Hugh McManners - Forgotten Voices of the Falklands: The Real Story of the Falklands, which consists of face to face interviews with the various combatants is now available in audio book format for ipod/ipad. Very, very insightful and candid first party interviews, which reveal a level of animosity between ground unit commanders and RN commanders I'd not fully appreciated. Particularly the failure of the latter to provide timely CAS to suppress Argie artillery fire following the taking of military objectives. The Argentine failure to counter attack (in most cases) against exhausted and ammo light units saved the day and would have only been suppressed by air or NGS. The RN's obsession with protecting the carriers and preserving airframes meant ground units had to hang-on and prey the Argies never got their act together and utilised their reserves.
The Royal Navy Discussions and Updates
- Thread starter overlander
- Start date
Hugh McManners - Forgotten Voices of the Falklands: The Real Story of the Falklands, which consists of face to face interviews with the various combatants is now available in audio book format for ipod/ipad. Very, very insightful and candid first party interviews, which reveal a level of animosity between ground unit commanders and RN commanders I'd not fully appreciated. Particularly the failure of the latter to provide timely CAS to suppress Argie artillery fire following the taking of military objectives. The Argentine failure to counter attack (in most cases) against exhausted and ammo light units saved the day and would have only been suppressed by air or NGS. The RN's obsession with protecting the carriers and preserving airframes meant ground units had to hang-on and prey the Argies never got their act together and utilised their reserves.
You can lay this at the feet of the STAVO/800 NAS incompetence on the SHAR as well. 801 NAS demonstrated the night attack capability of the SHAR to the fleet on the way south but the Hermes leadership refused to listen and tasked day time only attacks. Also on an early strike mission (4 May) a SHAR of 800 NAS was lost carrying out an undisciplined follow up strike at Goose Green. After this loss strike missions were curtailed to avoid further losses. Combined with poor resource management via wasteful visual ocean patrol missions and poor CAP management by Hermes resulted in a deficit of resources. The SHARs could have achieved a lot more with proper leadership on Hermes. Night attacks and many of them could have caused a lot more shaping damage before the landing. During the ground fighting the priority for the SHARs had to be air combat otherwise the Marines and Army would have much bigger problems than a lack of CAS.
Quick question to you on the back of this, Repulse...5 years after being launched HMS Daring finally fires a missile..
Daring finally shows her bite
Makes you so proud...
How long does it take to build a ship, then fit it out, the test it, prove it works adequately, then pass it over to the end user, who then have to satisfy themselves that it will do EVERYTHING they want it to, bearing in mind that this isn't a meccano kit, but a state of the art warship, with one of the newest, most complex, untested radar & missiles systems that has been developed over the last 20 years ??
Just because a hull has been launched, doesn't mean that it's ready to goto sea & kill an enemy.....:hul
For a 1st of type, 1st of class, Daring has done well..... :nutkick
Rant over!
SA
Are you seriously telling me that it should take almost 2 years for a £1bn ship to fire more than a 4.5" shell?Quick question to you on the back of this, Repulse...
How long does it take to build a ship, then fit it out, the test it, prove it works adequately, then pass it over to the end user, who then have to satisfy themselves that it will do EVERYTHING they want it to, bearing in mind that this isn't a meccano kit, but a state of the art warship, with one of the newest, most complex, untested radar & missiles systems that has been developed over the last 20 years ??
Just because a hull has been launched, doesn't mean that it's ready to goto sea & kill an enemy.....:hul
For a 1st of type, 1st of class, Daring has done well..... :nutkick
Rant over!
SA
Hey, let's buy aircraft carriers for £5bn and wait ten years before the first plane flies from them... :hitwall:hitwall
First Arleigh Burke was launched in 1989 and formally commissioned in mid 1991...
[ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arleigh_Burke_class_destroyer"]Arleigh Burke class destroyer - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia@@AMEPARAM@@/wiki/File:USS_Arleigh_Burke_Mediterranean.jpg" class="image" title="USS Arleigh Burke (DDG-51)"><img alt="USS Arleigh Burke (DDG-51)" src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/61/USS_Arleigh_Burke_Mediterranean.jpg/300px-USS_Arleigh_Burke_Mediterranean.jpg"@@AMEPARAM@@commons/thumb/6/61/USS_Arleigh_Burke_Mediterranean.jpg/300px-USS_Arleigh_Burke_Mediterranean.jpg[/ame]
The launch and commissioning dates are listed for the rest of the AB's in that link, some are 18 months, others nearer 24.
So, yeah, it's not unheard of. They're complicated things, and usually there's still some fitting out and "snagging" to do after launch after with the newer modular builds of fitted out sections.
Ian
Surely a better example would be the Tico's as they were the first class with AEGIS.
So compare the development time of AEGIS and the build time of the Tico's which were based on the Spruance's and 10 years doesn't sound that bad.
Last edited:
kev 99
Member
Agree, much of the development work had been done by the time the Burle's came into service, obviously work still had to be done but it's really the Tico's development time + that of AEGIS which is important.
Like others have stated, it takes time.
You can't compare a production line producing cars or toasters, to a shipyard building ships.
Hell that's like comparing the design & production of a sopwith camel to Concorde.
Them's not the same apples....!
...& as for the JSF, DON'T blame UK Plc, methinks you should be looking across the pond...??
.
Information Dissemination: Lockheed Martin Takes a Broadside in the Senate
(Big HAT TIP to Galrahn)
Capitan Trueno
Banned Member
I advise you to look at books from Argentinian authors, because i have seen tv reports from Itv or Itn, English spoken, with huge lies about number of Argentinian people involved in the conflict. It is just one example.
If you just read one side sources you are in a position to be informed just partially of the information. Maybe by mistake or normally by voluntarily lies to increase the own merits. Don´t expect journalist know exactly all the information passing in Combat Information Centre of the Hermes or other British ship.
Just to know that Harriers had the initiative, because they knew before where Arg where, just that it is enough to make a difference in the engagements. But most of the kills where made with the Sidewinder, and that is another big difference in equipment. But i have the book from Argetinian guy, Ruben Moro, but couldnt have a look to it yet to see about your comments that Argentine had like 500 missiles in stock hehehe, i will look it when i can.
As an example of your outnumbering, a group of 4 Skyhawks, with 1 navigation system only for the group, goes to target, but need to to refuel before arriving, and while arriving to the ships 2 Harriers arrive, with someone called Morgan, one of the Skyhawcks realises of it, but they are just on the ships targets and keep on that mission, meanwhile Harriers simply put behing and launched the Sidewinder, as i tell you they were busy, first with the ships, and after finishing just one Skyhawk was left and didn´t have gun working ! And had to do another refuel to come back to base without navigation system, by miracle he could find the refueller in the middle of the ocean.
You say Args pilots didn´t know how to use missiles, but beware that Exocet missiles where left in Argentine without integration into airplanes because the French technicians left the country when the conflict begun. So Arg personnel had to integrate the missiles on the planes by themselves. Also the Exocet they launched from the terrain to the Glamorgan cruise ship was a SEa-to-sea missiles and they did all what was needed to launch it from the terrain, they had to build the platform and the electricity and electronics for the missile. Did the know how to use missiles?
Air engagements were, by circumstances and conditions, absolutely in favour to Harriers. So your claims are absolute unfair.
All my data comes from first hand reports, academic books based on such and archival information. Including the excellent “Argentine Fight For the Falklands” by Martin Middilebrook based on Argentine sources and the SIPIRI arms transfers database based on UN reporting.
That was how many missiles were declared as part of international arms transfer protocols. They might have shot some off but there still would have been plenty left and the time they were in Argentine hands would not change. If the Argentines only needed a few months to turn perfectly good Israeli missiles into non-working junk or couldn’t accept them in a proper condition then that all means they are an incompetent air force.
Fighters vs attack jets shows the lack of Argentine force coordination, again an indication of their tactical incompetence. The RAAF would not launch a similar attack without taking down or spoofing the fighter CAP.
I only postulated that by your evidence the Argentines must have been very poor at maintaining their missiles if they were all inoperable as you stated after such a short time in service. Of course the real answer is their aircraft and pilots lacked the tactical capability to deploy their missiles. This is very different to engineers plugging in all the right cables.
LOL. Total nonsense. The Argentineans had absolute superiority in the number of fighters and attack aircraft as well as better radar surveillance and fighter control connectivity over the Falklands. While their aircraft were a generation inferior to the SHAR their numbers should have enabled them to win via attrition alone. But they failed to challenge the RN fighter force via tactical incompetence. The Israelis or Australians flying Miros and Skyhawks would not have made that mistake.
Capitan Trueno
Banned Member
Air engagements were made in the surroundings or just on the zone where the British ships were, if Arg pilots go up they will be shot by ships missiles, if they stay below 15 mts over the sea they will be by the Harriers because Harriers have initiative and Harriers shouldnt be worried about the fire from the ships or completing a mission against the ships or flying at 15 mts. Harriers were playing at home. In a minute more Harriers will come.
Maybe during May 21-25 but the air battle started on May 1. That the Argentineans got themselves into this problem was of their own making. That during the Battle of San Carlos (May 21-25) they launched attacks without bombing from the right altitude so their weapons would fuse made the whole thing pointless. It was just a self inflicted Turkey Shoot that had no significant impact on the outcome of campaign.
Not really comparable. Aegis was developed and ready to be installed on a ship for at least 5 years before the USN came up with a design that made it to production. Internal politics between the conventional and nuclear navy played a major role in having a system but no ship to deploy it on as well as external interference from the Senate and President Carter. The most extensive operational testing of the Ticonderoga wasn't accomplished until after the ship was deployed and the crew familiar with the system.
The Burkes version of Aegis had significant differences compared to the versions that were on the Tico's that were in service at the time. So the Burke and the Barry also had extensive testing and teething issues during their first couple years.
Looks like the Apache detachment aboard Ocean will be blooded in Libya. 4 x airframes supported by Lynx will now provide direct CAS. France will do the same with a mix of Tiger and Gazelle. The focus being to duplicate the success of operations in Afghanistan by hunting down mortar teams and/or similar less obvious targets in support of the rebels. Deployment will compliment not replace Typhoon/Tornado.
Whether these additional assets will upset the stalemate is another question? The rebels don't appear to be able to leave the main MSR's, they turn tail every time they come under effective enemy fire rather than deploy in any kind of flanking move. Hopefully the additional assets plus better training will allow them to move on Tripoli in a more coordinated manner.
The new maritiem Lightweight Multirole Missile (LMM) designed for the new Wildcat will begin production in 2012 (order for a batch of 1000 confirmed). Will follow the CAMM model being capable of launch from the air, from the ground or from the sea travelling at speeds of up to Mach 1.5 and at ranges exceeding six kilometers, with limited associated collateral damage (modified Starstreak by the sounds of it). Cheap and cheerful being the order of the day, every time the UK fires a Hellfire or Javelin to mitigate the threat represented by a mortar / DsK team the bean counters back in the MOD must wince! Hopefully this cheaper weapon will represent an ideal round for asymmetrical targets and equip Apache also - the UK needs to stop cracking nuts with expensive hammers.
Whether these additional assets will upset the stalemate is another question? The rebels don't appear to be able to leave the main MSR's, they turn tail every time they come under effective enemy fire rather than deploy in any kind of flanking move. Hopefully the additional assets plus better training will allow them to move on Tripoli in a more coordinated manner.
The new maritiem Lightweight Multirole Missile (LMM) designed for the new Wildcat will begin production in 2012 (order for a batch of 1000 confirmed). Will follow the CAMM model being capable of launch from the air, from the ground or from the sea travelling at speeds of up to Mach 1.5 and at ranges exceeding six kilometers, with limited associated collateral damage (modified Starstreak by the sounds of it). Cheap and cheerful being the order of the day, every time the UK fires a Hellfire or Javelin to mitigate the threat represented by a mortar / DsK team the bean counters back in the MOD must wince! Hopefully this cheaper weapon will represent an ideal round for asymmetrical targets and equip Apache also - the UK needs to stop cracking nuts with expensive hammers.
Last edited:
mrgeorgeallison
New Member
Just read the news, nice to see HMS Ocean deployed with Apaches and putting them into action against Libya (Ocean is part of the Response Force Task Group currently under sail in the Med en route to the Indian Ocean after Exercise Cypriot Lion).
I can't post links yet but just Google "British attack helicopters to be deployed".
I can't post links yet but just Google "British attack helicopters to be deployed".
Capitan Trueno
Banned Member
I understand you say that the Arg airplane attacks "had no significant impact on the outcome of campaign" ? But Commodore Moore said that 45 % of ships (referring to the total of more than 100 ships in the task force ?) were either partially broken, out of service or sunk, he said the campaign was looking no good (before ground fighting), and other English said in interview that if Arg could have stand for 2 more weeks they would have won the war. And that is with some or many of the bombs not exploting, but still they made some damage perforating the hulls etc. Similarly out of the 3 torpedos the San Luis submarine launched, one hit in British ship, they don´t know which, other broke the wire before arriving to hit and the torpedo then come softly to surface and was seen by British ships, and the sub almost was caught with many depth charges. And the 3rd torpedo hit another British ship but didn´t explote.
With some airplanes, Skyhawks, that cost 50000 dollars they were fighting vessels that cost, like the T42 i think, 550 million dollars.
It could have been the worst disaster in the history of the Royal Navy, with more than 20000 people on many ships that were 45 % of them hitted. How are you going to sustain such a big train of people and ships if most of them wouldnt work? Left alone in the Ocean, of left alone in the islands with no good logistical train for so many people. It reached a point were the Royal Navy had bad perspectives.
It was, as Wellington described Waterloo, a "nicely run thing" - as in, yes, we won, it could have gone a lot worse. Abraham states quite correctly that the bombing campaign against San Carlos "had no affect on the campaign" for the simple reason that nothing was hit that made the war unwinnable. People died, ships were sunk and others were hit, but nothing was hit that prevented us from continuing.
And in the process, the Argentinian airforce was running at unsustainable losses - 75 losses in fixed wing and 25 rotary out of a nominal 200 + frames - and that rate would have likely sustained as pilot fatigue, maintenance, spares or other factors came into play.
We needed to re-take the islands before the weather turned against us or the fleet became too worn down - and we did.
If we hadn't, we'd have come back the next year and done it then.
Argentina took on the world's 5th biggest Naval power, gave it a damn good try and lost - ironically, in the process, saving the Royal Navy for another twenty years.
Ian
It is based on Starstreak, but without the darts. Part of this first order replaces part of a Starstreak order, which is probably sensible.
Additional guidance modes are under development. IIRC SALH has been tested.
Capitan Trueno
Banned Member
Uk was 2 weeks away from leave the Falklands, or surrender, and was a consequence from the Argentine pilots globally, not just San Carlos engagements. If in land, artillery munition hadn´t run out, Argentines wouldn´t have left the hills surrounding Port Stanley and stand some more time.
The rate of unit losses along the conflict is something also to consider in both sides, Argentine lost aircrafts, but in the exchage of sacrifices, Uk had 30-40 ships touched and had lost also +30 aircraft including at least 10 Harriers and the Invincible also hitted by bombs. Who could sustain, for say 2 more weeks, or a month, still more units lost? But units are lost in different engagements, attacked in terrain, or accidentally.
About fatigue or spares or maintenance, in the short term, 2 weeks 1 month, is not something too important, it would be for the next year if the Uk had decided to leave it for the next year. But that situation is unknown, and while the Uk had a lot of support from the Usa with satellites, sidewinders, logistics and other equipment, and also probably from France, Argentina had support from Peru, and Russia was a neutral country and could have helped, by money, the Argentines. The loss of the war meant the end of the military regime in Argentine, but if they would have won the war .... unknown paths.
If Argentine had waited to have all the contracted Exocets, had waited to fix and maintain correctly their aircraft and submarines, and waited the Uk to dismantle some of the important ships, that was in the way, probably Uk could not retake islands so quick or with more looses.
But it is impossible to determine who morally or ethically owns the islands, and if they dont reach an agreement to share them, then it will be the law of the jungle, the stronger, and Argentine politicians should have realized that Uk with Usa support and also European, was going to win, soon or later, and they should have realized of useless life sacrifices for a chunk of terrain. But in reality, as an English soldier said, Argentine was just 2 weeks from the "victory", in that campaign.
kev 99
Member
£550m
nfloorl:Where on earth did you get that from? You won't do your credibility any good quoting such ridiculous sums.