomes) but it needs someone to do and their input/agreement.

 

In a way it has been by Gordon Ramsey with his After The Battle volume on the Falklands War; another masterpiece but written as an overall diary of events, rather than aircraft type by aircraft type, one side then the other.

 

Cheers

 

Nick

 

 

Edited by NG899
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, NG899 said:

I have to agree with you on Burden et al's "Falklands The Air War" for being the best factual account, dispassionately written; a masterpiece.  Yes, it could be updated (as I have done for the Harrier SIG with the FRS.1 and GR.3 tomes) but it needs someone to do and their input/agreement.

 

Nicik

Absolutely agree, now available on one of the BARG DVD releases, for those that cannot find the book -  a must have for me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

I have the re-print of Sharkeys book and to be honest it's a pretty good account of things as they really were, much to the annoyance of some senior people. Things at the sharp end are considerably different to how they're portrayed on TV etc. A lot of mistakes were made on our side in 1982 and Sharkey has clearly illustrated that. The rivalry between the RAF and Navy has been intense for many years and for a variety of reasons including the RAF physically moving Australia on a map to illustrate it could provide air cover for the RN negating the need for Aircraft Carriers, and remains so to this day!

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Stealthman said:

I have the re-print of Sharkeys book and to be honest it's a pretty good account of things as they really were, much to the annoyance of some senior people. Things at the sharp end are considerably different to how they're portrayed on TV etc. A lot of mistakes were made on our side in 1982 and Sharkey has clearly illustrated that. The rivalry between the RAF and Navy has been intense for many years and for a variety of reasons including the RAF physically moving Australia on a map to illustrate it could provide air cover for the RN negating the need for Aircraft Carriers, and remains so to this day!

 

That old chestnut has circulated for years. An interesting post on arrse.co.uk deals with it head on:

 

There may be some truth to the story, but it is nowhere near as clear cut as people think.

The man closest to the story, Ray Lygo (later head of BAe) claims in his autobiography that Australia was moved 200 miles by the RAF. Lygo was closely involved in CVA01 planning, and it is 99% certain that the moving island/continent story originates from him and has been retold.

This figure has, depending upon which former senior naval type has retold the story, gone from 200 to 1000 miles. As yet, despite two academics looking for corroborating evidence, the National Archives reveal nothing to support the story.

There are further complications. The first is that it may have been an island in the Indian Ocean which moved. 

It is also clear from archival research undertaken by people such as Saki Dockrill that:

a) the main opposition to CVA01 actually came from the Foreign Office, who described the new carriers as 'superfluous' in their submissions on future policy. The Treasury was not far behind them in this point of view. The PM was not convinced about carriers either. The crabs could, in fact, have been in favour of the carriers, and there'd still have been a strong chance the CVA01 would've been cancelled to save money.

B) The records suggest that the question wasn't whether to buy F-111 or the CVA-01. The options were either 
(i) procuring the F-111 or 
(ii)obtaining the CVA01 in addtion to the F-111

There was no option of buying CVA01 in lieu of the F-111. 

c) Up until 1966, the US had been averse to the cancellation of the carriers. While the US had gone as far as to offer second-hand US carriers to the UK during 1965, this had been because they wanted the UK to have a presence 'East of Suez'. As it became clear that the UK had (at that time) no intention, or at least no declared intent, to abandon the East of Suez role, McNamara and the DoD felt that it wasn't necessary to press the UK to buy new carriers. It wasn't the capability that mattered to the US but the actual presence - which could be delivered (McNamara thought) through the presence of land based air and troops.

d)The RN's staff work was poor - Healey was constantly sending submissions back to the naval staff urging them to make their case in a more convincing manner. They never did. They also managed to pull off the trick of submitting a planning option to the Overseas Defence Policy committee which, upon examination, had got its sums wrong by a cool £76,000,000. This did not exactly help the RN's case.

The sad fact of the matter is that whether the RAF moved an island, or even a continent by 200 yards, 200 miles or 200 Light Years, if this sleight of hand occurred, it did not kill the carriers. And a former 'Wings' of HMS Victorious once suggested to me that the RAF might have used an old RN chart for the allegedly dodgy map...

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Truro Model Builder said:

 And a former 'Wings' of HMS Victorious once suggested to me that the RAF might have used an old RN chart for the allegedly dodgy map...

Hmm, colour me sceptical.  I think the RN and its charts have been pretty clear on the location of Australia for a century or two.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 18/02/2018 at 12:28 PM, Seahawk said:

Hmm, colour me sceptical.  I think the RN and its charts have been pretty clear on the location of Australia for a century or two.

Yes and to be honest it was more a case of fighting for available funding then as it is now. Inter service rivalry continues and always will. Why do you think an RAF squadron will be the first to stand up on the F35B? Despite the fact that the B model is being purchased for carrier ops? The crabs want the F35A which I'm sure they will get in a split order at a later date. But meantime they have to be the first to have any variant......

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you read a broad range of Falklands material, it appears there were issues between Hermes and Invincible as well as the RN/RAF - Peter Squire says in his diaries:

 

Sea fog again prevents all fixed-wing flying. I therefore grab a Sea King and visit Invincible to see Sharkey Ward (CO 801 NAS). What an enormous difference in both atmosphere and environment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Stealthman said:

Inter service rivalry continues and always will. Why do you think an RAF squadron will be the first to stand up on the F35B? Despite the fact that the B model is being purchased for carrier ops? The crabs want the F35A which I'm sure they will get in a split order at a later date. But meantime they have to be the first to have any variant......

 

 

Wrong.  The B variant is being purchased because frankly we have no money for two variants, did nobody mention to you the MoD is out of cash, and as the £ drops against the $ as we Brexit we will afford less and less kit (and no that is not a Brexit Political comment) !!!!

 

And what number Sqn stands up first, WELL, I think as the Sqns will be joint manned RAF/FAA @60%/40%) and the F-35's will be based on RAF Marham, I would suggest it is appropriate an RAF Sqn stands up first.  The Sqn number is a number, nothing more, nothing less, the Sqn's will still be joint.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, PLC1966 said:

Wrong.  The B variant is being purchased because frankly we have no money for two variants, did nobody mention to you the MoD is out of cash, and as the £ drops against the $ as we Brexit we will afford less and less kit (and no that is not a Brexit Political comment) !!!!

 

And what number Sqn stands up first, WELL, I think as the Sqns will be joint manned RAF/FAA @60%/40%) and the F-35's will be based on RAF Marham, I would suggest it is appropriate an RAF Sqn stands up first.  The Sqn number is a number, nothing more, nothing less, the Sqn's will still be joint.

Got to say a squadron number is not R not just a number....yes there will be jointery but from my experience of the 801 800 and the 845 846 experience it does make a difference....well that and 'the management' at the time.....that said 772 kicks the rest in to touch but I digress.

Meanwhile...may i reccomend No picnic by Col RM Thompson and the red and green life machine by Surg Cmdr Rick Jolly who sadly recently died (so young as well.

Now feel hungry ...hmmm Crab anyone.....only joking or...am I :P

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, junglierating said:

Got to say a squadron number is not R not just a number....yes there will be jointery but from my experience of the 801 800 and the 845 846 experience it does make a difference....well that and 'the management' at the time.....that said 772 kicks the rest in to touch but I digress.

 

Evening Junglierating, I have worked on Sqns and understand a Sqn is of its history, its present, its future and it personalities. 

But I think the F-35, with its jointery from Day 1 will tear down a lot of things us old and bold(bald ?) understand.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/08/2012 at 4:42 PM, corporate said:

 

Afterthoughts - there's a large format Ian Allan book on the Harrier that includes combat accounts from the Falklands by e.g. Ward and Morgan; this also provides good background on Harrier development, including mods that were in progress but which, very frustratingly, did not quite arrive in time for the Falklands War. I think of the larger external fuel tanks, the Sea Eagle fit (just think, Sea Harriers launched in a carrier strike against Veinte Cinco de Mayo...) and the quad Sidewinder fit. Any or all of these would have made a significant difference.

Tony, Whats the story on the Quad sidewinder fit ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, junglierating said:

:idea:

To be honest mate ...history nah ....personalities ,decent trips and run ashore ,management are what matter.Gen 

Think the Grow Bags push on the history, the bods on the personalities, social activities and Dets keep the dits going.  Management is always another story !!

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, junglierating said:

They look good for procedure Alpha but extra weight....obviously.

Clearly role fitted on occasion but generally single laus on 1 and 5.

So looking good for PR purposes then !!

 

Never seen pics.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On ‎1‎/‎7‎/‎2018 at 1:31 PM, Truro Model Builder said:

Exocet Falklands is a superb read, and the Martin Middlebrook book on the Argentine viewpoint is (ahem) The Argentine Fight For The Falklands.

 

Top of the pile for its pure research and detail is the long out of print Falklands: The Air War.

 

As regards Sharkey's book, it is a very good read and you can certainly not fault his abilities as a fighter pilot and a squadron commander. It is a shame that in more recent years he seems to have become very bitter and bangs his own drum without any concern for anybody else's ideas and views.

 

 

But you can get a PDF copy through the BARG people .....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, PLC1966 said:

Wrong.  The B variant is being purchased because frankly we have no money for two variants, did nobody mention to you the MoD is out of cash, and as the £ drops against the $ as we Brexit we will afford less and less kit (and no that is not a Brexit Political comment) !!!!

 

And what number Sqn stands up first, WELL, I think as the Sqns will be joint manned RAF/FAA @60%/40%) and the F-35's will be based on RAF Marham, I would suggest it is appropriate an RAF Sqn stands up first.  The Sqn number is a number, nothing more, nothing less, the Sqn's will still be joint.

Wrong. The B  variant is the most expensive of the 3 versions, at the end of the day BAE wanted to overcharge for fitting cats and traps on carriers. RAF want A or C Variant, initial order is for 48 B airframes only with MOD and UK Government now acknowledging a possible split buy to include unspecified number of A variants because it will be Cheaper.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes the B Variant is the most expensive, however, it is a damn site cheaper running a Infrastructure/Logs Chain for one aircraft variant than for two.  The initial buy in a project like this is generally considered the cheap bit, it is the ongoing support for the 30+ years that we fly them that costs the real money.  And we will not have money for two variants.

And as for an order for more than 48 Airframes, we shall see about that, I really fear that like many things defence in the future, the number of votes defence generate at General Elections means no uplift of cash in the future to enable the buy for 120(?) as first muted..

 

The BAe costs for Cats and Traps is a red herring.  The ship had been designed to be without them, did you think the re-design would be cheap, try ordering a car then asking for a different engine.  And it would have been a major re-design, not just rubbing out a couple of pencil lines and sketching something in.  Sure there was something about the engines not being able to generate the required steam and see we would have had to go EMALS somewhere in the mix.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, PLC1966 said:

The BAe costs for Cats and Traps is a red herring.  The ship had been designed to be without them, did you think the re-design would be cheap, try ordering a car then asking for a different engine.  And it would have been a major re-design, not just rubbing out a couple of pencil lines and sketching something in.  Sure there was something about the engines not being able to generate the required steam and see we would have had to go EMALS somewhere in the mix.

 

Afraid that is not how I remember it.  When there was public comment about why such large ships would be not be carrying proper naval aircraft like everybody else's, only inherently limited VTOL aircraft, I distinctly remember reading or being told that the ships were being designed to be able to accommodate facilities for conventional naval aircraft at a later date (I think at first major refit was mentioned) and yes, the then-immature EMALS was mentioned as the catapult option.  

 

Whether that vision was lost sight of, designed out at a later stage (cut-cutting again?) or was a lie from first to last, I know no more than anyone else.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, Seahawk said:

Afraid that is not how I remember it.  When there was public comment about why such large ships would be not be carrying proper naval aircraft like everybody else's, only inherently limited VTOL aircraft, I distinctly remember reading or being told that the ships were being designed to be able to accommodate facilities for conventional naval aircraft at a later date (I think at first major refit was mentioned) and yes, the then-immature EMALS was mentioned as the catapult option.  

 

Whether that vision was lost sight of, designed out at a later stage (cut-cutting again?) or was a lie from first to last, I know no more than anyone else.

 

There are all sorts of reasons, but plans change...

 

The initial designs did make scope for either STOVL or CTOL options, and there were voids in the hull design for things like catapult and arrestor gear).

 

In fact Thales were lobbying the French Govt to order a third (CTOL) carrier of the QE design as a second carrier for the French navy. So the QE class could be built as a CTOL or STOVL ship. You also have to recall that at this time, the specific air compnent had not been chosen, although it was eventually going to be the F35 in some capacity, but if the ships had been ordered early enough, it might have been Harriers before that. ( (In fact I have a pre-selection RN drawing of a projected Future carrier showing parking spaces below decks for F18E/F and E2C, which shows what the Admiralty were considering if they'd started building in 2000). So it was envisaged that it might be possible to change from STOVL to CTOL at some point.

 

However, once the project timescale was stretched, and the projected time for service entry neatly co-incided with the into service date of the F35, and the decision was taken to go for the F-35B, I suspect it was no longer envisioned that such a future conversion might be done. I was told by someone involved in the project that subsequently, some of the spaces in the paper design envisaged for CATOBAR equipment were used for 'other things'. Hence when the 2010 SDSR announced that we would go for CTOL and the F35C, there was a LOT of details drawings that would need redone, equipment to be relocated as well as make the physical changes on the already under construction QE (if required) and replace all the relevant production drawings for POW too, hence the cost increases from ACA, as well as having to find several 100 million pounds to purchase an EMALS from the States.

 

There is also a line of thought within the RN/FAA that the STOVL version gives better operational availability, and they point to all the occasions when the Sea Harrier was able to operate when conventional carriers would have been unable to launch aircraft due to weather restrictions (e.g. in the Falklands).

 

 

However...... don't rule out a future further batch of F35s being the 'A' variant for purely land based operations.

Edited by Dave Fleming
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, PLC1966 said:

Yes the B Variant is the most expensive, however, it is a damn site cheaper running a Infrastructure/Logs Chain for one aircraft variant than for two.  The initial buy in a project like this is generally considered the cheap bit, it is the ongoing support for the 30+ years that we fly them that costs the real money.  And we will not have money for two variants.

And as for an order for more than 48 Airframes, we shall see about that, I really fear that like many things defence in the future, the number of votes defence generate at General Elections means no uplift of cash in the future to enable the buy for 120(?) as first muted..

 

The BAe costs for Cats and Traps is a red herring.  The ship had been designed to be without them, did you think the re-design would be cheap, try ordering a car then asking for a different engine.  And it would have been a major re-design, not just rubbing out a couple of pencil lines and sketching something in.  Sure there was something about the engines not being able to generate the required steam and see we would have had to go EMALS somewhere in the mix.

 

The QE class were designed to be fitted with Cats and Traps from the word go, and a lot of empty compartments exist on QE to facilitate this in the future. The only decent decision Cameron ever made was to put emals on. Lockheed made arrangements to switch the UK order to the F35C beginning with the third airframe to be delivered. This suited the RN and RAF very well! The US appreciating the budgetary constraints agreed to supply and fit emals for a fixed price, but no mention of how and where kit would be fitted? BAE then quoted a price in excess as the builders of the vessel to deter this. You have to stop and think about what would have happened to the F35B if the UK had gone ahead with F35C, there was a determination in US to cancel the B and it still came very close! An initial order for 48 x F35B has been placed, and the MOD and Government are now openly acknowledging that a split buy is now on the cards. The A is much cheaper and only version fitted with internal gun. It suits the RAF requirement perfectly. The UK F35 is to be based at Marham because of its close proximity to Lakenheath where US F35A will be based to allow interworking of UK and US engineers. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, Stealthman said:

The QE class were designed to be fitted with Cats and Traps from the word go, and a lot of empty compartments exist on QE to facilitate this in the future. I seriously do not see that being the case, that being based on my having seen nothing to support that comment.

 

The only decent decision Cameron ever made was to put emals on. Really or typo ? However us Brits love a bit of largely unproven technology

 

You have to stop and think about what would have happened to the F35B if the UK had gone ahead with F35C, there was a determination in US to cancel the B and it still came very close! If we had of dropped out of the programme it probably would have stalled, however I do not see where BAe would have benefitted by pricing that Cats and Traps out of the ballpark, if anything, higher design costs, rebuild of work undertaken, extending the build time of the ships would have been right down their alley and suited their profit margins from my view point.  

 

The A is much cheaper and only version fitted with internal gun. It suits the RAF requirement perfectly. Yep, definately a better fit to replace the Tornado, however, Defence needs a lot of things (manning as a starting point) and the money will not be there for two variants.  

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Dave Fleming said:

There is also a line of thought within the RN/FAA that the STOVL version gives better operational availability, and they point to all the occasions when the Sea Harrier was able to operate when conventional carriers would have been unable to launch aircraft due to weather restrictions (e.g. in the Falklands).

May their glasses ever be half-full.

 

Thanks for the explanation all the same.  Whatever the history, IMHO a strategically wrong decision was made: we have paid top dollar for 2 carriers that will have much less capability than they could have had.  But at least we will have carriers of some description and a handful of aircraft of some description to put on them.  See, my glass is half-full too, well, maybe quarter-full.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...