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.

David Wright wrote:
> 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.

David Wright wrote:
> 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

> 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.

David Wright  wrote:

> 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

On 18 Oct, 10:43, "David Wright" 
wrote:
> 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

"David Wright"  wrote in message 
news:5novrkFjdaatU1@mid.individual.net...
>> Awesome.
>
<snip>  one that helped the UK win the Falklands
> 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.

"Tom Lucas" 
wrote:

>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?

David Wright wrote:
> 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

Peter wrote:
> Apart from that occassion, did a Vulcan ever see action?

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

Si

Tom Lucas wrote:
> 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

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

-- 
Yrs Quilly

http://quilljar.users.btopenworld.com/gall.html

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

"Ian"  wrote in message 
news:1192711693.103607.187380@t8g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
> On 18 Oct, 10:43, "David Wright" 
> wrote:
>> 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
>
>

Quilljar <Not@home.today> wrote:

> 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.

"For example: John Smith"  skrev i en meddelelse 
news:eaGRi.91830$j16.6056@newsfe6-gui.ntli.net...
> David Wright wrote:
>> 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

Quilljar wrote:
> 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

"Simon Robbins" <simon@nospam.thanks> wrote in message 
news:ffa67p$hdt$1$8302bc10@news.demon.co.uk...
> Quilljar wrote:
>> 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.

Tom Lucas  wrote:

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

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

"Steve Firth" <%steve%@malloc.co.uk> wrote in message 
news:1i68pot.1rem9yql0djltN%%steve%@malloc.co.uk...
> Tom Lucas  wrote:
>
>> 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?

Tom Lucas wrote:
> "Steve Firth" <%steve%@malloc.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:1i68pot.1rem9yql0djltN%%steve%@malloc.co.uk...
>> Tom Lucas  wrote:
>>
>>> 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
-- 
MikeW
Please don't feed the (Twin) trolls

Tom Lucas  wrote:

> "Steve Firth" <%steve%@malloc.co.uk> wrote in message 
> news:1i68pot.1rem9yql0djltN%%steve%@malloc.co.uk...
> > Tom Lucas  wrote:
> >
> >> 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?

Tom Lucas wrote:
> 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

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.

"Simon Robbins" <simon@nospam.thanks> wrote in message 
news:ffbip7$9b0$1$8300dec7@news.demon.co.uk...
> Tom Lucas wrote:
>> 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 wrote:
> 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

On Thu, 18 Oct 2007 13:37:51 +0100, %steve%@malloc.co.uk (Steve Firth)
wrote:

>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