Falklands war: AEW - or lack of.

[Filler]

I've just started reading a book on the Falklands war by Martin Middlebrook. I'm not all that far in and so far there has been no mention of the lack of AEW aircraft. However, I have heard this mentioned before and I guess we had this capability gap between the Gannets operating on 'proper' aircraft carriers and the Sea King's that operated from the 'light' aircraft carriers.

 

I quickly Googled this and found a good few hits saying that having AEW would have made a huge difference. Interestingly though, I found one comment from someone claiming to have been there that claimed that we did have AEW and other electronic aircraft operating secretly.  I also read something related that said 801sqn used their own radar and performed very well, whereas 800sqn used visual techniques of spotting Argentine aircraft and this resulted in them downing them only after they'd attacked our ships.

 

I know that there will be plenty members of this site who will have read a lot on this subject and maybe experienced it too that could tidy up some of this stuff I've seen this morning. And any recommended further reading would be appreciated.

[Cyberduck]

The only AEW in RAF service at the time was the Shackleton. This did not have the range to get to the South Atlantic. Have a read of Harrier 809 by Rowland White, who cover the subject of the lack of AEW.

[Lord Riot]

As so often the bean counters left our guys and girls at the pointy in more danger than they should have been. And as usual I’m certain our forces managed to implement workarounds and make the best of what resources we had. 
 

A flight of Gannets on Hermes would of course been much better - would that have saved the Sheffield, Antelope and Coventry? In hindsight borrowing a NATO or US AWACS and basing it on Ascension would surely have been a good idea? 
 

What AEW do we have on the new carriers? 

[Graham Boak]

I'm sure that I remember that the Sea King as an AEW platform was considered when the Gannets retired (I doubt that there was much airframe life left) but their Lords of Admiralty preferred another frigate instead.

[canberraman]

1 hour ago, Lord Riot said:

As so often the bean counters left our guts and girls at the pointy in more danger than they should have been. And as usual I’m certain our forces managed to implement workarounds and make the best of what resources we had. 
 

A flight of Gannets on Hermes would of course been much better - would that have saved the Sheffield, Antelope and Coventry? In hindsight borrowing a NATO or US AWACS and basing it on Ascension would surely have been a good idea? 
 

What AEW do we have on the new carriers? 

Merlin with Crowsnest AEW radar was delivered this year and the aircraft were embarked on HMS QE for the recent 6 months voyage.  

 

Mark

[Filler]

2 hours ago, Cyberduck said:

The only AEW in RAF service at the time was the Shackleton. This did not have the range to get to the South Atlantic. Have a read of Harrier 809 by Rowland White, who cover the subject of the lack of AEW.

Thanks. Totally forgot that the RAF did have the Shackleton at that time. Still the RN really ought to have had their own carrier based AEW in my opinion, but @Graham Boakhas answered why they didn't. Thanks Graham.

 

I will get myself a copy of 809 squadron and in the reviews for it I noticed a few people have recommended Commander Sharky Ward's book 'Sea Harrier Over The Falklands'. From some of the reviews I picked up that there was an RAF v FAA thing going on in how they operated Sea Harriers in the campaign.

[junglierating]

2 hours ago, Lord Riot said:

As so often the bean counters left our guts and girls at the pointy in more danger than they should have been. And as usual I’m certain our forces managed to implement workarounds and make the best of what resources we had. 
 

A flight of Gannets on Hermes would of course been much better - would that have saved the Sheffield, Antelope and Coventry? In hindsight borrowing a NATO or US AWACS and basing it on Ascension would surely have been a good idea? 
 

What AEW do we have on the new carriers? 

Hermes would not have been able to take Gannets no catapults or arrestor gear.....all removed when it became an ASW/Helicopter carrier.....then eventually the ramp fitted for SHAR.

As for the present   820 and eventually 814 operate ASACs as a role fit option....a subject I shall steer away from very quickly.

 

ASaCS Air surveillance and control system 

Edited November 29, 2021 by junglierating
Clarification

[exdraken]

8 hours ago, Filler said:

I also read something related that said 801sqn used their own radar and performed very well, whereas 800sqn used visual techniques of spotting Argentine aircraft and this resulted in them downing them only after they'd attacked our ships.

interesting statement!

any more to confirm/ deny this?

why would 800 Sqn not use their radar?

[wombat]

Ideally read all of the Ward, Morgan and Pook books for the full picture. At times it reads like the two carriers and the RAF had enough beef between them for a three way war without having to bother the Argentines...

 

in particular Ward’s squadron achieved/claimed to achieve far better performance from the radar than the other carrier’s squadron did, leading to heated argument about whether it could be relied upon rather than rely on visual search 

 

strange to think that it’s now the same distance in history as El Alamein was at the time

[JohnT]

5 hours ago, Filler said:

 

 

I will get myself a copy of 809 squadron and in the reviews for it I noticed a few people have recommended Commander Sharky Ward's book 'Sea Harrier Over The Falklands'. From some of the reviews I picked up that there was an RAF v FAA thing going on in how they operated Sea Harriers in the campaign.

It’s been far more years than I like to admit since I read his book but as I recall his view was that more damage would have been done by FAA Sea Harriers the RAF Vulcans had the investment gone there and the RAF contribution was devalued accordingly. 
Personally I thought he missed the point that you play with the cards you are dealt. He does have a good book though. 
 

Since typing the above have read Wombats post done while I was writing mine and agree reading those three authors gives a balance to matters

[wombat]

There’s quite a lot said about Ward by those qualified to do on the military section of PPrune...

[Filler]

Yes, I’ll do more reading before I drawer any conclusions of my own, but I’ve also detected that whilst a terrific pilot and brave guy, Ward is perhaps quite opinionated, self confident and despises the RAF. It strikes me it is difficult to get an unbiased and accurate account of much in history, even when written by those that were there.

[Filler]

43 minutes ago, exdraken said:

interesting statement!

any more to confirm/ deny this?

why would 800 Sqn not use their radar?

Not sure yet, but possibly to do with RAF pilots being sent to the NASs and maybe something to do with that. 800 maybe got the bulk of the RAF pilots. The GR1/3 didn’t have radar, so maybe that played a part.

[Whitewolf]

6 hours ago, Filler said:

Thanks. Totally forgot that the RAF did have the Shackleton at that time. Still the RN really ought to have had their own carrier based AEW in my opinion, but @Graham Boakhas answered why they didn't. Thanks Graham.

 

I will get myself a copy of 809 squadron and in the reviews for it I noticed a few people have recommended Commander Sharky Ward's book 'Sea Harrier Over The Falklands'. From some of the reviews I picked up that there was an RAF v FAA thing going on in how they operated Sea Harriers in the campaign.

I can highly recommend Starkey Ward's book, it makes for a great read and highlights a few home truths which made it somewhat controversial..... 

[Whitewolf]

47 minutes ago, wombat said:

Ideally read all of the Ward, Morgan and Pook books for the full picture. At times it reads like the two carriers and the RAF had enough beef between them for a three way war without having to bother the Argentines...

 

in particular Ward’s squadron achieved/claimed to achieve far better performance from the radar than the other carrier’s squadron did, leading to heated argument about whether it could be relied upon rather than rely on visual search 

 

strange to think that it’s now the same distance in history as El Alamein was at the time

Ward was heavily involved with the introduction into service of the FRS1 and was known as 'Mr Sea Harrier'. He had a far better appreciation of the Sea Harriers radar capabilities, and placed a lot of faith in the aircraft as a an effective fighter ( no coincidence that he was the highest scoring pilot 

) whereas others with far less knowledge failed to recognise this. 

[John B (Sc)]

59 minutes ago, wombat said:

There’s quite a lot said about Ward by those qualified to do on the military section of PPrune...

 

From my reading, the bulk of the comments on PPrune are from ex-RAF folk who are not the least biased people around,  Are they qualified?  I rather doubt it., in most cases.

There has been FAA vs RAF banter and dispute for many years, some justified , some less so.  I think both Squadrons had RAF pilots successfully integrated within them; the aggro I suspect comes from people probably never near the action, or those like the Hercules pilot Ward mentions who claimed to be on 'active war duty' weeks after all the fighting had ceased. Technically true but - yawn. 

 

Lt Cdr Ward was clearly not the most tactful of people, but then in a war situation, tact often comes second. He also clearly enjoys winding up the 'light blue'!

 

It does seem from the evidence that 801 Sqn did get better radar operation; I think they had had longer to get used to and tweak the set up. That, combined with 801's different patrol and loiter tactics generally worked better than 800's approach. I get the impression that 800 was inhibited rather by being under the direct eye of the overall commander, Adm Woodward, who had no aviation experience - a submariner. Possibly the style of Lyn Middleton . CO of Hermes, contributed, though I suspect he too found having the Task Force commander flying his flag aboard a strain.  (He definitely wasn't happy with the RAF Harriers at first)  In contrast, Invincible seems to have been rather more relaxed with a closer understanding between the seniors involved. 

 

Overall, despite the strains and  evident disagreements about tactics and deployments, a great job was done by all, against the odds. 

Edited November 29, 2021 by John B (Sc)

[junglierating]

Think John has the measure of it...obviously a R4 Today listener 😀as for banter....gotta fill the day somehow.....I will be playing with WEs this week,  the look on their faces when they work out im an ex WAFU is priceless 😉 

[wellsprop]

11 hours ago, Filler said:

Ward is perhaps quite opinionated, self confident... 

 

I think you've just described most fighter pilots 😂

[JohnT]

36 minutes ago, wellsprop said:

 

I think you've just described most fighter pilots 😂

A bit like surgeons and other similar jobs where having oodles of self confidence is almost a job requirement otherwise you would never go into work to do what has to be done

 

Douglas Bader gets a bit of stick for his prickly do as I say manner. From what I’ve read it seems to be justified. Well, sort of. Perhaps a story I read years ago and wish I could find it but - and I apologise for any errors in recollection in advance- DB and two other ranking officers (one was Robert Stanford Tuck?? Maybe) were having a discussion on fighter tactics. DB was not getting his point accepted, threw a hissy fit telling them they were idiots and stomped off on his tin pins. One of the pilots said to the other to the effect “Why does he have to be like that all the time?” The reply was again to effect of “If he wasn’t he would not have ever climbed back into a fighter cockpit.”

 

sometimes Plaster Saints won’t cut it

[Filler]

This might be true of fighter pilots in a very broad sense, but there will still be tiers. I’ve seen quite a lot of ex fighter pilots interviewed on that YouTube channel Aircrew Interview (?) and most of them come across as very nice level headed chaps.

 

This is really getting off topic, but I’ve read a mix of brief book reviews and perhaps Sharky Ward has given many a sense of despising the RAF and maybe this has affected some people’s feelings towards the book as a whole. I’m gonna read them anyway as I have just got the urge to learn more of the conflict. Sounds like there are some very good books covering the ground war too.

[wellsprop]

On 29/11/2021 at 11:13, Filler said:

I also read something related that said 801sqn used their own radar and performed very well, whereas 800sqn used visual techniques of spotting Argentine aircraft and this resulted in them downing them only after they'd attacked our ships.

 

I think, I'd have to check some of my books though, that was an order from Woodward (I recall there is a document that was declassified that proves this), based on the fact that some of the pilots were very new to the Harrier and were not confident with the radar.

 

Ward argues that the Harriers radar was one of it's great capabilities. There was a counter argument that the radar shouldn't be used as Argentine pilots knew when they were being "lit up" by the radar as they had RWR - Ward again argues that this is a good thing as the Argentines therefore new there were Harriers in the area, tracking them and that this would deter Argentine pilots from continuing an attack.

 

I can't recall where I read this, whether it was Ward's or White's book.

[John B (Sc)]

"There was a counter argument that the radar shouldn't be used as Argentine pilots knew when they were being "lit up" by the radar as they had RWR - Ward again argues that this is a good thing as the Argentines therefore new there were Harriers in the area, tracking them and that this would deter Argentine pilots from continuing an attack."

 

To my mind this showed how well Lt Cdr Ward was thinking as a leader, not a fighter pilot. Their job was to deter, disrupt or stop attacks by opposing aircraft. Shooting them down was of secondary importance.   

Hadn't heard of  Adm Woodward's order; that sounds very strange, given his lack of aviation expertise, unless those like Captain Middleton or the CO of 800Sqn felt that pilot morale was an issue.  Odd one, unless it was an order about not using radar too close into the fleet or on a vector direct from the fleet, since that would give away fleet position.  I'm sure I read something about that, whether from Ward or others, not sure.

 

 

As for  opinionated,  self confident - yes that certainly defines fighter pilots - actually I'd say it well defines most pilots, certainly those who are enthusiastic long term pilots. Confidence in your own abilities is important when faced by 'challenging' conditions, and given how large the sky is and how awe-inspiring the weather can be, a certain amount of self confidence or arrogance that you can deal with the issues matters. And that is without people shooting at you!  This is also why aviation puts so much effort today into pilot psychology and attitudes. 

 

Opinionated - surely not?  Just go into any crew room or flying club bar...   !

[Bozothenutter]

Wasn't the AEW Seaking development accelerated because of this lacking capability?

[junglierating]

Just now, Bozothenutter said:

Wasn't the AEW Seaking development accelerated because of this lacking capability?

Yep

[John B (Sc)]

My memory is that the Sea King AEW capability then appeared with impressive speed after the Falklands war