adrian@cs.heriot-watt.ac.uk (Adrian Hurt) (03/13/91)
From: adrian@cs.heriot-watt.ac.uk (Adrian Hurt) In article <1991Mar6.034840.20736@cbnews.att.com> wku_unix!kinney@mailer.cc.fsu.edu (Mark A. Kinney) writes: > There is some precedent for the "cargo- >hauler-as-bomber" concept. The Argentines loaded up some of their C-130's with >bombs during the Falkland Islands War, and failed to hit any British ships if >I remember correctly (I *know* that it any were hit, none sank). Earlier, >British Vulcan bomber raids failed in cratering the Stanley airfield. The use of C-130's as bombers was a very crude job. There was no bomb-sight. The bombs were just rolled out of the back. I'm not surprised they didn't hit any ships that way - they could, if they had wanted, perhaps hit something the size of a town. The Vulcan bomber raids did actually hit the Stanley airfield, and put one or two craters in the runway. The technique was to fly across the runway, dropping a stick of bombs as they went. The snag was that this only cut the runway in half, and the aircraft stationed by the Argentinians at Port Stanley were capable of taking off even with the reduced length of runway. This is a credit to the C-130 transport, which has quite a short take-off. I do have to wonder why the raids weren't more effective, since during the Battle of Britain the Luftwaffe did knock out some RAF bases using simple bombs. "Keyboard? How quaint!" - M. Scott Adrian Hurt | JANET: adrian@uk.ac.hw.cs UUCP: ..!ukc!cs.hw.ac.uk!adrian | ARPA: adrian@cs.hw.ac.uk
mst@relay.EU.net (Markus Stumptner) (03/20/91)
From: vexpert!mst@relay.EU.net (Markus Stumptner) >From article <1991Mar12.225105.25754@cbnews.att.com>, by adrian@cs.heriot-watt.ac.uk (Adrian Hurt): > The Vulcan bomber raids did actually hit the Stanley airfield, and put one > or two craters in the runway. [...]. The snag was that this only cut the > runway in half, and the aircraft stationed by the Argentinians at Port Stanley > were capable of taking off even with the reduced length of runway. It became useless for the Argentine jet fighters, who thus had to take off on the mainland and had extremely short endurance in the war zone, with almost no fuel for dogfights. (I concede that it is somewhat improbable, though, that they would have been permanently stationed at Stanley where they could be subjected to further bombings.) The Pucara ground attack aircraft stationed at Stanley probably would have been able to take off from a paved road as well. > The technique was to fly across the runway, > dropping a stick of bombs as they went. [...] > I do have to wonder why the raids weren't more effective, since during the > Battle of Britain the Luftwaffe did knock out some RAF bases using simple > bombs. In fact, they did not fly over the runway at all. I once read a detailed account of it, but don't remember the source. The raid was flown by a single bomber. I have always been extremely impressed by that attack, not only because of the range (the Vulcan was refueled seventeen times during the flight), but also because of the way they did it. It is a wonder they hit the runway at all. The plane came in at low height to evade the radar at Stanley and rose to 10 000 ft for the final run. The pilot then started a climb and the bombs were released on an ascending trajectory with the plane still 3 miles away from the coast. The pilot immediately made a sharp turn and went on the return course to Ascension island at full throttle. When the bombs hit half a minute or a minute later, the plane was just rising through a hole in the clouds and the crew got a short look at the lights of Port Stanley with the explosions flickering at the airfield. 1. I do not remember how they homed in on the airfield. There was no visual contact before the attack. 2. I do not know why they did it that way and have never heard of any other attack of that kind. I guess they wanted to absolutely avoid the plane being hit by AA fire over the airfield. You do not want to start a war with a bomber raid that has 100% casualties, which is easily achieved when there's only one plane to lose. 3. I do not know why they did not repeat the attack. Perhaps they were content with preventing the use of the airfield for fighters. -- Markus Stumptner mst@vexpert.dbai.tuwien.ac.at University of Technology Vienna vexpert!mst@uunet.uu.net Paniglg. 16, A-1040 Vienna, Austria ...mcsun!vexpert!mst
consp04@bingsuns.cc.binghamton.edu (Dan Boyd) (03/22/91)
From: consp04@bingsuns.cc.binghamton.edu (Dan Boyd) In article <1991Mar20.035047.2613@cbnews.att.com>, vexpert!mst@relay.EU.net (Markus Stumptner) writes: |> It is a wonder they hit the runway at all. [...] The pilot then |> started a climb and the bombs were released on an ascending |> trajectory with the plane still 3 miles away from the coast. Tossing iron bombs around this way would not be accurate enough. This means to me that they were using laser-guided bombs and had someone (SAS commandos, perhaps) on the ground with a designator. Otherwise, this was quite a tricky piece of flying. Daniel F. Boyd consp04@bingvaxu.cc.binghamton.edu CONTACT ALIENS BOTH BENEVOLENT AND EVIL! DON'T STIR OR DISTURB THE RICE! 210526315789473684
glo@Eng.Sun.COM (Gary Owens) (03/23/91)
From: glo@Eng.Sun.COM (Gary Owens) In article <1991Mar22.042833.21632@cbnews.att.com> consp04@bingsuns.cc.binghamton.edu (Dan Boyd) writes: > >In article <1991Mar20.035047.2613@cbnews.att.com>, >vexpert!mst@relay.EU.net (Markus Stumptner) writes: >|> It is a wonder they hit the runway at all. [...] The pilot then >|> started a climb and the bombs were released on an ascending >|> trajectory with the plane still 3 miles away from the coast. > > Tossing iron bombs around this way would not be accurate >enough. This means to me that they were using laser-guided bombs and >had someone (SAS commandos, perhaps) on the ground with a designator. > Otherwise, this was quite a tricky piece of flying. Not extraordinarily tricky - on several "older" generation planes (A4 and the like) their bombing computers (haven't seen the newer generation planes cockpits that close) have modes for (among other things) "loft" and "over the shoulder". What was described above is "loft", where the pilot pulls up (at the right time/rate) before reaching the target to establish vertical momentum and the bombs are released at the right moment that causes them to follow a trajectory that will hit the target. The advantage is that you don't have to overfly the target, though the increased flight path of the bombs causes more wind/ aerodynamic drift of the bombs. Think of "loft" as an underhand pitch or lob. (some pictures - limited by ascii resolution) plane turns aside --\ o X - bomb "lofts" up and then down. . X X plane approaches .rX-release X & pulls up --\ . X ..>........... . X ---------------------------------- TARGET ------------ |<------ D ------>| "D" is calculated by the bombing computer based on aerodynamics of bomb, aircraft speed/altitude, G's, position of aircraft & target, etc. For some real rough back of the envelope calculations: A 10000 feet per minute climb is pretty easy from down low, which is 166 feet per second vertical speed. Say 500 mph horizontal - 733 fps. Add these two vectors together gets you 751 fps - not exactly a stellar "muzzle velocity", but you're starting high in the air (for an elevation advantage and lower air resistance) and the bomb has a low drag compared to bullets. Or grenades - the MK 19 grenade machine gun posting listed it at 790 fps with range of 2200 meters (1.4 miles). "Over the shoulder" is to fly over the target, pull up at the right time so you eventually are near/actually inverted flying back toward over the target. The bombs were release by your trusty bombing computer sometime after you're past the vertical, so they fly up and then "backwards" (hence "over the shoulder") and down onto the target. More accurate (since you "mark" when you actually cross over the target so the computer has a more precise fix), but unhealthy if the target is shooting back fiercely. You do get the advantage of coming in low and fairly fast to identify the target, and afterwords being high (lots of kinetic energy) and inverted so you can see what is coming back at you and can dodge it while you get the **** out of there. X bomb goes up... then must come down X X finally, get away! < ............X . X X r - "bombs away" X . X . X . pull up fly in low X . .......................>..............M..... fly over, tell computer "mark" ---------------------------------- TARGET ------------ It isn't pinpoint accuracy like laser/IR guided weapons, but given good wind data, bomb weights, etc., not much less accurate than a plain drop. It is also far easier to achieve surprise by lofting or over-the-shoulder than by dive bombing, even though accuracy suffers. This isn't rocket science (bombs "fly" unpowered ;-), just simple ballistics and aerodynamics. Given a couple of racks of bombs, I can see how some would end up on the runway if that was the target. CEP is on the order of several hundred feet best case - not enough for a tank or hard bunker, but hell on runways. CEP - circular error of probability - diameter of the area within which the odds are the bomb/shell/missile/... will hit. -- Gary Owens glo@Eng.sun.com 415-336-9152 Sun Microsystems, Desktop Systems Software
mst@relay.EU.net (Markus Stumptner) (03/25/91)
From: vexpert!mst@relay.EU.net (Markus Stumptner)
They were standard unguided 1000 lb iron stick bombs, somewhere between
1 and 2 dozen. There was an official photograph published which showed a long
straight line of craters at an angle of about 30 degrees to the runway, with
one hit on the runway itself.
> Otherwise, this was quite a tricky piece of flying.
My sentiments exactly.
--
Markus Stumptner mst@vexpert.dbai.tuwien.ac.at
University of Technology Vienna vexpert!mst@uunet.uu.net
Paniglg. 16, A-1040 Vienna, Austria ...mcsun!vexpert!mst