Vulcan to fly today?

[David Wright]

Back in the sky today, apparently.

Lots of live activity on the webcams -
http://www.tvoc.co.uk/vulcancameras.asp

and reported on Sky News
http://news.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30100-1288877,00.html.

Now, where did I leave those earplugs...

D.

[For example: John Smith]

Post by David Wright
Back in the sky today, apparently.
Lots of live activity on the webcams -
http://www.tvoc.co.uk/vulcancameras.asp
and reported on Sky News
http://news.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30100-1288877,00.html.
Now, where did I leave those earplugs...
D.

I remember watching these babies flying round RAF Manston, as a boy.
Freaky bit of kit, in the air.

[TOCA]

Post by For example: John Smith

Post by David Wright
Back in the sky today, apparently.
Lots of live activity on the webcams -
http://www.tvoc.co.uk/vulcancameras.asp
and reported on Sky News
http://news.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30100-1288877,00.html.
Now, where did I leave those earplugs...
D.

I remember watching these babies flying round RAF Manston, as a boy.
Freaky bit of kit, in the air.

If those are babies to you, I'm not sure I want to meet the parrents ;o)

Nice with some good news for a change though :o)

Tommy C

[Simon Robbins]

Post by David Wright
Back in the sky today, apparently.
Lots of live activity on the webcams -
http://www.tvoc.co.uk/vulcancameras.asp
and reported on Sky News
http://news.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30100-1288877,00.html.
Now, where did I leave those earplugs...

Awesome. Can't wait to see one of those flying again. Now all we need
is an old '70s RAF Phantom and a Buccaneer to go with it and my
childhood is complete!

Si

[David Wright]

Post by Simon Robbins
Awesome.

Well, apparently it did fly. Not that I would have seen it, as the BBC
thought it more important to show footage of a man running around in a "bear
suit", apparently part of the Turner Prize, than carry the live take off on
their news channel.

Apparently it was shown live on Sky News, but I can't get that on the web
(audio only) so had to make do with hearing it fly whilst watching the
sloooooow webcam picture update at one frame every 30 seconds.

Funny how the Beeb could dedicate hour after hour after hour to the last
flights of Concorde, but not even give 30 seconds to the biggest return to
flight of a retired British plane, one that helped the UK win the Falklands
conflict, especially when it was supported by public money (donations,
lottery funding).

<comic book guy> Rest assured I was on the internet within minutes,
registering my disgust </comic book guy>

D.

[unknown]

Post by David Wright
Funny how the Beeb could dedicate hour after hour after hour to the last
flights of Concorde, but not even give 30 seconds to the biggest return to
flight of a retired British plane, one that helped the UK win the Falklands
conflict, especially when it was supported by public money (donations,
lottery funding).

<irony>
That's because of the special way the BBC is funded.
</irony>

Not the footage in question but there are some interesting clips on this
site, and congratulations to Barry Thomas for his work.

http://www.nodarkroom.co.uk/videos.htm

[AWem]

Post by unknown
Not the footage in question but there are some interesting clips on this
site, and congratulations to Barry Thomas for his work.
http://www.nodarkroom.co.uk/videos.htm

Thanks - that's 90 minutes of my evening unexpectedly lost and gone!!
:-)

Andy

[Tom Lucas]

Post by David Wright

Post by Simon Robbins
Awesome.

<snip> one that helped the UK win the Falklands

Post by David Wright
conflict, especially when it was supported by public money (donations,
lottery funding).

It didn't help much. Many tens of thousands of pounds of fuel were used
to get the thing there and then it missed with nearly all of its bombs.
It was only really used so that the RAF could feel like they were
involved - the Navy's Harriers were the decisive weapons in the air. At
least this is what Sharkey Ward said in his book.

However, I agree that it would have been nice to have seen it on the
Beeb as a reward for all the people who put their own time and money
into getting it flying and as an example of what lottery money does when
used for something worthwhile.

[Peter]

Post by Tom Lucas
It didn't help much. Many tens of thousands of pounds of fuel were used
to get the thing there and then it missed with nearly all of its bombs.
It was only really used so that the RAF could feel like they were
involved - the Navy's Harriers were the decisive weapons in the air. At
least this is what Sharkey Ward said in his book.

Apart from that occassion, did a Vulcan ever see action?

[Simon Robbins]

Post by Peter
Apart from that occassion, did a Vulcan ever see action?

No. And considering it's primary purpose, that's a good thing.

Si

[Simon Robbins]

Post by Tom Lucas
It didn't help much. Many tens of thousands of pounds of fuel were used
to get the thing there and then it missed with nearly all of its bombs.
It was only really used so that the RAF could feel like they were
involved - the Navy's Harriers were the decisive weapons in the air. At
least this is what Sharkey Ward said in his book.

But many of the Harriers flown from the carriers (and the decks of
support ships) *were* RAF Harriers. They weren't all Sea Harriers by a
long shot.

Si

[Quilljar]

But were they all flown by RAF pilots? I doubt it.

[unknown]

Post by Quilljar
But were they all flown by RAF pilots? I doubt it.

1. Sqdn flew from Hermes. Not all of the Harriers in the Falklands were
Sea Harriers, not all of them were flown by RAF pilots, nor were they
all flown by Navy pilots.

I can't see what the point of your post was.

[Simon Robbins]

Post by Quilljar
But were they all flown by RAF pilots? I doubt it.

No of course not. But the RAF was very much involved in the whole
conflict. Not just with the Vulcans and Harriers, but also with the
Buccaneers, Nimrods, air-to-air tankers, Canberras, etc. that were
deployed to the South Atlantic to support the task force.

Si

[Tom Lucas]

Post by Simon Robbins

Post by Quilljar
But were they all flown by RAF pilots? I doubt it.

No of course not. But the RAF was very much involved in the whole
conflict. Not just with the Vulcans and Harriers, but also with the
Buccaneers, Nimrods, air-to-air tankers, Canberras, etc. that were
deployed to the South Atlantic to support the task force.

Are you sure about Buccaneers and Canberras? What were they doing? I
believe it was only the Navy who were actually shooting at Argentinians
which is why the RAF wanted to get involved with their Vulcans. Plus
there was also a worry that the Navy might do rather too well without
them and, in a time of defence budget cuts and belt-tightening, had to
be seen to be worth their expense.

[unknown]

I believe it was only the Navy who were actually shooting at Argentinians

You can believe what you like, but you're wrong.

[Tom Lucas]

Post by unknown

I believe it was only the Navy who were actually shooting at
Argentinians

You can believe what you like, but you're wrong.

Discounting ground forces obviously then I would be interested to know
what the RAFs role was in combat. I'm not trying to antagonise anyone
but it was my understanding that the Navy were the ones engaging
Argentinians from the air. If I'm wrong on that then I'd welcome being
set straight. Were the Army Air Corps involved as well?

[MikeW]

Post by Tom Lucas

Post by unknown

I believe it was only the Navy who were actually shooting at
Argentinians

You can believe what you like, but you're wrong.

Discounting ground forces obviously then I would be interested to know
what the RAFs role was in combat. I'm not trying to antagonise anyone
but it was my understanding that the Navy were the ones engaging
Argentinians from the air. If I'm wrong on that then I'd welcome being
set straight. Were the Army Air Corps involved as well?

Copied and pasted from this site

http://www.naval-history.net/F18taskforce.htm

RAF in the Falklands conflict.
ROYAL AIR FORCE
Brize Norton (VC10’s)
Coningsby (Phantoms)
Kinloss (Nimrod MR2’s)
Lyneham (Hercules)
Marham (Victors)
Odiham (Chinooks)
St Athan (maintenance)
St Mawgan (Nimrod MR1’s)
Waddingtons (Vulcans)
Wittering (Harrier GR3’s)
Wyton (Nimrod R1’s)

Army Air Corps in the Falklands conflict

Middle Wallop (AAC)
Netheravon (AAC

[unknown]

Post by Tom Lucas

Post by unknown

I believe it was only the Navy who were actually shooting at Argentinians

You can believe what you like, but you're wrong.

Discounting ground forces obviously then I would be interested to know
what the RAFs role was in combat. I'm not trying to antagonise anyone
but it was my understanding that the Navy were the ones engaging
Argentinians from the air. If I'm wrong on that then I'd welcome being
set straight. Were the Army Air Corps involved as well?

Which bit of "1. Sqdn flew from Hermes." was not clear?

[Simon Robbins]

Post by Tom Lucas
Are you sure about Buccaneers and Canberras? What were they doing? I
believe it was only the Navy who were actually shooting at Argentinians
which is why the RAF wanted to get involved with their Vulcans. Plus
there was also a worry that the Navy might do rather too well without
them and, in a time of defence budget cuts and belt-tightening, had to
be seen to be worth their expense.

Canberras were flying recon over the Argentinian fleet, one of which was
flying secretly from Chile.

You are right about the Buccaneer though. Some aircraft did go to the
Falklands but not until after the conflict in 1983 where they were
stationed for defence. (Along with several Phantoms.)

The RAF Harrier GR3s were engaging the Argentines alongside their Navy
Sea Harrier brethren. Perhaps the Vulcan was used because it was the
only viable runway denial platform considering the Harriers were limited
in bomb load considering they only had STOL capability from the carrier.

While you're right in saying that it did little damage to its target,
(the bombs didn't miss, they just did little damage), it had the desired
effect as the Argentines removed their fighters from the island, meaning
that they had to travel from the mainland to engage the fleet.

Si

[Canuck]

Re the Buccs, I seem to remember reading somewhere that they were still in
use during Desert Storm as target markers, please correct me if I am wrong.

Post by Simon Robbins

Post by Tom Lucas
Are you sure about Buccaneers and Canberras? What were they doing? I
believe it was only the Navy who were actually shooting at Argentinians
which is why the RAF wanted to get involved with their Vulcans. Plus
there was also a worry that the Navy might do rather too well without
them and, in a time of defence budget cuts and belt-tightening, had to be
seen to be worth their expense.

Canberras were flying recon over the Argentinian fleet, one of which was
flying secretly from Chile.
You are right about the Buccaneer though. Some aircraft did go to the
Falklands but not until after the conflict in 1983 where they were
stationed for defence. (Along with several Phantoms.)
The RAF Harrier GR3s were engaging the Argentines alongside their Navy Sea
Harrier brethren. Perhaps the Vulcan was used because it was the only
viable runway denial platform considering the Harriers were limited in
bomb load considering they only had STOL capability from the carrier.
While you're right in saying that it did little damage to its target, (the
bombs didn't miss, they just did little damage), it had the desired effect
as the Argentines removed their fighters from the island, meaning that
they had to travel from the mainland to engage the fleet.
Si

[Simon Robbins]

Post by Canuck
Re the Buccs, I seem to remember reading somewhere that they were still in
use during Desert Storm as target markers, please correct me if I am wrong.

That's true. They were buddy lasing for Tornados since they had no
designator then of their own. (They do now.)

Si

[Simon Robbins]

Post by David Wright
Apparently it was shown live on Sky News, but I can't get that on the web
(audio only) so had to make do with hearing it fly whilst watching the
sloooooow webcam picture update at one frame every 30 seconds.

I saw it on Sky news. Very impressive to see that old lady again.

Si

[Ian]

Post by David Wright
Back in the sky today, apparently.

How long, I wonder, till it crashes at an airshow, in the noble
tradition of smouldering Spitfire, Hurricane, Messerschmitt and other
historic aircraft-shaped holes in runways up and down the country?

I'll guess "within five years".

Ian

[Canuck]

Oooh shame in you spreading bad karma. tsk tsk....

Post by Ian

Post by David Wright
Back in the sky today, apparently.

How long, I wonder, till it crashes at an airshow, in the noble
tradition of smouldering Spitfire, Hurricane, Messerschmitt and other
historic aircraft-shaped holes in runways up and down the country?
I'll guess "within five years".
Ian