|
| If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|||||||
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
|
|
#1
March 29th 04, 03:33 AM
|
|||
|
|||
Guy Alcala wrote:
Evan Brennan wrote: "Ian" wrote in message ... "Evan Brennan" wrote in message m... Guy Alcala wrote in message ... snip British and Argentine writers said the same thing about Mirage fighters, so your accusations are as poorly aimed as the British bombs falling on Stanley airfield. : ) May have missed it somewhere else in the thread, (and I know it's got a smiley after it) but wasn't the error on the Vulcan raid due to the cartographer putting the wrong co-ordinates on the map? The wisecracks from the Argentine pilots came because the British mounted such a massive effort to cause such minor damage. The Vulcans and Harriers attacked the runway with 1,000-pounders, but only one bomb hit. One bomb from the Vulcan. According to "F:TAW", two 1,000 lbers from a stick of three dropped by Bertie Penfold in a lay-down delivery on 1 May also hit, but given the shallow angle and lack of height and speed (they were para-retarded), they just scabbed the runway and were a relatively minor problem. They would have needed to use something like Durandal or BAT to have a chance of cratering the runway seriously form that profile. IIRR, the Brits did have to repair the scabs after the war, though. IIRR the details of the damage found on the runway and the repairs required are in "The Falklands aftermath: Picking up the Pieces" by Lt. Gen (ret.) Edward Fursdon. I've now retrieved Fursdon (btw, it's Maj. Gen. (ret.) not Lt. Gen. as I wrote) from a distant library. He arrived via C-130 from Ascension in Stanley on 27 July 1982 -- here's the damage the Royal Engineers told him they had to repair: "The airfield at Stanley had been built by British contractors in the late Seventies to cater for the short-haul Fokker a/c operated by Argentina, in fact by the [AAF], flying between the Falklands and Argentina. Its runway was 4,100 feet long and 150 feet wide and designed to Load Classification Number (LCN) 16 but was subsequently estimated, with an increased pavement thickness, to be of LCN 30 standard. "During the campaign the runway had been cratered by the Vulcan bomber and Harrier raids, and had suffered over 1,000 'scabs' or shalow scuffs in its surface. The Argentinians had temporarily back-filled the five large craters [Guy: 1 deep one by Vulcan, the other four shallower, by retard bombs dropped by SHAR/GR.3], enabling them to continue to fly in C-130 Hercules transports right up to the end. They had also arranged rings of earth on the runway to show up as craters on British air reconnaissance photos. "By properly repairing three craters and dealing with about 500 'scabs', No. 1 Troop of 59 Commando Squadron Royal Engineers had the northern half of the runway ready to accept the first British Hercules on 24 June [Guy: Obviously, risks worth taking in landing on a rough runway during the war wouldn't be taken afterwards. One of the Argentine C-130s almost crashed on takeoff during the war when a main gear wheel hit the corner of the roughly-repaired Vulcan crater]. The craters had compacted 'fill' and were topped by sheets of AM2 matting, secured by four-feet long steel pins, taken from a conveniently placed abandoned stockpile brought to the Island in the early Seventies by Argentinians in connection with a runway which was never completed*. The 'scabs' were effectively repaired with Bostik 276, which is a magnesium phosphate cement/fine aggregate mixture. "The focus now turned on the southern part of the runway which included one huge crater made by the RAF Vulcan's 1,000 lb. bomb. This alone took more than 1,000 square meters of the old Argentine AM2 matting to repair. 'We were in fact really very relieved that only one Vulcan bomb had actually hit the runway', said a weary Sapper. "By 1 July No. 3 Troop of 11 Field Squadron had completed the repairs and the whole runway was again usuable, but both the crater and the 'scab' repair areas called for constant monitoring and maintenance. Nevertheless the reopened runway withstood a further 77 Hercules and several hundred Harrier landings, operationally vital to the Garrison, before it was closed for extension and complete re-surfacing on the evening of 15 August." The upgrade was so that F-4s could operate from it, and involved using AM2 to cover the entire runway and extend it to 6,100 feet, boosting the LCN to 45, adding five arrester gears, increasing apron area five times, adding three dispersals with hangars, lights, power, fuel etc. It was realised early in the war that this would need to be done, so materiel orders and design had continued while it was still being fought. The runway itself was completed and reopened for traffic on 27 August. *Fursdon may be in error here. Argentina had built a short AM-2 matting runway at Hooker's Point, to use while the hard surface runway was being debated and then built. However, during 1978 or 1979, high winds lifted the matting and essentially destroyed the runway. Ewen Southby-Tailyour was in command of NP 8901 at the time the runway was destroyed, and describes it in his book "Reasons in Writing." The 'stockpile' may have been matting etc. that was salvaged, or it may have been left over from the original construction as Fursdon says. Things tended to move slowly in the Falklands pre-war, so it's easy to believe that this stuff could be sitting around for several years. Southby-Tailyour mentions that the Royal Marine barracks at Moody Brook had been condemned as unfit for human occupancy, first in 1918 and again in 1945, but was still in use with only minor repairs in 1982! The war finally destroyed it. Guy 
|
|
#2
March 29th 04, 01:08 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Guy Alcala twisted the electrons to say:
One bomb from the Vulcan. Well it's pretty much typical (IMHO) of Evan Brennan to make much of the solitary bomb hit from the (3?) Vulcan raids - the reasons for which have been well covered in in smn before - however it did occur to me that it's curious that he regards the Vulcan raids as ineffective, yet believes that Argentina held its Mirages back for air-defence of the mainland. (Where they worried about ineffective raids on Argentina perhaps? :-) [Guy: Obviously, risks worth taking in landing on a rough runway during the war wouldn't be taken afterwards. One of the Argentine C-130s almost crashed on takeoff during the war when a main gear wheel hit the corner of the roughly-repaired Vulcan crater]. I think another possible factor is the differing fuel loads for a C-130 doing Stanley - Argentina, as opposed to Stanley - Wideawake ... -- These opinions might not even be mine ... Let alone connected with my employer ...
|
|
#3
March 31st 04, 04:31 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Alistair Gunn wrote in message ...
Guy Alcala twisted the electrons to say: One bomb from the Vulcan. Well it's pretty much typical (IMHO) of Evan Brennan to make much of the solitary bomb hit from the (3?) Vulcan raids - the reasons for which have been well covered in in smn before - however it did occur to me that it's curious that he regards the Vulcan raids as ineffective, yet believes that Argentina held its Mirages back for air-defence of the mainland. (Where they worried about ineffective raids on Argentina perhaps? :-) He is a bit inconsistent;-) BTW, my ability to respond will be limited for a few days. My 11 year-old monitor died Sunday evening, going out in a blaze of glory. Well, maybe not glory, but let's just say that seeing flames light up the computer case beside (and wall behind) it convinced me that it was time for a replacement ;-) [Guy: Obviously, risks worth taking in landing on a rough runway during the war wouldn't be taken afterwards. One of the Argentine C-130s almost crashed on takeoff during the war when a main gear wheel hit the corner of the roughly-repaired Vulcan crater]. I think another possible factor is the differing fuel loads for a C-130 doing Stanley - Argentina, as opposed to Stanley - Wideawake ... Possible, although the Argentine a/c were carrying much heavier cargo loads into Stanley while going light on fuel. Fursdon, who flew down from Ascension in July, flew in one of the probe and auxiliary-tank modified C-130s. The forward part of the cabin was almost full of two cylindrical fuel tanks, leaving just enough room on either side for pax in the fold-up seats, while the rear was carrying cargo and pax. It was also necessary for the a/c to tank twice on the way down, to give them enough fuel in case they had to abort the mission for weather and return to Ascension. The trip was about 14 hours one-way, and one of the RAF loadmasters told Fursdon that one of the a/c had required three round-trips before it was finally able to land at Stanley, aborting over the airfield on both of the incomplete missions. 28 hours straight in a Herc would tax just about any passenger, and to have to do it three times in a short period would definitely not be on my wish list. Guy
|
|
#4
March 31st 04, 06:32 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Possible, although the Argentine a/c were carrying much heavier cargo
loads into Stanley while going light on fuel. Fursdon, who flew down from Ascension in July, flew in one of the probe and auxiliary-tank modified C-130s. The forward part of the cabin was almost full of two cylindrical fuel tanks, leaving just enough room on either side for pax in the fold-up seats, while the rear was carrying cargo and pax. It was also necessary for the a/c to tank twice on the way down, to give them enough fuel in case they had to abort the mission for weather and return to Ascension. The trip was about 14 hours one-way, and one of the RAF loadmasters told Fursdon that one of the a/c had required three round-trips before it was finally able to land at Stanley, aborting over the airfield on both of the incomplete missions. 28 hours straight in a Herc would tax just about any passenger, and to have to do it three times in a short period would definitely not be on my wish list. Guy It is fascinating that the only supply chain for spares to the task force in 1982 was to fly the spare part to Wideawake, then do the 28 hour round trip by C130 (with multiple refuelings from Victors) to drop the part in a water tight bag (and float) to be picked up by a RN helo and transfered to the required ship!! It was of note that the maximum speed of the C130 was below the stall speed of a Victor unless both were in a dive - so that's how you refueled. The RN was kept fully operational in this manner with no ships falling out of the line for lack of spares! It is a bit like invading Japan from California with only the Midway airfield available in the middle! David
|
|
#5
April 1st 04, 03:46 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
"David Nicholls" wrote in message ...
snip It is fascinating that the only supply chain for spares to the task force in 1982 was to fly the spare part to Wideawake, then do the 28 hour round trip by C130 (with multiple refuelings from Victors) to drop the part in a water tight bag (and float) to be picked up by a RN helo and transfered to the required ship!! It was of note that the maximum speed of the C130 was below the stall speed of a Victor unless both were in a dive - so that's how you refueled. The RN was kept fully operational in this manner with no ships falling out of the line for lack of spares! It is a bit like invading Japan from California with only the Midway airfield available in the middle! I've always thought that the RN could have really used something like a V-22 COD in 1982. The ability to land vertically on a large number of ships would sure make a lot of sense for those countries that can't afford a CTOL carrier. KV-22 tankers would have really made things sweet, because that would have allowed the V-22 CODs to land on many ships midway between Ascension and the TF, or even land and refuel at Tristan da Cunha'. If the a/c has to take off vertically, limiting its fuel load, it can immediately top-off from the KV-22 (which would also takeoff vertically from the same place), eliminating all that tedious round-trip flying to and from Ascension by Victors and/or C-130s. Guy
|
|
#6
March 31st 04, 07:59 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#7
April 1st 04, 03:51 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Presidente Alcazar wrote in message . ..
On 30 Mar 2004 19:31:11 -0800, (Guy alcala) wrote: He is a bit inconsistent;-) BTW, my ability to respond will be limited for a few days. My 11 year-old monitor died Sunday evening, going out in a blaze of glory. Well, maybe not glory, but let's just say that seeing flames light up the computer case beside (and wall behind) it convinced me that it was time for a replacement ;-) Typically spurious rationale advanced to justify further slef-indulgent PC equipment purchases to a sceptical wife. I will deny, to the last breath in my body, that my rationale is spurious, that I'm being self-indulgent, and that I have a wife, sceptical or otherwise. I have sedulously avoided such legal complications, preferring my relationships to be of a more informal (and non-legally-binding) nature ;-) Guy
|
|
#8
April 1st 04, 01:28 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#10
April 5th 04, 06:18 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Presidente Alcazar wrote:
On 31 Mar 2004 18:51:14 -0800, (Guy alcala) wrote: Typically spurious rationale advanced to justify further slef-indulgent PC equipment purchases to a sceptical wife. I will deny, to the last breath in my body, that my rationale is spurious, that I'm being self-indulgent, and that I have a wife, sceptical or otherwise. For most unmarried men, the bank manager performs a similar function when it comes to quashing fond dreams with the icy blast of stern disapproval, backed by desolate financial reality. I'm a simple man, Senyor Presidente (how does one get a tilde over an n in text-only?) I don't require the latest and most expensive, just what works. As it happens, a friend knew of a friend of his who had a 17" monitor he'd been meaning to get rid of, and who gave it to me. My old monitor was a 15" and 17" is bigger than I need (my friend even offered me his 22" monitor gratis as he's upgrading, but I have absolutely nowhere to put such a behemoth). You can't get 15" monitors nowadays and besides, who am I to look a gift in the mouth. Turns out the thing wouldn't turn on when I got it home, so back to square one. And then, while I was out on a walk this afternoon, not three blocks from my place I came upon a computer desk with a NEC 17" monitor sitting on top of it on the curb, with a hand-printed sign reading "Free" on a piece of cardboard. Hustling home I got my car and brought the monitor home, plugged it in and connected it up, and I'm back in business. It's not quite as clear as my old monitor, but it works just fine, and the price was right. ;-) It's nice to live so close to Silicon Valley and be surrounded by large numbers of people who find getting rid of their "old", now worthless (for such is the pace of change) but perfectly functional monitors to be a major hassle, and who ask nothing more of you than that you take it off their hands. Now all I've got to do is get rid of two broken monitors ;-) Guy
|
|
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
| Question about the Eurofighter's air intakes. | Urban Fredriksson | Military Aviation | 0 | January 30th 04 04:18 PM |
| China to buy Eurofighters? | phil hunt | Military Aviation | 90 | December 29th 03 05:16 PM |
| Malaysian MiG-29s got trounced by RN Sea Harrier F/A2s in Exercise Flying Fish | KDR | Military Aviation | 29 | October 7th 03 06:30 PM |
| Impact of Eurofighters in the Middle East | Quant | Military Aviation | 164 | October 4th 03 04:33 PM |
Hybrid Mode
