yulzari
Staff Sergeant
A Vulcan pilot told me he could out dogfight an F14 at extreme altitude. At that height wing area rules.
Last edited by a moderator:
"Obsolete" planes still dishing it out
- Thread starter gjs238
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Glider
Captain
And I believe in the tooth fairy
fastmongrel
1st Sergeant
Or as Lyndon B Johnson called it the Fairy Tooth
davparlr
Senior Master Sergeant
I can't believe they would start a war in which they felt they didn't have a reasonable chance of success. They may have been crazy but I don't think they were stupid. I am sure they weighed Britain's military strength against theirs. I think they saw that Britain had eliminated their heavy carriers and had cancelled many defense projects and were militarily weak and non-committal and probably did not have the heart to fight that far away from home. They saw that Britain could only field about 30 unproven and slow fighters (in reality 33 Harriers) against their larger air force that included very capable Mirage fighters and maneuverable A-4s, and felt their odds were good. If they had been facing the Ark Royal and Eagle they would have had to deal with a fleet with proven aircraft with twice the aircraft available to the Invincible and Hermes and with probably four times their firepower and have the capability of controlling four times the airspace, including refueling capability and airborne early warning (could the Argentines get close enough to launch their Exocets before being bounced by long range F-4s?). They may indeed have been stupid enough to go ahead, but I think they certainly would have had second and third thoughts about it.
This sounds like someone justifying a bad decision. I doubt RN Navy F-4 pilots would agree to that statement. I am sure they would think that if the Argentines could fly so could they. I am also sure that they would say that if the Harriers could fly, so could they. And knowing the Brit pilots, they had the balls to do it.
Its almost 4000 miles from the Ascensions to the Falklands, way too far for any kind of tactical support. Kinda like flying support over Chicago from London.
Glider
Captain
There can be little doubt that the Phantom/Buccaneer combination together with AEW was far more formidable threat to any force. Equally there is also no doubt that the Harrier could operate in conditions fixed wing couldn't operate. As they always used to say, its easier to stop and land than land and stop.
The Ark was only about 24 years old when scrapped and would have had some life left in her. For a peacetime ship she was worked harder than most due to her prominence and from about 1972 was the only carrier we had. Had Argentina simply waited for her to go into refit which happened on a regular basis they would have had an open field.
The Ark was only about 24 years old when scrapped and would have had some life left in her. For a peacetime ship she was worked harder than most due to her prominence and from about 1972 was the only carrier we had. Had Argentina simply waited for her to go into refit which happened on a regular basis they would have had an open field.
fastmongrel
1st Sergeant
I know a chap who was a electrician in the RN and he reckons she was totally worn out needing a complete strip and refit and in her last 5 years of service was only kept going by having a repair vessel with her at all times. Her generators and wiring was the original and power failures were frequent, her boilers were also worn out and struggled to raise enough steam during intensive catapult operations. Wiki reckons Eagle was the ship that should have been kept in service as she was in much better condition capable of going on into the 80s.
yulzari
Staff Sergeant
Re the Vulcan v F14. I only report the story but the chap was talking about operating as high up as it could get and claimed he could out turn an F14 as it would stall if it attempted any tight turn up there whereas the Vulcan had the wing area to have enough lift to still turn. Oh, and he was a genuine Vulcan cabbie.
Re the Ark. I was living in Devonport when the Eagle was retired and the Ark kept. The dockyard mateies used to tell the story that the yard knew one would be scrapped whatever the politicians were saying as the budget the yard had been given wouldn't stretch to do both ships. The Eagle had the best hull etc. so, when they were refitted, all the good bits went onto Eagle and the Ark was bodged up with all the old and worn stuff. then the MoD decided to scrap Eagle and the yard couldn't admit what they had done to save money. Again I only report the story. Pity they didn't just swap the name plates.
Re the Ark. I was living in Devonport when the Eagle was retired and the Ark kept. The dockyard mateies used to tell the story that the yard knew one would be scrapped whatever the politicians were saying as the budget the yard had been given wouldn't stretch to do both ships. The Eagle had the best hull etc. so, when they were refitted, all the good bits went onto Eagle and the Ark was bodged up with all the old and worn stuff. then the MoD decided to scrap Eagle and the yard couldn't admit what they had done to save money. Again I only report the story. Pity they didn't just swap the name plates.
davparlr
Senior Master Sergeant
I have heard this type of comments before about other bombers and fighters. It is reasonable that the Vulcan has a higher ceiling (55k according to Wikipedia) than the F-14 (50+) and if the Vulcan is light it is not unreasonable for the Vulcan to make a turn at high enough altitude that the F-14 could not 1) reach it to start with, or 2) not be able to make the same turn and maintain altitude. The Vulcan wing is, indeed, huge. I stood under one once and was amazed.
Perhaps you might be right about the Argie's different attitude to the big carriers, but firstly, the big mistake Galtieri made was to underestimate Britain's response. War was not officially declared by either side prior to the conflict; Argentine forces invaded the Falklands and the British responded by sending a task force to evict them. What is considered to be part of the trigger behind the Argentine decision is the fact that the British showed decreasing political interest in the islands in public statements since the end of WW2 - certainly the retirement of the navy's big carriers might have appeared to the Argentineans as a lessening of its capabilities. Not only that, but one trigger that is considered to have had some impact in the decision when to invade was with the departing of the survey vessel HMS Endurance from South Atlantic waters, which was to the Argentineans symbolic more than anything. The simple fact was the Argentineans were not expecting the British to respond the way they did.
It's interesting to note that behind closed doors, Ronny Raygun offered Thatcher the use of a fixed wing carrier if need be, but was turned down. the use of equipment such as AIM-9L Sidewinder and AGM-45 Shrike missiles was accepted, however.
British forces were severely outnumbered by the Argentine armed forces on paper, but British training and tactics won through in the end, despite heavy losses in equipment and personnel. As for the distance being a hindrance to tactical warfare, the Vulcan bombers carrying out air strikes on Stanley Airfield and anti-aircraft radar sites were a tactical response to the unfolding situation. Despite what is thought of the Vulcan raids by analysts at the time or since in Britain, the presense of long range British strike aircraft over the Falklands scared the Argies into repositioning mainland air assets closer to Buenos Aires.
Last edited:
In these days of ultra long range B52 strikes in Afghanistan and Iraq it is very easy to forget the impact the Black Buck raids had. At the time they were the longest range strike missions ever carried out and required substantial tanke and other logistics support as well as a high degree of planning expertise and airmanship. They showed the Argentines that the UK could strike the mainland at will. This was noticed by not only the Argentines but also the Soviets and helped confirm along with the sinking of the Belgrano, Thatchers iron lady reputation. I am more impressed by the anti radar missions than by the runway strikes. To sand a vulcan 4000 miles with just 2 anti radar missiles shows a lot of determination by all involved.
He did, Tomo.
This also meant she swept back into power in the next election, which had the Argentine forces not invaded the Falklands would not have happened. Patriotic fervour vesus political imcompetence at work, perhaps? Britons' thoughts on whether this was good or bad for the country do depend entirely on their political leanings, of course.
Last edited:
Yep<I lean fir bad. There has been much talk over the years about the offer of a carrier but nothing documented, no primary sources so I put it up there with the argentine attack on HMS invincible. Nice to believe if you are on their side but utter bollocks if you are not.
I have heard the same story but about Concorde.
My bad; it was actually Caspar Weinberger, not Reagan who suggested that an American carrier be sent to aid the British; the Dwight D. Eisenhower, apparently.
"He convinced President Reagan of the need to assist Britain, and America went on to provide missiles, aircraft fuel, military equipment, and intelligence information to the British government. On May 3 he even proposed sending down the carrier USS Eisenhower to act as a mobile runway for British planes in the South Atlantic, an offer which, as Mrs Thatcher recorded in her memoirs, "we found more encouraging than practical"."
From here: Caspar Weinberger - Telegraph
Also, the Iwo Jima was actually readied for service if either the Invincible or Hermes were sunk.
"Ronald Reagan made secret plans to loan Britain a U.S. warship if she lost an aircraft carrier during the Falklands War, it has emerged.
The then-president was prepared to support Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher despite the U.S. being officially neutral during the 1982 conflict.
The stunning revelation was made by John Lehman, the former U.S. Secretary of the Navy, to the U.S. Naval Institute on Tuesday.
Mr Reagan would have loaned Britain the use of the amphibious warship USS Iwo Jima should harm have come to either HMS Invincible or HMS Hermes, which the Royal Navy had deployed to defend the islands from Argentinian forces."
From the following: Not so neutral after all: Ronald Reagan made secret plans to loan U.S. warship to Britain if aircraft carrier was lost during Falklands War | Mail Online
I know, just the 1st time Ive read that Ronald Reagan could be called by another name - hence my wink.
- Thread starter
- #119
