Talk:Operation Black Buck

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Operation Black Buck article.
Article policies
MILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.

Contents

[edit] Missions

Although the article starts by listing 6 missions, number 5 is described as the last one. Anyone know what happened to Black Buck 6? Was it planned but never carrried out? Rowland White in Vulcan 607 states there were only 5 missions, but the Thunder and Lightning website cites Black Buck 6 as the one that ended up in Rio, and then talks about a 7th raid --Jeffjn 09:50, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Anyone know of the Black Buck mission which was "forced" to land in Brazil and sequestered for the rest of the war? --Dali-Llama 17:44, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

You can find the answer at the external link at the bottom of the page. DJ Clayworth 16:26, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I removed a section about the withdrawl of the Mirage foces not being due to Black Buck. We have cites to say that Black Buck was the reason, and while this cite is an RAF site and so probably not unbiased we don't have another cite to the contrary. When we have a cite the passage can go back. DJ Clayworth 16:26, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

When I added that sentence I add the Reference too, now we have only the reference :) The official version of the argentine FAA (I think the FAA could make a better official version than the RAF's site) said that the lack of aerial refuel capability of the Mirage IIIEA prevent them to used them over the islands, a fact demonstrate it in the only engage of May 1st where the only MIII survivor try to land at Stanley, contrary of the Daggers which have more internal fuel capability. -- Jor70 13:17, 3 July 2006 (UTC)


My reading of the Google translation of the FAA page is that the decison not to use Mirage III had been made before the conflict; this is contra-indicated by their use on 1 May. Until/Unless historians get access to all FAA papers from the time the question is unlikely to be settled decisively. I think it is fair to say that the Black Buck raids are widely believed to have been a factor in the withdrawal of the Mirage IIIs; there are numerous books, not all RAF published, which make the claim.
(anonymous) dont sure which FAA page you are refering but if is this one [1] its said: En el Estado Mayor de la FAS, ya se había descartado la posibilidad de disputar la superioridad aérea a baja altura, sobre las islas, enfrentando a los aviones Harrier con los Mirage. the key word there is low altitude due as it later said a fuel factor. The MIIIEA would be still used as decoy aircraft until the last day (further reading at the FAA site) Jor70 16:11, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
Jor70, can you explain exactly why the Argentinian FAA would be a better source than the British RAF for facts discerning a conflict between Argentina and the UK, because neither would be more credible in my opinion... Ndufva 21:13, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
we're talking about the official version about the Mirages not the conflict. Being those FAA aircraft the official version would be the FAA not the RAF. Jor70 13:33, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

On 2nd May 2007, John Reeve, accepting in a BBC news report that the Vulcan force's sticks of bombs only scored a single, direct, thousand-pounder hit on the airstrip, revealed that the Black Buck raid was strategically crucial in that it denied the Argentine Air Force a fast jet forward runway in the occupied Falklands for the duration of hostilities. This is corroborated by the historical fact that all their fighter-bomber raids were carried out from the Argentine mainland. The Black Buck mission was, therefore, a huge success and should be acknowledged as such. (JonLishman 3/5/07)

That is a just another British opinion , the official report of the FAA establised that in April ( 1 month before the first raid ) Puerto Argentino AFB was declared not suitable for fast jets operations due the lack of bunkers and other edifications. Its was an intention to carry there aluminiun plates to extend the runway (later aborted due the submarines threath to the cargo ships) but only as an emergency landing site and not to be deployable there. Jor70 22:50, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
Do you have a source for this intention? Planes can normally land on much shorter runways than they need to take off from. 194.129.249.111 16:32, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
"just another british opinion", but the Falklands are British Teritory!
I think the arguments that Argentina had no intention of using Port Stanley airport are somewhat dubious. See below, they made extensive efforts to make it a forward operating base. You don't do that if you don't intend to use it. Compare that with the British who in a matter of weeks had a forward operating base for Harriers at Port San Carlos. Justin talk 20:59, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Tangentially, I note that one of the sources disparaging of the effect of Black Buck was written by a Harrier Pilot. It is beyond doubt that Harrier was the pivotal aircraft of the Falklands war, I suspect that most of those interested in Black Buck (myself included) are big fans of the Vulcan. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.129.249.111 (talk) 14:24, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
Sharky Ward describes himself as a Maverick with strongly held views. Good old fashioned cap badge rivalry has a lot to do with his remarks. ~~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Justin A Kuntz (talk • contribs) 16:10, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Article error

There is a problem with the source cited and quoted regarding the Argentine deception at Port Stanley airfield. The USMC is not a verifiable source to quote from and contains obvious errors and an anti-British slant. Photographic evidence exists of the damage to the airstrip, and it was exactly as intended. A 35 degree runway cut with 1000lb iron bombs. To say this is unsuccessful is simply untrue. Furthermore, the quoted source mentions the Argentine myth of a shot-down Harrier as a fact. The only fact on that matter is that it is not true. All of the RAF and RN Harriers were accounted for. The claim to have shot one down is ridiculous, and exists only in the minds of the fascist junta that was convinced it had also sunk one of the Royal Navy carriers. I can verify personally that they did not sink a carrier, as I have actually seen both of the ships deployed following their return to the UK.

I dont agree, the official report of the FAA and even the british officials after the war recognize that the airfield was operational until the last day. Black back didnt prevent to the FAA to use the airfield for their only puorpose needed, maintain the air bridge. Jor70 13:04, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
In that case cite other sources, the USMC source leaks like a sieve! 194.129.249.111 16:32, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

The raid was sucessful in that the Vulcan put a bomb -as intended- on the runway; however, putting airfields out of action for any length of time is notoriously difficult even today ( ask the Tornado crews from 'desert storm' in 1991) and so from that perspective did not achieve the desired objective. 'Black Buck' was a far more effective set of missions politically, as it showed the commitment of the British Forces to a military resolution. Harryurz 09:46, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Agree 100%, BB had a great propaganda and politically effect showing to the AR Gov that the talks were terminated but had none military effect on the war Jor70 12:52, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually Black Buck 1 was more about denying the Argentine fast jets the use of Stanley. It was well known that the C130s (of which Britain had many) could operate from damaged and shortened runways.Furthermore, the British were aware during the entire campaign, that the Argentines were still operating an air bridge between Argentina and Stanley. It was seen as more important to avoid it being used by Mirage and Skyhawk aircraft.Had Mirage fighters had its use, they would have been very effective over the skies of the Falklands and its environs. In this (denying its use by fighters), it could be said that Black Buck 1 and 2 were successful.A simple dictum of war is that if you do something to stop the enemy doing something and they then don't do that something, then the something you did was a success, whether or not the enemy then claimed they were never going to do it anyway!--Kenbod 13:42, 27 July 2007 (UTC)Kenbod

that the point!, BB never stop the C-130 go there and the FAA never had intentions to operate their Mirage or A-4 from Stanley (we could agree if it was a bad decision or not but that another matter). On the other way the only jets there (ARA MB339s) operated through all of May --Jor70 14:48, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

It should be noted and remembered that within a few months of the war ending, the RAF was operating Phantom F4s from Stanley, having lengthened the runway. All this, several thousand miles from the UK. Whether or not the FAA planned to use it for fast jets, it had to be assumed they would. Accordingly, it had to be made unusable by Argentine fast jets if possible. Hind sight is one thing, military planning is another. It was very sensible to deny use of the airfield to fast jets.--Kenbod 16:36, 27 July 2007 (UTC)Kenbod

I am highly suspicious of claims that the Argentines "spoofed" airfield damage at Stanley. These claims vary from those in this article to claims such as those in The Secret War for the Falklands: SAS, MI6 and the War Whitehall Nearly Lost by Nigel West that Black Buck 1 actually missed it's target by 1 kilometre because of a surveying mistake allegedly made by the Argentine firm that supposedly constructed the runway. The post raid photograph taken shortly after the raid clearly shows a line of craters, the first of which is astride the runway. A quick look at Google earth cofirms this, as most of the craters are still visible 20 odd years later. The claim made in the above mentioned book seems to be that the Argentines were somehow able to hide 21 very large bomb craters and fake another 21 including just one on the runway (why not two?)all within the space of a few hours. Highly unlikely.

As for the claim that the Argentines covered the runway with "fake" bomb damage by day to discourage further attack, daylight photographs taken shortly after the second Black Buck raid (see Squadron Leader Jerry pook's RAF Ground Attack Falklands) give this the lie because the runway repair is clearly visible and the runway itself, obviously serviceable, with no sign of debris (real or not) on the runway. In other words, the British were aware of the true condition of the runway.

Can I suggest that a google earth link is added to this artical to point out the position of the damage?194.129.249.111 16:32, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

I believe that a myth has developed from somewhere and has found its way into a number of publications. From there, it has become "fact".--Kenbod 13:35, 27 July 2007 (UTC)Kenbod

The intention of the Black Buck raid was to deny the use of the airfield to fast jets. There was no desire to totally destroy the airfield as the British intended to use it after the war. To say that the Argentine military had no intention to operate fast jets seems specious to me. They trialled the use of fast jets on the runway, they imported aluminium matting (came in handy as the British used it extensively after the war) and the Air Force engineers were installing arrestor gear. The British knew full well that C-130 would still be able to use the runway, as a C-130 operator they knew the aircraft characteristics. However, the damage to the runway was enough to cause several near crashes and the 727 that the Argentines used prior to the raid could no longer use the airfield. Black Buck 1 was a text book raid that achieved exactly what they set out to do, a 35 deg cut across the runway that had the chances of putting at least one and possibly two 1000 lb bombs on it. Justin A Kuntz 20:49, 8 August 2007 (UTC)


Again. why the official version of the FAA was removed ? Aerospacio is the FAA official magazine For n time: Mirages were not removed of operations over the islands ! READ please, they simple have no fuel nor adecuate AAM for dog fighting. As result of the May 1 encounter FAA decided to not engage anymore the seahars on low altitude but they still flew until June 14 at high altitude in diversion flights.

And regarding your TEXT BOOK RAID is also false. ARA Fokker F-28 land there for last time 12 june. --Jor70 (talk) 21:22, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes they were, the origin of this story is ARGENTINE, not British. It came into the English language via an interview of an Argentine Air Force officer by an American journalist. It is not British propaganda, properly cited and satisifies WP:V and WP:RS. I would have more respect for the Argentine version of events if it were not revisionist and dismissing Argentine sourced stories as British propaganda. Justin talk 07:46, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
I'd be the first to admit my Spanish is not the best in the world but your own source talks of keeping Mirage III to defend against Vulcan raids. Justin talk 14:10, 5 April 2008 (UTC)


You need to read all: 'Las misiones del Grupo 8 continuaron sin mayores incidentes hasta la misma noche del 14 Jun (la última de la guerra), cuando una pareja de Mirage escoltó a los Canberra del Grupo 2 de Bombardeo que atacaron las posiciones británicas en Monte Kent. De esta manera, terminaba la guerra para el Grupo 8, habiendo efectuado 47 misiones de cobertura y 9 salidas de diversión. As it said there, Mirages were not removed from operations over the islands.

The article says that Mirage III were withdrawn to protect BA, that is true. It does not say they were removed from operations. The article is perfectly factual and accurate. Justin talk 13:23, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
My english may not be so good but the article states was responsible for the withdrawal of Mirage IIIEA from operations over the islands in order to protect Buenos Aires --Jor70 (talk) 13:26, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
Your own sources confirm that the Mirages were withdrawn to protect BA, the article is correct. It is properly cited, satisfies WP:RS and WP:V. It is not as you claim British propaganda, the article is not in error. Justin talk 13:33, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

As per the Fokker F-28 flights: from ARA site ... las trayectorias rasantes nocturnas hacia y desde las islas y las osadas maniobras para eludir el peligro de los aviones Harrier,tras producirse el desembarco inglés, ... ( their night low flights ... after the English (sic) landings ... --Jor70 (talk) 13:20, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

So what, A Fokker F-28 is a passenger plane not a fast jet. Justin talk 13:28, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
I was answering yours However, the damage to the runway was enough to cause several near crashes and the 727 that the Argentines used prior to the raid could no longer use the airfield. Black Buck 1 was a text book raid that achieved exactly what they set out to do, Aerolineas Argentinas planes were used only before hostilities break out, but F-28 (a BIG jet) could still use the runway after the so-called successfuly raids --Jor70 (talk) 13:33, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
I didn't put that in the article for one; it isn't mentioned in the article at all. And the F-28 is a small short range jet airliner, not a big jet. Its designed for short field operations unlike the 727 which is a lot bigger, the runway before BB1 was already marginal for a 727, which is why they removed the seating and as much weight as possible from the 727 they did operate. The rewrite I did on the effects section puts all the hyperbole about the raids into perspective. The raid accomplished what it set out to do, the fact that some have exaggerated its impact does not reflect my edits on this article. It is also noticeable that your arguments seem to be constantly changing, I would suggest you have a read of WP:TEND because there is apparently a partisan approach to your edits. Justin talk 13:49, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
I hate to be nitpicking but wasn't it B737 (almost the same runway demands as B727) [2] the Aerolineas Argentinas used pre-Black Buck? I also read from some Briton being unwanted on the islands that the naval Fokker F-28 he flew with had its passenger seats removed to make room for more grunts. Regards, Necessary Evil (talk) 21:05, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
Ah no it was a 727, you're possibly thinking of David Colville[3]. Check the article it was a 727 and one of the reasons for ripping the seats out was to lighten it to be able to operate out of Port Stanley airfield. The F-28 was designed to use smaller runways like the one built at Port Stanley (incidentally the FCO wanted the runway to be short so that it was unsuitable for long haul flights to encourage dependence on LADE). I see from your photo that they also used the 737, which I was unaware of till you posted that picture. If you look at the field requirements for the 727/737 the runway was basically too short for normal ops, needing a skilled pilot and very hard on the airframe. Justin talk 22:34, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
Yes, it was David Colville I read about. I must admit that I doubt his aircraft recognition skills since he counted 30 Hercules at Comodoro Rivadavia compared to the 9 (K)C-130E they got prior to June 1st. ;-) Regards, Necessary Evil (talk) 00:12, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
You might be right (Order of Battle at the start of the war was 7 C-130 and 2 KC-130. But Freedman refers to virtually every airliner in Argentina being pressed into service. Justin talk 00:25, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
It's a common mistake among housewives to identify all turboprop engine aeroplanes as C-130 Hercules; even the twin engined ones ;-) Anyway since it was a pre-Black Buck operation, it's not that important what plane he flew with. But thank you for showing me the other reason for stripping the aeroplanes for seats - I seem to have forgotten that. Regards, Necessary Evil (talk) 15:42, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] English Cleanup

I've made some edits to the English, including removing a phrase which appeared to indicate that the runway was still operational after the first mission. I have removed it because it did not make any sense, not because I disagree with it. Tripper 17:34, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks a lot. I changed the paragraph because it will seem that the runway was really destroyed in the attack. Jor70 17:49, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Irrelevant Pucarás.

I'll suggest that the Pucarás mentioned in the Effect section should be deleted. Pucara is designed to operate from very rough strips and Argentina deployed them to the dirt track runways at Goose Green and Pebble Island as well as Port Stanley. Pucarás flying from Port Stanley after Black Buck 1 and 2 isn't evidence of the concrete runway's status. Argentine helicopters flying from Port Stanley isn't mentioned either. Collateral damage to parked Pucarás is of course relevant. Regards, Necessary Evil (talk) 23:08, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I'd agree, which is why I added the fact tag. It appeared to me to be a dubious addition to the article. Justin talk 23:46, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Had the airstrip been destroyed in the degree the RAF foresaw (a complete one, I guess) you couldn't have fly even a radio-controlled aircraft. You have the example of the Ubdina airfield, in Krajina, Serb-occupied Croatia, in November 1994. The base was used by Oraos and Jastreb low-performance planes to hit facilities in Bosnia. The NATO strike there was massive (some 40 aircraft) and decisive. I have seen photos of the air base after the attack, and believe me, a collapsed bridge was in better shape. It was not possible even for a person to walk on in that appaling conditions. Thus I think that the Pucarás should be mentioned, since they were indeed designed to operated from very rough strips, but not to deal with 10 feet craters.--Darius (talk) 16:29, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Since Pucarás could operate from a rough field they could IMO fly from roads or other similar places, perhaps taxiways if they were present there. No matter how damaged the concrete runway was, the Pucarás could always IMHO find an alternative runway. Regards, Necessary Evil (talk) 17:14, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Sorry but thats a ridiculous analogy. Have a read of the RAF mission plan for the Black Buck mission, it called for dropping a stick of freefall bombs from 10,000 ft in a 35° cut across the runway. The intention was to get one maybe two bombs on the runway to deny it to fast jets and transports like the 727. It would never have stopped aircraft like the C-130 or indeed the Pucara from taking off from short strips between the craters. It probably wouldn't have stopped the Fokkers that LADE used to operate into Stanley, they can use pretty small strips.
This was 1982, not 1994. The weapons available to the British in 1982 were basically freefall bombs of various types. The mission against the airfield in 1994 called for precision guided munitions in a co-ordinated strike with SEAD support. So the RAF never ever foresaw that they had any capability to completely destroy the runway, in any case that would have been a huge strategic mistake as they would need a runway after the conflict was over. The runway strip that was left was easily capable of supporting Pucara. So the original addition did not improve the article and I'm glad you removed it. Justin talk 07:55, 24 April 2008 (UTC)