Non-US carrier aircraft on US carriers

[ARTESH]

I would say 2003 to 2006 as the USS Ronald Reagan (CV-76) was not commissioned until July 2003, and the last F-14's were retired from USN Fleet Service in September 2006.

Thank you dear Jeff. And if my calculations be right, The photos are taken about 20 years after the Las Malvinas. Am I right?

 

[cammerjeff]

About 22 or so but you are correct.

 

[nuuumannn]

The photos are taken about 20 years after the Las Malvinas. Am I right?

Yes, the war was 1982. During the war CANA had only a handful of Etendards as the transfer had not been complete and France supported the request for Argentina to withdraw from the islands, so technical support dried up quickly. It was some feat of energy that the CANA personnel made the aircraft ready to carry the Exocet in the time period they did. None of the aircraft pictured here took part in the conflict as they had not been delivered.

 

[nuuumannn]

Since it's relevant to this thread now (through a bit of thread drift, unless Exocets have appeared on US carriers), an Exocet on display at the Museo Naval de la Nacion, Tigre, Argentina.

DSC_9916

 

[The Basket]

Las Malvinas? Is that a place?

My info that 19 Etendards were delivered all up.

During the Falklands conflict, 5 Etendards were delivered and 4 were operational. The 5th was used as a spares shed. 5 Exocet were delivered and all 5 were fired.

The operation readiness of the Etendards was unknown by the British and the French did withdraw support.

However it's believed French technical staff still in Argentina supported the Exocet and maybe other countries did too.

The issue was the interface of fitting the Exocet to the Etendards as the aircraft was brand new and mainly navigation as the Etendard had to tell the missile where to head.

 

[nuuumannn]

Las Malvinas? Is that a place?

Nah, but Islas Malvinas is!

as the Etendard had to tell the missile where to head.

Target acquisition was done by CANA P-2 Neptunes prior to the Etendards switching on their own radars, which they used sparingly to reduce the chance of being detected. The Etendards fired their missiles at the extremities of their range and turned for home as soon as they fired them.

 

[nuuumannn]

However it's believed French technical staff still in Argentina supported the Exocet and maybe other countries did too.

Aerospatiale engineers arrived in Argentina on 12 April, but training had already begun by that time, the squadron was told to begin training on 1 April, crews flying against the Type 42 Destroyer ARA Hercules since it had similar radar fit to British ships. The first Etendards arrived in Argentina in November 1981.

 

[The Basket]

The Etendard told the missile where to go so the navigation between jet and missile had to be spot on.

This was the concern and this is why the British may have thought the Etendards and Exocet would not have been combat ready.

The Etendard as far as I know always acquired the target on their own radar before firing. It would tell the Exocet to go in a general direction and then the Exocet would turn on its own radar as it got close to the target.

3 hits were scored out of 5. 1 on HMS Sheffield and 2 on the Atlantic Conveyor.

The Exocet could be easily decoyed away as it always went for the largest radar return which could be a decoy or a large ship like the Atlantic Conveyor. The RN did use large transport ships as decoys amongst the fleet.

 

[Peter Gunn]

The more I look at the shape of the hull, though, it does seem to say cruiser.

Ignore this, I hit the "REPLY" link by mistake, it's too early in the morning...

 

[SaparotRob]

Been there. Done that.

 

[Glider]

The Etendard told the missile where to go so the navigation between jet and missile had to be spot on.

This was the concern and this is why the British may have thought the Etendards and Exocet would not have been combat ready.

The Etendard as far as I know always acquired the target on their own radar before firing. It would tell the Exocet to go in a general direction and then the Exocet would turn on its own radar as it got close to the target.

3 hits were scored out of 5. 1 on HMS Sheffield and 2 on the Atlantic Conveyor.

The Exocet could be easily decoyed away as it always went for the largest radar return which could be a decoy or a large ship like the Atlantic Conveyor. The RN did use large transport ships as decoys amongst the fleet.

HMS Glamorgan was also hit by an Exocet that was launched from land using a launcher that was flown to the Island in a C130. Two missiles were flown in but only one launched the other failed.
The Exocet hit higher up the ship, there is some evidence that the Seacat crew fired at the missile and deflected it up as it hit the deck and skidded a little before exploding.

 

[The Basket]

I heard the Exocet was taken from a navy ship. The Glamorgan was hit high because she was in a very tight turn so the ship was sideways and this is how it hit the hanger.

 

[Glider]

I heard the Exocet was taken from a navy ship. The Glamorgan was hit high because she was in a very tight turn so the ship was sideways and this is how it hit the hanger.

The missiles were taken off a destroyer (I think). I wouldn't have thought that turning would alter the height of the missile hitting the HMS Glamorgan. A turn was ordered which could easily have had some effect on the missile but to what degree I don't pretend to know.

When I was in the Navy I saw one of the target ships used in the UK trials of the Exocet and it was a very sobering sight.

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

I wouldn't have thought that turning would alter the height of the missile hitting the HMS Glamorgan.

I think it would be apparent height. If the ship is turning into the missile, it will heel opposite the turn, and the near side of the ship will lay over.

If the missile is flying, say, 30 foot ASL, and the ship is heeling opposite, it will hit at 30 foot all the same, but because the ship is heeling, the missile will strike apparently-higher in the ship even though there's no change in the missile's altitude. The bridge or upperworks will be relatively closer to sea-level, and so a hit looking to be, say, forty foot up, by damage, still only landed at thirty.

Drachinifel's video about the loss of Hood goes into the geometry of such situations, albeit addressing hull exposure rather than apparent strike-height.

 

[The Basket]

The Exocet hit the hanger which destroyed the helicopter and set of the fuel. If the ship is in a tight turn then the hull could be 45 degrees over and that's how it hit the hanger.

The Argentine had a carrier called 25th of May. This was carrying Skyhawks but due to the various and many human rights abuses of the Junta, the Americans had embargo spares for the Skyhawk. Which is why the Argentine went French and bought Etendards.

Some fools blames the French for this but forget UK tried to sell as much gear to the Argentine and some of this gear was used against the fleet. The bombs used were British bombs and Canberras too.

The French did stop any help and did fly Etendard Exocet profiles against RN to show what was what.

The Etendards would fly very low to the water. A few metres. Then pop up and do a radar sweep. If they find nothing then they rinse and repeat.

When they do get a radar contact, the coordinates are put into the Exocet and fired. The Etendard will sharp turn and flee as fast as they can. The Etendard can carry 2 Exocet but the attack profile was 1 Exocet and 1 fuel tank. They would refuel from C-130 tankers to give them the range.

The Etendard can carry bombs and guns and Magics but they were never used in more conventional attacks, purely Exocet. I assume in case they get more Exocet which never happened.

For the Royal Navy, the Etendard Exocet combo was a nasty shock as they were designed to fight against the Soviets so a more modern attack flown very well by western trained pilots was not on the cards.

 

[nuuumannn]

The Etendard as far as I know always acquired the target on their own radar before firing. It would tell the Exocet to go in a general direction and then the Exocet would turn on its own radar as it got close to the target.

Yes they did, as any radar-guided missile system does, but the P-2 guided the Etendards to the target area and acted as radar picket because the Etendard drivers switched their radars off on route. Firing time with the Etendard radars on was kept to a minimum, which meant that, as in the case of the Atlantic conveyor, the largest target was selected. S-2 Trackers also flew electronic support. Yes, I'm aware of the complexities the Argentine engineers faced in getting the missiles compatible with the aircraft, doing so was an impressive feat in the short time available. The unit had little time to get that right and work up to full proficiency through training, which they did against existing units of the Argentine navy, including the Type 42destroyer ARA Hercules, which was the same type as the Sheffield.

The Atlantic Conveyor also didn't have decoy systems, which the British ships deployed once the missile had been detected by the radar picket ships.

The Glamorous Organ (HMS Glamorgan) was struck by an MM.38 Exocet, which was removed from an ARA destroyer, a former WW2 Sumner Class destroyer ARA Segui. The MM.38 was longer and had a greater range than the AM.38 air-launched variant.

It's fascinating stuff.

 

[nuuumannn]

he Argentine had a carrier called 25th of May. This was carrying Skyhawks but due to the various and many human rights abuses of the Junta, the Americans had embargo spares for the Skyhawk. Which is why the Argentine went French and bought Etendards.

In simple terms, pretty much, the Etendards were requested as replacements as the US embargo wouldn't allow newer variants of the A-4 to be purchased by the Argentinians, investigating the Etendard being discussed in 1977. The Veinticinco de Mayo embarked A-4s in the initial stages of the invasion fitted with Sidewinders for air defence, but the CANA A-4s had limited avionics and carried unguided munitions only, the strike raids flown against the British ships in San Carlos Water being flown from land bases after the sinking of the General Belgrano, refuelling done by the trusty FAA KC-130s, practise done at the same time as the Etendard units.

The brutality of the military junta was awful and a few of the personnel that organised the torture and executions of civilians at the ESMA facility in BA took part in the war, including a particularly nasty piece of work named Alfredo Astiz, who was in charge of the Special Forces group that took South Georgia, but was later retaken by British Special Forces. He is currently serving a sentence of life imprisonment for his role in what's been named the Dirty War. But I digress and don't want to bring up politics in this interesting thread.

 

[The Basket]

The Argentine carrier was called 25th of May.

 

[The Basket]

Sadly we cannot bring up politics.

But on a different topic. Have you ever ridden in a helicopter? Wink wink.

Oddly if the Argentine had gone up against the Americans then you would have had Hawkeyes and Tomcats and dead Etendards.

The Etendard would have not got into Exocet range before hitting the water.

True story Bro.

 

[nuuumannn]

The Argentine carrier was called 25th of May.

Translated into Spanish, which is the official language of Argentina is Veinticinco de Mayo. The carrier was ARA Veinticinco de Mayo.

ARA Veinticinco de Mayo (V-2) - Wikipedia, la enciclopedia libre

es.wikipedia.org