Lt Kije Posted January 9, 2011 Report Share Posted January 9, 2011 I would like to know where you got the info about the codes, as the way I have it once its fired its to late. You might find this interesting The Sheffield was one of several ships on picket duty, preventing anyone from sneaking up on the fleet. It had all transmitters (including radar) off because it was communicating with a satellite. Two Argentinan planes were detected by another ship's radar. They first appeared a few miles out because they had previously been flying too low to be detected. The planes briefly activated their radars, then turned around and went home. Two minutes later a lookout on the Sheffield saw the missile's flare approaching. Four seconds later, the missile hit. The ship eventually sank, since salvage efforts were hindered by uncontrollable fires. What actually happened is that the planes popped up so that the could acquire targets on their radars, then launched Exocet missiles and left. (The Exocet is an example of a "Fire and Forget" weapon. Moral or not, they work.) The British didn't recognize that they had been attacked, since they believed that the Argentinans didn't know how to use their Exocet missiles. It is irrelevent that the Sheffield had its radar off, since the missile skims just above the water, making it virtually undetectable by radar. For most of the flight, it proceeds by internal guidance, emitting no telltale radar signals. About 20 seconds before the end of the flight, it turns on a terminal homing radar which guides it directly to the target. The Sheffield was equipped with an ESM receiver, whose main purpose is to detect hostile radar transmissions. The ESM receiver can be preset to sound an alarm when any of a small number of characteristic radar signals are received. Evidently the Exocet homing radar was not among these presets, since there would have been a warning 20 sec before impact. In any case, the ESM receiver didn't "think the missile was friendly", it just hadn't been told it was hostile. It should be noted that British ships which were actually present in the Falklands were equipped with a shipboard version of the Exocet. If the failure was as deduced above, then the ESM receiver behaved exactly as designed. It is also hard to conceive of a design change which would have changed the outcome. The ESM receiver had no range information, and thus was incapable of concluding "anything coming toward me is hostile", even supposing the probably rather feeble computer in the ESM receiver were cable of such intelligence. In any case, it is basically irrelevant that the ESM receiver didn't do what it might have done, since by 20 seconds before impact it was too late. The Sheffield had no "active kill" capability effective against a missile. Its anti-aircraft guns were incapable of shooting down a tiny target skimming the water at near the speed of sound. It is also poossible to cause a missile to miss by jamming its radar, but the Sheffield's jamming equipment was old and oriented toward jamming russian radars, rather than smart western radars which wheren't even designed when the Sheffield was built. The Exocet has a large bag of tricks for defeating jammers, such as homing in on the jamming signal. In fact, the only effective defense against the Exocet which was available was chaff: a rocket dispersed cloud of metalized plastic threads which confuses radars. To be effective, chaff must be dispersed as soon as possible, preferably before the attack starts. After the Sheffield, the British were familiar with the Argentinan attack tactics, and could launch chaff as soon as they detected the aircraft on their radars. This defense was mostly effective. Ultimately the only significant mistake was the belief that the Argentinans wouldn't use Exocet missiles. If this possibility was seriously analysed, then the original attack might have been recognized. The British were wrong, and ended up learning the hard way. Surprise conclusion: mistakes can be deadly; mistakes in war are usually deadly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adam Posted January 13, 2011 Report Share Posted January 13, 2011 Wasn't this supposed to be about exporting lethal drugs? It's developed into a cutting and pasting competition on the export of weapons! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bazj Posted January 13, 2011 Report Share Posted January 13, 2011 Personally I always thought we should have nuked Buenos Aires when they sunk one of our ships...... The Argies used what weapons they had, we should have used ours Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wingnut Posted January 13, 2011 Report Share Posted January 13, 2011 I was told by a Harrier pilot that his job was to fly above the ships and wait for a signal that a missile was on its way. His job was then to drop down in the path of the missile to get it to lock onto himself, and divert it away from the ship. Once the missile was diverted away from its original target, the Harrier had the ability to climb vertically in an instant and lose the missile. I asked the same pilot, how long had they got once they knew a missile was locked onto them to do something about it......... 3-4 seconds. Remember the fuss that was kicked up when we sank the Belgrano? That ship was being shadowed for over a week by a nuclear sub, and they didn't even know it was there. The Argies got the warning to back off, they chanced their arm and lost. Tough. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wolfie Posted January 13, 2011 Report Share Posted January 13, 2011 Think you'll find the ship was outside the 200 mile (320 kilometre) Total Exclusion Zone that the British had declared around the Falklands, and the ship was on a westerly heading sailing away from the Falklands at the time it was attacked, Hardly chancing their arm. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bazj Posted January 13, 2011 Report Share Posted January 13, 2011 Think you'll find the ship was outside the 200 mile (320 kilometre) Total Exclusion Zone that the British had declared around the Falklands, and the ship was on a westerly heading sailing away from the Falklands at the time it was attacked, Hardly chancing their arm. I can never understand this train of thought Wolfie.... We were at war with a country that had invaded our territory. There was a great big ship which at the time it was attacked was heading away but could have quite easily turned round and come back and sunk one of our ships..... we sunk their battleship... we were at war....they would have done the same probably! Do you think that during world war two we only ever sunk ships that were sailing towards us? The "sailing away from us" cry is just a lefty pacifist surrender monkey excuse...... nothing more Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wolfie Posted January 13, 2011 Report Share Posted January 13, 2011 Understand your point fully Baz. My reply was to Wingy and the statement. The Argies got the warning to back off, they chanced their arm and lost So if the Argies were warned then it seems the threat worked because the Belgrano sailed in the opposite direction. So in other words they didn't chance their arm. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lt Kije Posted January 13, 2011 Report Share Posted January 13, 2011 Ok then Baz, what was the point of the exclusion zone then if we were going to ignore it Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bazj Posted January 13, 2011 Report Share Posted January 13, 2011 There was no point to the exclusion zone Kije. We were at war with the Argies and their ship was a fair target......can't see the problem in that can you? I mean apart from the Geneva Convention, there aren't any real rules to war are there? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lt Kije Posted January 13, 2011 Report Share Posted January 13, 2011 So why did Maggie,make an exclusion zone then, she said she would sink ships in the zone but not outside it Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wingnut Posted January 13, 2011 Report Share Posted January 13, 2011 Wolfie my friend. What do you think the Belgrano was doing there "in the first place"? and what do you think it would have done given the chance? I'll give you a clue. It wasn't trawling for mackrel. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bazj Posted January 13, 2011 Report Share Posted January 13, 2011 ........er because we were at war Kije why do you think? The purpose of the exclusion zone was not just for the Argies; it was also to warn other countries that straying into the area may have unfortunate consequences.... I know that Maggie always gets bad press of the war dodgers when it comes to this event, but can you imagine how the public would have reacted if we hadn't sunk it and then the following day it had turned round and sunk one of ours with hundreds of lives taken? Imagine what would have happened if it had then come out that 24 hours earlier we could have sunk it but didn't? The Argies were warned to keep their ships away and chanced their arm and lost. Sad loss of life, but end of story Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lt Kije Posted January 13, 2011 Report Share Posted January 13, 2011 The Total Exclusion Zone (TEZ) was an area declared by the United Kingdom 30 April 1982 covering a circle of 200 nautical miles (370 km; 230 mi) from the centre of the Falkland Islands[1]. During the Falklands War any sea vessel or aircraft from any country entering the zone may have been fired upon without further warning. TEZ was an extension of the Maritime Exclusion Zone (MEZ) declared 12 April 1982[2] covering the same area. Any Argentine warship or naval auxiliary entering the MEZ could have been attacked by British nuclear-powered submarines (SSN). On 23 April, the British Government clarified that any Argentine warship that posed a threat to British forces would be attacked in a message that was passed via the Swiss Embassy in Buenos Aires to the Argentine government, it read: ? In announcing the establishment of a Maritime Exclusion Zone around the Falkland Islands, Her Majesty's Government made it clear that this measure was without prejudice to the right of the United Kingdom to take whatever additional measures may be needed in the exercise of its right of self-defence under Article 51 of the United Nations Charter. In this connection Her Majesty's Government now wishes to make clear that any approach on the part of Argentine warships, including submarines, naval auxiliaries or military aircraft, which could amount to a threat to interfere with the mission of British Forces in the South Atlantic will encounter the appropriate response. All Argentine aircraft, including civil aircraft engaged in surveillance of these British forces, will be regarded as hostile and are liable to be dealt with accordingly.[3] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bazj Posted January 13, 2011 Report Share Posted January 13, 2011 That is exactly what I said but in more words.... the exclusion zone was for ALL countries; not just the Argies and there never was any agreement that Argie ships or planes would not be attacked outside of it. It is just the lefty war dodgers that have made up this "oooh it was outside the exclusion zone so it should have been safe" nonsense....we were at war, it was an enemy ship and so it was sunk Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wingnut Posted January 13, 2011 Report Share Posted January 13, 2011 We only get to or got to hear about the clean cut, no grey areas of war. What we read or see in the media is what they want us to see/hear. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lt Kije Posted January 13, 2011 Report Share Posted January 13, 2011 If you read it it says approaching the zone, The Belgrano was heading away and back to port Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bazj Posted January 13, 2011 Report Share Posted January 13, 2011 If you read it it says approaching the zone, The Belgrano was heading away and back to port Well actually supposing that is a true statement they were off back to port to do what? let the sailors go off on shore leave in the middle of a war or maybe back to port to re-fuel and re-arm and come out fighting.... sinking that ship may have saved many of our own troops and sailors. Maybe we shouldn't have sunk all those poor U Boats in WW2 just in case they weren't really going to sink our supply ships..... come on Kije, for gods sake show a bit of patriotism and stop sitting in the enemies corner for once. The Argies were the enemy and they would have done the same to our ships. In war, you kill or be killed. Or maybe you would have perferred it if they had sunk one of our ships just to make it a bit more even? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lt Kije Posted January 13, 2011 Report Share Posted January 13, 2011 The ship had been tailed for weeks by one of our submarines, we could have sunk it any time we liked, Read the statement again from the UK to Argentina, Maggie would have seen that statement before it was sent. Just another point the UK did not declare war on Agentina Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bazj Posted January 13, 2011 Report Share Posted January 13, 2011 Just another point the UK did not declare war on Agentina Oh you do love your points Kije....... A foreign country invades our territory, parades our captured Royal Marines like trophies and you don't see that as a statement of them declaring war on us??? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted January 14, 2011 Report Share Posted January 14, 2011 Alls fair in love and war - Maggie was set to drop a nuke on the Argie's, until Ronnie vetoed the idea! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lt Kije Posted January 14, 2011 Report Share Posted January 14, 2011 Not heard that one Obs Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wolfie Posted January 14, 2011 Report Share Posted January 14, 2011 Wolfie my friend. What do you think the Belgrano was doing there "in the first place"? and what do you think it would have done given the chance? I'll give you a clue. It wasn't trawling for mackrel. Wingy, I repeat your quote The Argies got the warning to back off, they chanced their arm They didnt. Why warn any one to back off if you intend to go ahead with your actions anyway. Why tail a ship with a nuclear sub, and then wait until it has been warned, wait for it to turn around and wait until it is out of the exclusion zone before you sink it. Also at a time when a peace process had been written up that Maggie chose to ignore. There is only one reason, Maggie needed a major success at the time and sinking the belgrano regardless of its position or intentions was it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wingnut Posted January 14, 2011 Report Share Posted January 14, 2011 Maggie also said, Get Out Or We'll Kick You Out. I think that alone was fair enough warning. They were the aggressors not us. And singing Rule Brittania all the way to the elections. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wolfie Posted January 14, 2011 Report Share Posted January 14, 2011 Being aggressors has nothing to do with it. How do you think we got the Falklands in the first place.?? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wingnut Posted January 14, 2011 Report Share Posted January 14, 2011 Best we can all do on this one is to respect each others views my furry little friend. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.