Royal Navy Deployed Laser Weapons During the Falklands War 139
Zothecula writes "Despite recent demonstrations by the US Navy, we still think of laser weapons as being things of the future. However, previously-classified British documents prove that not only were the major powers working on laser weapons in the 1970s and 80s, but that they were already being deployed with combat units in war zones. A letter from the Ministry of Defence released under the 30-year rule reveals that laser weapons were deployed on Royal Navy ships during the Falklands War in 1982, and that the British government was concerned about similar weapons being developed behind the Iron Curtain."
Yes, but... (Score:5, Informative)
They were only strong enough to "dazzle" pilots, not do any actual damage.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
HAHAHAH! Someone give this guy a +5 funny mod! Someone link to an image of the novelty laser warning sticker that says this! Quick! Someone link to some vaguely related xkcc comic! BWAHAHAHA!
Re: (Score:1)
Well, they did only have the keychain laser penlights from the corner store...
And here's what 'dazzle' means .... (Score:2)
The cockpit windscreens of aircraft with any kind of service under their belts are replete with micro-cracks even though the windscreens remain transparent to the naked eye. When you shine a laser on the windscreen, all the cracks 'light up' through internal scattering and reflection. The higher power the laser, the more dramatic the effect. For the pilot, the windscreen suddenly becomes a sparkling dazzle of bright pinpricks and lines of whatever colour of laser light is used. This dramatically obscure
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Yes, but... (Score:5, Informative)
Supposedly the RAF tactics were to let the Argentine fighter bombers complete their attack runs while the ships were defended with chaff and decoys.
And who, exactly, claims that?
I'm not aware of any Harrier pilot who's ever said they deliberately let the Argentinians attack ships before they engaged. Nor was speed a big issue when they were primarily using Sidewinder missiles, and the Argentinians didn't have enough fuel to fly supersonic for long and still attack.
Re:Yes, but... (Score:4, Insightful)
Why is that guy the armchair general troll but the guy he responded to is not an armchair general troll? The first guy, as far as I know, made up this story. The second guy asked for a source and provided a little data to counter it.
Now, if there's something to back it up -- some source for the "supposedly" -- then maybe. Currently the second guy seems more credible to me, though not nearly credible enough that I'd believe him without doing my own research if I really cared.
Re: (Score:3)
Why would *YOU* be aware of it?
Because you never let the enemy throw missiles and bombs on your vessels when you have the chance to shoot them down. A modern warship's safety relies, more than ever before, on active defense, not on "sitting there and taking it". The Royal Navy would never, ever allow to have their insanely costly warships attacked to facilitate some brainless assmonkey's silly "let's kick their butts when they're on their way home" "sort-of-plan".
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
You show how little you know about the situation by using the term 'RAF'. All of the air fighting was done by Fleet Air Arm squadrons - The RAF squadrons were for ground attack only.
Re: (Score:2)
There were 10 RAF Harriers on the Hermes and I bet they got in some air combat.
Re:Yes, but... (Score:5, Informative)
I will bet they didn't, due to lack of air to air radar - the RAF operated the GR-type Harrier, suitable for ground attack and recon only, while the air defence force was made up of Royal Navy FRS Harriers, which were equipped with radar as part of their fleet defence ability.
Re:Yes, but... (Score:4, Informative)
from this [wikipedia.org];
If most of the Sea Harriers had been lost, the GR.3s would have replaced them in air patrol duties, even though the Harrier GR.3 was not designed for air defence operations; as such the GR.3s quickly had their outboard weapons pylons modified to take air-to-air Sidewinder missiles.
Re: (Score:2)
That's a world of difference to "i bet they got in some air combat".
Re: (Score:3)
According to this [naval-history.net] some Sea Harriers were flown by RAF pilots;
Mirage IIIEA of FAA Grupo 8 shot down north of West Falkland by Flt Lt Barton RAF in No.801 Sea Harrier using Sidewinder (4.10 pm). Lt Perona ejected safely.
A-4Q Skyhawk of CANA 3 Esc also shot down near Swan Island in Falkland Sound in same incident by Flt Lt Leeming RAF in No.800 Sea Harrier using 30mm cannon (3.12 pm). Lt Marquez was killed.
Puma SA.330L of CAB 601 flew into ground near Shag Cove House, West Falkland attempting to evade Flt Lt Morgan RAF in No.800 NAS Sea Harrier (10.30 am). All crew escaped.
- Two A-4B Skyhawks of FAA Grupo 5 shot down over Choiseul Sound by Flt Lt Morgan RAF and a third by Lt D Smith in No.800 NAS Sea Harriers using Sidewinders (4.45 pm). Lt Arraras, Lt Bolzan and Ensign Vazquez killed.
Though they were not RAF aircraft they were RAF pilots.
Re: (Score:2)
Which has nothing to do with this thread - the point at issue was not the capability of the RAF pilots, who regularly conducted postings to NAS as exchange pilots anyway, but the RAF aircraft were not built for air combat, with the radar being the most obvious deficit.
Re: (Score:1)
yes, but they had been "Navalised" prior to the war :)
Re: (Score:3)
When they are using heat seeking Sidewinders and being directed by radar picket ships the lack of radar is not insurmountable.
Re: (Score:2)
The only "Navalizing" done was fitting Sidewinders. They actually had quite a corrosion problem because they were not the naval version.
Re: (Score:2)
I meant the RAF pilots not the GR3s
Re: (Score:2)
If you mean practicing a few times using the ski jump take off then yes. Everything else was still RAF.
Re: (Score:1)
No I mean the RAF pilots flying the Sea Harriers with 800 and 801 Squadron. specifically Flt Lts Barton, Leeming and Morgan who were mentioned in the post I replied to.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
No, The Fleet Air Arm tactics (calling navy pilots RAF will result in mild joking/ verbal abuse at best) varied throughout the war, before the landings they were part of a standard layered defence and were usually deployed up threat of the radar pickets which in turn were up threat of the carrier battle group. After the landings the Navy effectively defined a large rectangular box around the landing site and declared this a free fire zone for ships missile/gun systems and a no-go zone for aircraft. again Ha
Re:Yes, but... (Score:5, Interesting)
the only Argentinian I've discussed this with (I'm British BTW) said he'd never heard of the Falklands or the Malvinas until the miltary government decided to start a war over them. Ditto me in the UK. The populace in neither country knew or cared.
Re:Yes, but... (Score:5, Interesting)
That's funny. I'm American, and I'd heard of the Falklands prior to the war. We had been told, in a physics class, about the first battle of the Falklands and how the British had to correct for Southern Hemisphere coriolis effects manually by scratching new lines into their sights (which only had northern hemisphere corrections).
The other funny thing is - that story may not even be true! There are no good historical references to this; plus it's not like the British in WWI were exactly strangers to the seas below the equator... But in any case I already knew where the Falklands were located as the rhetoric heated up.
Re:Yes, but... (Score:5, Insightful)
In fact, the British were very versed in sailing in the southern hemisphere by that stage, they'd spent over 100 years sending boats to where I live, Australia. ;)
Re: (Score:1)
The Coriolis Effect story is a myth [dreadnoughtproject.org].
Short take: the Royal Navy's fire control of the era did not address Coriolis Effect in any way, shape or form (nor did the German navy treat this minor effect). Not handling this effect is a minuscule factor in accuracy in an engagement along a line of fire that changes only slowly over the course of a battle.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Consider the personalities involved. I think Thatcher would have done what it took to hold them even if it was clear there was nothing there but sheep.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't believe the British would have walked away from the Falklands. For one thing, about 99.8% of the inhabitants voted in a 2013 referendum to remain British subjects. However, there are only about 3,140 (according to 2008 figures) of them, the sheep are considering an insurrection claiming that they are more numerous and hence should control the Islands fate. The Falklanders claim not to be worried as sheep have no index fingers for rifle triggers and the humans have all the shears. They are also big o
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You are welcome to the Falklands, but I don't think I get a say in the matter.
Re: (Score:2)
The Islands don't belong to Argentina. There's no historical record supporting any interpretation that would have the Falklands part of Argentina, and I'm Irish (and hence would not generally be in favour of the British colonial holdings).
No-one lived there before, and British settlers have continuously inhabited the islands for two centuries. This is only an issue because the Argentinian Junta needed a PR coup to avoid collapse, and the British handed them a disaster, which sped up the collapse. It's a sha
Re:Yes, but... (Score:4, Interesting)
Well, both the the British and Argentinian populations can be distracted through either football or war, and both Thatcher and Galtieri had already exploited football enough, so it was war they required.
Re: (Score:3)
The thing is that the British were just about ready to hand over most of the islands to the Argentinians, keeping just the small populated areas. There were secret talks happening the background.
It's never been entirely clear why Galtieri jumped the gun and landed troops. Impatience and a belief that the British were not negotiating seriously, perhaps. If that hadn't happened Argentina would control most of that area today.
Re:Yes, but... (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Yes, but... (Score:4, Insightful)
you declare war, you get war,
priority 1 render the enemy incapable or unwilling to take its objectives,
priority 2 try to avoid loss of life on your own side, or on the part of enemy civilians where possible (in that order),
there is no 3
leaving the enemy unharmed because they might die if you kill them seems a little soft even for me. if they are or might be a threat and you can be rid of them without a significant risk to yourself then that is what you do, if they have not surrendered then that means lethal force. If they are still a threat then left the field of battle intact means can come back and try again with fresh stocks of ammo.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Yes, but... (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:1)
The 'upstart BBC journalist' was in fact a geography teacher, who pointed out during the 1983 general election campaign that the Belgrano was headed away from the Falklands, and Maggie tried to dodge the question by pretending not to understand compass bearings. Caught out in a blatant lie, and the electorate still voted for her....
Re:Yes, but... (Score:5, Insightful)
As a member of the UK public at the time, most of us didn't care what direction the Belgrano was heading, if it was the vessel of an enemy which had occupied UK territory then we wanted it sinking. It was being ambiguous which had got the UK into trouble in the first place, so something as unambiguous as a torpedo was sending the right message as far as we were concerned.
Re: (Score:2)
"We" being the jingoistic Sun readers who were as overjoyed as the tabloid was with its front page of "GOTCHA!", presumably. Personally, I found that celebration of death and destruction tasteless in the extreme.
HMS Sheffield was sunk by an Exocet from a Dassault Mirage two days later, most likely as revenge. Critics are of the opinion that if UK hadn't been the first to sink an enemy vessel then none would have been lost on either side.
Re:Yes, but... (Score:5, Informative)
i think that's unlikely, personally.
I believe the Argentine navy would, had it not been savaged earlier, parked its carrier within operating range of the Falklands as soon as the landings started. Some loss of life was inevitable from the moment the Argentinians decided to invade the Falklands and not agree to leave. Also the Argentine submarine San Luis fired a torpedo at British ships the day before the sinking, so both sides were on the same page as far as hostilities were concerned.
The Sun headline is agreeably controversial. Whilst regretting the loss of life, I think it expressed some relief that we were on the right side of the scoreboard.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
HMS Sheffield was sunk by an Exocet from a Dassault Mirage two days later, most likely as revenge
Not really, firstly it was launched from a Super Etendard not a Mirage, secondly the Sheffield attack was the second or third attempt by the Argentinian Navy to attack the carriers using exocet, the Argentinian navy went to a lot of effort to get the Etandarts exocet capable and were intending on using them against the Royal Navy carriers long before the belgrano was sunk. If the exocet attacks were reveng then as advocated by most combat instructors they were trying to get their revenge in first.
. Critics are of the opinion that if UK hadn't been the first to sink an enemy vessel then none would have been lost on either side.
Critics a
Re: (Score:2)
"HMS Sheffield was sunk by an Exocet from a Dassault Mirage two days later, most likely as revenge. Critics are of the opinion that if UK hadn't been the first to sink an enemy vessel then none would have been lost on either side."
The Exocet was carried by a Super Etandard , a naval strike aircraft (carrier capable, but the Argentines operated them from land bases)
They probably were aiming at one of the carriers but antiship missiles back then just homed in on the first radar target they picked up.
The She
Re: (Score:1)
The missile hit right in the ships main control room putting it out of action and the fire caused by the remaining fuel from the missile burned nicely on the aluminium ship.
And you were doing so well up to this point... Sheffield wasn't an Aluminium ship, not even aluminium superstructure http://www.hazegray.org/faq/smn6.htm#F7 [hazegray.org]
As the link above states none of the RN ships sunk in the Falklands were sunk because of burning aluminium.
In Sheffields case they lost the firefighting ring main more or less immediately and they abandoned when the heat conducted by the steel hull was causing secondary fires in other parts of the ship
Re: (Score:2)
It may be worth noting that having the capability does not denote intent to use at a particular time or place. Example: many thousands of Americans have firearms, and therefore are technically capable of assassinating a political figure, but they don't.
The Falklands had already been invaded at this point, so you'd need to adjust your analogy a bit there otherwise it doesn't really work.
Re: (Score:1)
The 21s were never meant to be much more than a short term buy for the RN and had little space for additional equipment, that said they lasted from 1974 up to 1994 and were regarded quite favourably by the crew, though the very basic missile fit was always an issue after the 1980s
The batch 1 type 42 were very much built down to a cost and Sheffields commissioning Captain (one Sandy Woodward) had a list of complaints which were almost the main points of difference between the batch 1s and later ships.
Thankfu
Re: (Score:2)
Declaration of War? Check.
Ship with guns on it? Check.
Ship flying flag of nation that declared war? Check.
Empty the guns.
Nobody, in any nation, would give a shit what bearing the ship is on, if the three things stated above are all true.
Re:Yes, but... (Score:5, Informative)
The Captain of the Belgrano has publicly declared that he thought the attack that sunk his ship was legitimate. I don't know why we're still talking about this.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, but the Belgrano was running because word leaked out that she was a primary target and when she was engaged she was at full speed towards home
No, she was meandering along at cruising speed to a holding area whilst the Argentinian navy decided what to do next since their ari strike on the Carrier battle group couldn't get airborne because of low winds.
Conqueror had destroy orders even though Belgrano had left the field.
Field...? what field, she was at sea and she was a combatant...to paraphrase Shankly "if she wasn't interfering with play what the fuck was she doing on the pitch"
Some say she was in Argentine waters when she was sunk, but this has not been verified either way.
She was sunk at 5524S 6132W that's more than 12 miles away from anything.
Re:Yes, but... (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:1)
5 air launched, another 6 or so ship mounted. 2 lorry mounted (no really.. they took two off a ship and put them on the back of an artic).
Re: (Score:2)
both the British and the Argentinian populace was fully in support of the war.
I don't know about Argentina, but while the UK population was mostly in support, but far from "fully". Many people objected to the military "task force", and said so, loud and long.
Not very many (Score:1)
Most people were keeping score as though it were a game of cricket, or recalling the Battle of Britain ratios of aircraft shot down.
We were pissed at the diplomatic foolishness that had started the "war", but once the war was on most people would have been quite happy if we'd raided Buenos Aires in reprisal
Re:Yes, but... (Score:4)
so about as effective as the Harrier jump jets were in defending the fleet ?
Are you claiming they weren't?
Ships get sunk in wars. On at least one occasion a ship was hit because they refused to let the Harriers engage an incoming Argentinian attack and relied on their own missile systems instead... which then failed to fire.
Re:Yes, but... (Score:5, Informative)
You have to remember this was back when the pickets ships were the primary means of defence of the fleet still, you don't want your own ships accidentally shooting down their own air cover, so they positioned the picket well forward. Not necessarily the best plan, but you can see the problem - ultimately the goal is to defend the carriers, not the picket ships. The picket ships actually took out a number of enemy aircraft with missiles because that's their job.
No one likes to say 'sorry, but your job is to get killed before someone on a bigger more important ship' but that's very much the job of destroyers and frigates. You force the enemy to destroy the escorts first, or take the risk of flying over them and getting shot down.
The royal navy suffered very much from several problems, one of having some engineering problems with their ships (turns out aluminium can catch fire), two that they couldn't lock on to ships coming in low, and three couldn't deal with exocet missiles.
The royal navy faced the unenviable challenge of not having enough aircraft (only about 50 total). The Argentine situation meant they could (early on at least) put 30 or 40 aircraft anywhere in a large area of operations. That's a serious problem. You can't have too wide an air cover, you'd have too many aircraft spread out and not be able to defend, and you can't risk a carrier. That problem is overcome by defeating the enemy in detail in small pieces until he doesn't have the force to concentrate. Which is what the royal navy did essentially, they traded destroyers and frigates for aircraft kills until the Argentinians didn't have enough aircraft or exocets, at which point the british had air superiority for a ground invasion.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Yes, but... (Score:5, Funny)
turns out aluminium can catch fire
Silly Brits, they should have used aluminum instead!
Re: (Score:1)
Three of the British warships sunk in the Falklands war ... had aluminium superstructures. At the time, the press stated that ... the aluminium had actually burnt. This was completely untrue. The aluminium structures lost strength and distorted, but did not burn. Aluminium sections, plate, sheet, foil and wire will not support combustion. Only in the form of very finely divided powder or flake can the metal be made to burn, as can finely divided steel.
Re: (Score:1)
At one point in 100 days Woodward describes how he has to find out if the entrance to Falkland sound has been mined or not. Not having minesweepers his only choice is to choose one of the cheap and cheerful type 21's and see if it gets blown up or not. The ships Captain, Christopher Craig, knowing exactly what was (specifically not) being asked of him pointedly asked Woodward if he wanted him "to zigzag about a bit" to make sure the channel was clear. It was and Alacrity survived. I think Woodward described
Re: (Score:2)
I didn't say it wasn't common, only that no one likes admitting it.
That's the job though, England confides that every man will do his duty.
Re: (Score:1)
21 kills for no losses in the air to air role despite being outnumbered by aircraft with superior performance and viewed by the Argentinian Air forces and a difficult and challenging opponent ("La Muerte Negra") not bad going for an aircraft designed to shoot down recon aircraft.
Re: (Score:3)
My eyes! The goggles do nothing!
Re:Yes, but... (Score:5, Funny)
"no actual damage"? They could permanently blind pilots.
Look on the bright side. When they were blinded while flying fifty feet off the ground, they would only have about two seconds to worry about whether their eyesight would ever return.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
"no actual damage"? They could permanently blind pilots.
Look on the bright side.
I see what you did there.
Re: (Score:1)
Re:Yes, but... (Score:5, Funny)
Look on the bright side. When they were blinded while flying fifty feet off the ground, they would only have about two seconds to worry about whether their eyesight would ever return.
such pesssimism! they'd have their whole lives to worry about their eyesight returning.
Re: (Score:2)
Look on the bright side.
When a laser's being directed at your plane's canopy, every side is the bright side.
Re: (Score:3)
"We" who? (Score:2)
"Despite recent demonstrations by the US Navy, we still think of laser weapons as being things of the future."
"We" who? Somebody who has been living in a box for the past seventy years?
Re:"We" who? (Score:5, Funny)
Do you see any sharks?
Well, do you?
Not even a mutant sea bass here.
We're waiting....
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
You really mean have been able to pop corn from space since 1985. Though, I guess if it was flavored with enough diacetyl, that might kill someone.
Laser - NOT ! (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Yeah, but just watch their productivity once they learn about unions.
Why never usefull (Score:1)
There are hundreds of secret fancy projects to build deadly weapons and find creative ways to kill people while spending their tax money throughout History.
Why don't the various governments ever conspire to produce something for the greater good ?
Something like a 5'000 fucking billion USD research project for curing AIDS or cancer or even an efficient form of renewable energy instead of filling the banking system's gaping holes ?
Are there only evil sociopaths in charge ?
Why don't we just take the laser can
Re: (Score:1)
Not everything can be solved by throwing money and more resources at it; just like women can't birth the parasite out from them in 1 month instead of 9 if you give them money. Since that's a fact, we shouldn't let progress in other 'areas' where progress can be made with money fall by the wayside. That side of progress still yields plenty of fruit
Re: (Score:2)
So, you want to spend 5 Trillion of U.S. dollars. Considering the entire economy is about 16-18 Trillion and the entire federal budget is about 3.8 Trillion, I'm guessing that's going to put quite a dent in things.
And the U.S. just announced they might have a cure for malaria. There's the AIDS program in Africa started by that war monger G. W. Bush. There's all the other medical science done by the U.S.
Now, about these evil sociopaths in charge. St. Obama is a sociopath?
Oh BTW, since you didn't get the memo
Soviet laser tank (Score:4, Funny)
Yeah, it was just designed to blind optical sensors (and eyeballs), but still: SOVIET LASER TANK.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
When was any other weapon banned for being "faster, more effective, and more targeted"?
I was under the impression it was because it was considered... well, I'm not sure, not sporting? to blind your opponents for the rest of their lives, as opposed to shredding them instantly with hot slivers of metal death. Exactly why everyone was so enthusiastic to adopt a ban on blinding weapons, took a bit longer with landmines, but haven't got round to nuclear bombs is a bit of a puzzler to me - except perhaps that i
That lasers weren't terrifically useful... (Score:2)
... from my point of view [naval-history.net]....
Re: (Score:2)
You see an aircraft carrier on that list?
Maybe the lasers were the difference.
Re: (Score:2)
Had the Argentinians ever tried to sunk one? :-)
Prime Minister's Office files (PREM) files (Score:3)
So? (Score:2)
What are we supposed to do with this lame, old information? It is no secret that lasers were already appearing in weaponry by then. Lasers were used by British commandos on the ground to designate targets for the free-fall bombs dropped by Vulcan bombers in Operation Black Buck [wikipedia.org].
Not new nor classified (Score:3, Interesting)
Hardly news (Score:3)
"The pity was that Plymouth had not had time to turn right around, because she was fitted with the new laser equipment known locally to us as "Flasher" - which could well have stopped the attack in its tracks, because it literally forces any incoming pilot to pull up sharply during the forty-second period in which he cannot see."
from One Hundred Days by Admiral Sandy Woodward (1992)
An updated version of a WWII trick (Score:1)
Jasper Maskelyne (of the stage-magician family) did something similar with searchlights and mirrors during WWII (North African campaign, if I recall) - sending flashes of light into the sky to disorient (or "disorientate" as the Brits would say) German pilots. So it was hardly a new idea, just a different light source that's worse for the eyes.
royal shark brigades? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
The have admitted to the lasers but are the sharks wearing them still classified?
That's why we're still pretending we sunk the Belgrano with a submarine and torpedoes...
Not quite (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Denmark is welcome to join the union. I like Danish people.
Re: (Score:2)