Argentina imposes shipping rules to the falklands.

meghatronic said:
Operation Mikado was one of them, fantastically ballsy. And not really embarrassing.

There were many others, but I think the one you're talking about was impeded by heavy fog. The SAS team carried on, on foot to Argentina and the pilot destroyed the helicopter and went dark. They were called off eventually because of the potential for political fall out.
Click to expand...
Yeah that's the one, but the pilot crew and SAS handed themselves in to the Chileans after diverting to Chile.
 
Jokester said:
Yeah that's the one, but the pilot crew and SAS handed themselves in to the Chileans after diverting to Chile.
Click to expand...

The SAS were dropped in Argentina and made their way to the airbase that was being used to launch air attacks on the task force in the Falklands.
The helicopter trip was one way due to it not having enough fuel for a return journey.
Drop SAS in the area and then scoot to friendly country.
The SAS team was to watch the airfield and radio back major take offs etc to the task force.
Early warning basically.
I have read this in a couple of books about the Falkalnds war.
 
Any chance of naming the better of these books you chaps have been reading? I would very much like to read-up on this myself.
 
Contrary to what some people have said in this thread previously, the Americans did provide us with low-key, behind-the-scenes support during the Falklands campaign.

Firstly, they allowed the use of Ascenscion Island and its' associated airbase. Although originally a british colony, we'd handed it over to the US and they used it as a diversionary runway for the Space Shutttle on account of it's runway length and location.

Secondly, they gave us access to the AIM-9L version of the Sidewinder heat-seeking air-to-air missile. Previous versions of the missile were only effective when fired at the rear/exhaust of an enemy aircraft (where the heat was strongest). The AIM-9L was the first 'all aspect' version of the missile -i.e it could be fired at any part of an aircraft once a lock had been achieved and a hit would be fairly certain.

Thirdly, the US gave us access to the Shrike anti-radar missile. While it was of Vietnam-era vintage, and not as effective as the modern-day HARM, the Shrike was for its' day an effective weapon against enemy radar sites. Several of the Vulcan 'Black Buck' raids were anti radar missions, including the one that resulted in the emergency landing in Rio after the refuelling probe broke off on the return trip.
 
JonnyT said:
Contrary to what some people have said in this thread previously, the Americans did provide us with low-key, behind-the-scenes support during the Falklands campaign.

Firstly, they allowed the use of Ascenscion Island and its' associated airbase. Although originally a british colony, we'd handed it over to the US and they used it as a diversionary runway for the Space Shutttle on account of it's runway length and location.

Secondly, they gave us access to the AIM-9L version of the Sidewinder heat-seeking air-to-air missile. Previous versions of the missile were only effective when fired at the rear/exhaust of an enemy aircraft (where the heat was strongest). The AIM-9L was the first 'all aspect' version of the missile -i.e it could be fired at any part of an aircraft once a lock had been achieved and a hit would be fairly certain.

Thirdly, the US gave us access to the Shrike anti-radar missile. While it was of Vietnam-era vintage, and not as effective as the modern-day HARM, the Shrike was for its' day an effective weapon against enemy radar sites. Several of the Vulcan 'Black Buck' raids were anti radar missions, including the one that resulted in the emergency landing in Rio after the refuelling probe broke off on the return trip.
Click to expand...
No one's disputed this. But that hardly counts as serious help.

Anyway, if you insist.

1) RAF Ascension Island was re-garrissoned by the RAF in 1982 - it wasn't handed over to the US at all. It was originally HMS Ascension until after WW1 when it was turned over as an St. Lucia (Crown until 70s) dependency. The airfield was built by the US in WW2 (and extended for NASA much later), but this is hardly relevant. Anyway, you'd expect this of an ally. Much like allied but non-combatant Arab states during in the Gulf wars.

2) The AIM-9L (Lima) were already routed for British troops, and we queue jumped taking American stocks (ours were only just starting to enter service). Although a lot of sources suggest the missiles were to replace UK-housed stocks that were all sent to the Falklands. All recorded engagements of Argentine aircraft were from the rear, so the AIM-9L effectiveness is moot (although you're right would've helped). HOWEVER, Maggie herself said this was a great advantage, so I'll concede. But 100 missiles (at great cost) hardly warrants serious help, especially if the rear-engagements point is true.

3) Shrike was of little effectiveness - the Argentines just switched off their radar on approach of British jets^. Any damage that was done was repaired in less than a day. Besides, it isn't like the US *gave* us the missiles - we didn't stock them and bought them. Much like me buying a spanner to seal a broken tap. And similar to Israeli procurement.

^ this was useful information for the Americans as later variants of the missile 'remembered' the position of the last radar signature.

Anyway.
 
Last edited:
With respect to your first point, it's rubbish...

The Americans leased the airbase, nothing more, with the proviso that if we needed it we could use it, ie they really didn't have a choice in the matter. Also there are over 500 RAF members stationed on Ascenscion island right now...
 
meghatronic said:
No one's disputed this. But that hardly counts as serious help.

Anyway, if you insist.

1) RAF Ascension Island was re-garrissoned by the RAF in 1982 - it wasn't handed over to the US at all. It was originally HMS Ascension until after WW1 when it was turned over to as an St. Lucia (Crown until 70s) dependency. The airfield was built by the US in WW2 (and extended for NASA much later), but this is hardly relevant. Anyway, you'd expect this of an ally. Much like allied but non-combatant Arab states during in the Gulf wars.

2) The AIM-9L (Lima) were already routed for British troops, and we queue jumped taking American stocks (ours were only just starting to enter service). Although a lot of sources suggest the missiles were to replace UK stocks sent to the Falklands. All recorded engagements of Argentine aircraft were from the rear, so the AIM-9L effectiveness is moot (although you're right would've helped). HOWEVER, Maggie herself said this was a great advantage, so I'll concede. But 100 missiles (at great cost) hardly warrants serious help, especially if the rear-engagements point is true.

3) Shrike was of little effectiveness - the Argentines just switched off their radar on approach of British jets. Any damage that was done was repaired in less than a day. Besides, it isn't like the US *gave* us the missiles - we didn't stock them and bought them. Much like me buying a spanner to seal a broken tap.

Anyway.
Click to expand...

Ok a fair riposte. But given the US' public 'even handed' approach any help whatsoever - however little - made a difference. Didn't 'Sharkey' Ward say in his autobiography that the 9L Sidewinders were of great help in the Air-to-Air confrontations between SHARS and Argentine Mirages and Delta Daggers?
 
JonnyT said:
Ok a fair riposte. But given the US' public 'even handed' approach any help whatsoever - however little - made a difference. Didn't 'Sharkey' Ward say in his autobiography that the 9L Sidewinders were of great help in the Air-to-Air confrontations between SHARS and Argentine Mirages and Delta Daggers?
Click to expand...
I'm not being a ****, or anti-American (although I am a little, I'll admit) - I've just read a lot. But I suppose it is difficult to ever *know* fully. Especially as a lot of US things had to be done behind closed doors as their own administration was against interventions.

Maggie said the Lima's were a great help, without the Sidewinder "supplied to us by US Defence Minister Caspar Weinberger, we could never have got back the Falklands." I personally disagree, as the Harriers are fierce - but I'm not a pilot :).
 
meghatronic said:
I'm not being a ****, or anti-American (although I am a little, I'll admit) - I've just read a lot. But I suppose it is difficult to ever *know* fully. Especially as a lot of US things had to be done behind closed doors as their own administration was against interventions.

Maggie said the Lima's were a great help, without the Sidewinder "supplied to us by US Defence Minister Caspar Weinberger, we could never have got back the Falklands." I personally disagree, as the Harriers are fierce - but I'm not a pilot :).
Click to expand...

Far from it mate I appreciate a good debate. Maggie's memoirs (having not read them) sound way over the top for my liking. The Limas were a quantum leap in capability but you still need the pilot and the machine to get the missile into a 'firing solution' in the first place. The SHARS were intended as multi-role aircraft (as opposed to the RAF's GR1s which were strictly ground attack focused) so a Air-to-Air capability was intended.

To be honest, a lot of things in the Falklands were done at the last minute, on a budget and a 'wing and a prayer'. For example, the pylons used for the Shrikes on the Vulcans were manufactured from mild steel girders left lying around on a RAF base!
 
Last edited:
JonnyT said:
To be honest, a lot of things in the Falklands were done at the last minute, on a budget and a 'wing and a prayer'. For example, the pylons used for the Shrikes were manufactured from mild steel girders left lying around on a RAF base!
Click to expand...
Indeed, ECM pods were fitted to similar 'bolt-ons'. Funnny really, shows you how dedicated the Armed Forces are.

We were caught with our trousers' down - again. MI6 dropped the ball, but ultimately the fault lies, in my belief, at the military budget cuts. Similar cuts that we're experiencing the start of now. We owe almost the entire Falkland's victory to the then First Sea Lord:

In 1980 low funding caused many ships to be in harbour for months due to lack of spare parts and fuel. The largest cut in the Royal Navy's conventional forces led to the resignation of the Navy Minister Keith Speed in 1981. Sea battles, mass convoys, amphibious landings and coastal bombardments were considered obsolete in the second half of the 20th century. The head of the admiralty, First Sea Lord Admiral Sir Henry Leach was still fighting the cuts in the Ministry of Defence together with the Chief of Defence Staff, who by chance, was also a naval officer — Admiral of the Fleet Sir Terence Lewin.
At the onset of the crisis, First Sea Lord Sir Henry Leach was summoned to brief the Prime Minister. He claimed that Britain was able to recapture the islands, and that it should be done. "Since here was a clear, imminent threat to British overseas territory that could only be reached by sea, what the hell was the point in having a Navy if it was not used for this sort of thing?". Aware of the necessity for speed, Leach had already given orders for the ships of a potential task force to be prepared for deployment.
Click to expand...
(wiki)
 
meghatronic said:
Indeed, ECM pods were fitted to similar 'bolt-ons'. Funnny really, shows you how dedicated the Armed Forces are.

We were caught with our trousers' down - again. MI6 dropped the ball, but ultimately the fault lies, in my belief, at the military budget cuts. Similar cuts that we're experiencing the start of now. We owe almost the entire Falkland's victory to the then First Sea Lord:


(wiki)
Click to expand...

We were most definitely caught napping by this. The Navy recognised that this was an opportunity to save itself from the deep and swingeing cuts proposed by Thatcher's government by appealing to her patriotism and deep-set vanity by offering an opportunity to provide a cheap, easily winnable conflict just before a General Election.

[/cynic]
 
JonnyT said:
We were most definitely caught napping by this. The Navy recognised that this was an opportunity to save itself from the deep and swingeing cuts proposed by Thatcher's government by appealing to her patriotism and deep-set vanity by offering an opportunity to provide a cheap, easily winnable conflict just before a General Election.

[/cynic]
Click to expand...

It wasn't an easliy winable contest, time and logistics were agaisnt them. But agree that we were caught napping. I would argue that a 'future' conflict would only be won or even contested if the new carriers are built, both of them.
 
The sheer amount of guff in this thread, lol
The number of spotty faced, BO ridden, pubescent, CoD loving neds who spout so much utter crap, lol.
YOU people, lol.

JUST LOL

Thank you for the amusement. That is all.
 
Captain Planet said:
The sheer amount of guff in this thread, lol
The number of spotty faced, BO ridden, pubescent, CoD loving neds who spout so much utter crap, lol.
YOU people, lol.

JUST LOL

Thank you for the amusement. That is all.
Click to expand...

Hung over? Or tired?

You will find a lot of speculation, nuke them from orbit, smear the country with mustard etc just like any other thread.
 
The Argentinians had no previous experience with antiship missiles, and the Exocet was a complicated and cranky weapon. The Argentinians experienced a lot of trouble fitting the Exocet launch system and rails to the Super Etendards. In November 1981, Dassault Aviation, owned by the French government and builder of the Super Etendard, sent a team of nine of its own technicians (and some additional French Aerospatiale specialists) to work with the Argentine navy to supervise the introduction of the Etendards and Exocets. Although France complied with the NATO/ Common Market weapons embargo, the French technical team remained in Argentina and apparently continued to work on the aircraft and Exocets, successfully repairing the malfunctioning launch systems. Without the technical help and collusion from the government of France—Britain’s NATO “ally”—it is improbable that Argentina would have been able to employ its most devastating weapon.
Click to expand...

source

Just one of the reason to distrust the French.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom