9/11 Radar Tracking

Ultima1, re Vulcan tanker operations in the Falklands War

So you think they did not use them in the Falklands ? Any proof?

Here's a novel idea, how about YOU prove that they were. You have this strange approach where officially recorded dates are dismissed as false on nothing more than a whim. Show 'reasonable doubt', to coin a phrase as your own assertions are completely unreasonable and without foundation.

It is established historical fact that the RAF used only the Victor tankers of 55 and 57 Sqns during this war to support the Vulcans of 44Sqn. During the Falklands War 50Sqn was still a Vulcan B.2, hastily converted as the war ended.

Here a snip from 50Sqns own history;

while flying this version of the Vulcan that in April 1982 the squadron to was ordered to prepare several aircraft for possible conventional bombing operations during the Falklands War.
Although Vulcan bombing operations were carried out, none of fifty squadron's crews saw action during this time .

In June 1982 the Vulcan B2's were replaced with Vulcan B.2(K)'s and the squadron flew this variant until the retirement of all Vulcan's from line service was ordered. The final, at least up until to now, disbandment orders were issued on 21 March 1984.

Are you suggesting that the 50 Sqn history is lying about the operations of a converted obsolete bomber 25 years ago? Its hardly Aurora is it.



[edit on 31-3-2007 by waynos]

What does all this have to do with Radar tracking again?

Ultima-- you are one strange fella. Why do you want to deride Caustic's thread so badly?

Originally posted by Zaphod58
Will you please READ what I'm saying. I'm not saying that they don't fly them until the squadron is stood up.

So i guess i have to try to find some records so i can finally prove a point to you. Even if they probly did not do a record for emergencies.

So you have one standard of proof for us, and one for you then? We show you record after record after record, and that's not good enough, but you don't show us ANYTHING, but keep saying it's true, and expect us to believe your every word. Whatever.

Originally posted by waynos
Are you suggesting that the 50 Sqn history is lying about the operations of a converted obsolete bomber 25 years ago? Its hardly Aurora is it.

No, just trying to prove my point since you and zaphod do not want to beleive what i post.

Originally posted by Zaphod58
So you have one standard of proof for us, and one for you then? We show you record after record after record, and that's not good enough, but you don't show us ANYTHING, but keep saying it's true, and expect us to believe your every word. Whatever.

No, I am going to show proof to back up what i post. Since you will not believe what i post i want to show that i do know what i am talking about when i post something.

Excuse me if i do research, i happen to have a background in aircraft and do research as my work. Also i probly have more resources to research then you.

[edit on 31-3-2007 by ULTIMA1]

Oh sorry, I forgot that waynos and I hardly know anything about planes, and don't know how to research. Please, present us your proof then and show us how we're always wrong when it comes to planes.

Originally posted by Zaphod58
Oh sorry, I forgot that waynos and I hardly know anything about planes, and don't know how to research. Please, present us your proof then and show us how we're always wrong when it comes to planes.

I did not say you did not know anything about planes. I stated that i have a background in aviation and probly have more resources then you to research. Unless you can get a logon to something like the following site you do not know what i can research.

www.militaryperiscope.com...

Originally posted by Zaphod58
Oh sorry, I forgot that waynos and I hardly know anything about planes, and don't know how to research. Please, present us your proof then and show us how we're always wrong when it comes to planes.

Ok here is some proof that the Vulcan tankers were used in the falklands.

Some Vulcan bombers were also pressed into service as tankers to give additional temporary tanker capacity and the RAF’s Nimrod MR 2 maritime patrol aircraft had to be given refuelling probes to perform their tasks in the South Atlantic.

Here is the document that the quote is from.
i114.photobucket.com...

Here is the page the quote is on.
i114.photobucket.com...



[edit on 2-4-2007 by ULTIMA1]

The classic excuse that they couldnt see the planes because there was too much traffic and they turned off the transponders is total gibberish!

Our air defenses are designed to stop super-sonic fighter jets. And guess what? They sure as hell dont have transponders!

If you turn off the transponder, that sets off a red alert. Anytime there is a radar signature without a corresponding transponder identification, it raises red flags.

Why do you think they have transponders to begin with? The idea is that is a commercial plane has an FAA transponder code, they are likely not the threat. And, i know, this is some pretty sophisticated math here, but if you know who is NOT a threat, you can ignore them. Planes transmitting transponder codes can be filtered out, hence only non-transpondered radar blips remain on the screen.

How did you think they were going to find and stop a foreign airforce?

Do you know how the radar tracking in the US works? You have a lot of radars looking OUT of the country, watching for unknown aircraft coming INTO the US. Once planes are over the US then most of the radar tracking comes from FAA radar sites. There are HUGE holes in radar coverage over the United States, and in fact they're trying to SHUT DOWN primary radar sites all over the country. Our defenses were designed to stop threats ENTERING the United States, not threats coming from WITHIN the US.

Originally posted by Zaphod58
Do you know how the radar tracking in the US works? You have a lot of radars looking OUT of the country, watching for unknown aircraft coming INTO the US. Once planes are over the US then most of the radar tracking comes from FAA radar sites. There are HUGE holes in radar coverage over the United States, and in fact they're trying to SHUT DOWN primary radar sites all over the country. Our defenses were designed to stop threats ENTERING the United States, not threats coming from WITHIN the US.

So you did not respond to my post about the Vulcans.

Probably because it added nothing new. It states some Vulcans were pressed into use as tankers. we knew that. It says it was to make up capacity that was lacking. We knew that. It does not say they were flown in support of missions in the Falklands, which, given that the first tanker conversion flew from Woodford four days after the surrender, would have been pretty difficult.

That document shows just what waynos said. Everything that we've found so far about why they were needed and nothing about them flying in the Falklands.

Originally posted by waynos
Probably because it added nothing new. It states some Vulcans were pressed into use as tankers. we knew that. It says it was to make up capacity that was lacking. We knew that. It does not say they were flown in support of missions in the Falklands, which, given that the first tanker conversion flew from Woodford four days after the surrender, would have been pretty difficult.

Well lets see if i can straighten that out for you. Here is some more from the document.

But the British, although they had two squadrons of Victor tankers,

"""still discovered that to support a fighting force in the Falklands from Ascension Island, some 3,800 miles away, absorbed virtually the whole tanker force operating at three times its peacetime flying rate. Fifteen C-130 Hercules were rapidly modified with refuelling probes to enable them to make the 7,600 mile, 25-hour, return flight and some were converted to tankers. Some Vulcan bombers were also pressed into service as tankers to give additional temporary tanker capacity """

and the RAF’s Nimrod MR 2 maritime patrol aircraft had to be given refuelling probes to perform their tasks in the South Atlantic.

Now can you see that they were flown during the Falklands.

No, you are seeing what you want to see ultima, as usual. Like I said, it is telling you the reason why the conversion was requested and why these Vulcans were pressed into service as tankers. Does it say that aircraft were refuelled in the Falklands War by Vulcans? Doe it give missions or serials of aircraft actually used. How do you read that these aircraft were used in the conflict, when it clearly says they were converted because of the shortfall the conflict brought to light?

How do you reconcile the pretty vague statement that they were 'pressed into service', against the fact that in another thread on the subject (which you started) I have given you specific dates when the requirement was issued, when the first aircraft flew and when CA release was obtained. Yet you choose to accept the truth of this statement instead.

Originally posted by waynos
How do you reconcile the pretty vague statement that they were 'pressed into service', against the fact that in another thread on the subject (which you started) I have given you specific dates when the requirement was issued, when the first aircraft flew and when CA release was obtained. Yet you choose to accept the truth of this statement instead.

I choose to accept what official documents state.

Originally posted by Zaphod58
That document shows just what waynos said. Everything that we've found so far about why they were needed and nothing about them flying in the Falklands.

How much more do i need to post,, you will not believe official documents ?

Once you show me something that shows the date they flew it, and that it was in a mission in support of the Falklands War, then I'll admit you're right. You haven't, and there's more evidence to support that they flew just AFTER the Falklands ended than that they flew in the war as anything but bombers. You're document is worded too ambiguously to say it proves beyond a doubt that they flew in the Falklands.

How about this one then, a Falklands diary published on the Ministry of Defence website

Thursday 13 May


Woke up to sounds of Dave Stenhouse, Monty, John chatting to Sherlock/Turfrey - joint basic briefings. Appears options being looked at UK are Vulcan tankers being pursued by BAe Woodford.

MoD Falklands diary

Notice, in the middle of May, initial briefing that Vulcan tankers are being pursued in the UK by BAe at Woodford, not operated by the RAF in the South Atlantic.

You can go right through it, and this one, RAF Museum Falklands timeline in which every flying operation is recorded without a Vulcan Tanker coming into it once.

What about the first flight of XH561 on 18 June 1982 At Woodford. How much more precise could I possibly be.

This fact is also recorded in the register of Aircraft in British Military Service 1946-2000, published by Airlife in the Vulcan section.

Now, rather than saying this isn't good enough information, seeing as it was you that made the claim, how about you come up with something better?

[edit on 2-4-2007 by waynos]