Can everyone see know that 55s posts are starting to change now he seems not so certain of his facts ie phalanx could have been camoflauged he just doesnt seem soo sure now

Ok MojoUK
I do not know if those photos were published by the British press.
Me he gave Jorge Cruz them who obtained from prived collections of collectors of British photos.

come on admit 55 you are not soo sure now "maybe he gave Jose Cruz" this doesnt sound like someone who is confident of his facts admit it m8 its all fantasy and speculation with no facts. These pictures were obviously official pictures as they were taken from a RN aircraft and i do not see what difference it makes whether the photos were in colour or black and white alot of the photos in the Falklands were in black and white

Señor Mojouk, voy a ayudarlo a ampliar su cultura general con el uso de algún traductor en línea.
De forma tal que comience a aprender un segundo idioma, el español.

Como usted bien dice, esas dos fotos han sido tomadas desde algún helicóptero en estacionaria.
Yo presumo que ha sido desde algún helicóptero del Hermes.
Aunque también puede haber sido tomada desde un helicóptero del Illustrious.

Hay miles de fotos tomadas por tripulantes de helicopteros, buques y demás, que nunca han sido poublicadas por la prensa británica ni por el gobierno británico.

Muchas de ellas están en colecciones privadas que se publican en páginas web.
Nuestro compañero Jorge Cruz ha investigado decenas de miles de páginas inglesas (muchas en foros)
Yo no recuerdo haberlas visto en ningún libro o revista inglesa.
Y en las paginas de las que se han extraido se habla del Invincible y no del Illustrious.

1)Si usted tiene una publicación del gobierno británico o de la prensa británica donde además de mostrar ambas fotos, se admita que el buque es el Illustrious, le agradeceria que la suba para enriquecer el debate.

2)También usted esta en deuda acerca de la foto de mayor resolución que ha prometido, donde se muestra la llegada del reluciente buque clon a Portsmouth el 17/9/82.
En ella podremos confirmar la presencia de un cañon Palanx a proa, torpemente disimulado o enmascarado.

3)Aun esta en deuda el señor Stumason que ha prometido invitar al debate a un miembro de la tripulación del HMS-Invincible.

Entiendo que esto es un debate entre ciudadanos de dos paises que estuvieron innecesariamente en guerra.
Y que ambos tenemos la necesidad y el derecho de llegar a la verdad, por dolorosa que sea.

Y no lo dude, fue una guerra innecesaria, si UK tenía intereses en esas Islas debió haberlas defendido mejor.
Y si la Sra Tatcher tendio una trampa al dictador Galtieri, para luego recuperar las Islas y el prestiogio de la Royal nay, y de paso salvar a los astilleros de buques de superficie, y también recuperar su popularidad, le salio mal.

La Armada Argentina, recuperó las islas usurpadas en 1833, sin tener ninguna pérdida material.

La Royal Navy por la negligencia o el mal accionar de Ttacher, debió perder una enorme cantidad de buques de guerra, aviones y helicópteros.
Sufrir enormes y nunca reconocidas perdidas humanas.
Y gastar alrededor de 70.000 u 80.000 millones de dólares, para volver la situación a la del 1 de abril de 1982.

En la confrontación directa entre armadas o marinas:
La Royal Navy (10 veces mas grande) hundio dos buques de la ARA con destino de desguace (Belgrano y Santa Fé) (sus gemelos 9 de Julio y Santiago del Estero, estaban o en desguace o decomisionados)

la Armada Argentina (10 veces menor) hundio 5 buques de la RN y dejo fuera de combate a un Crucero:
-HMS Invincible: SUE (compartido con la FAA)
-HMS-Shefield : SUE
-Atlantic Conveyor: SUE
-HMS-Ardent : A4Q + Bombas
-HMS-Antelope : A4Q + Bombas (compartido con la FAA)

-HMS-Glamorgan: Exocet MM-38 lanzado desde tierra ITB Averiado, fuera de combate.

(La FAA por su cuenta hundio al HMS-Coventry y al RFA-Sir Galahad)

Fue una guerra totalmente innecesaria, fomentada por dos gobiernos mentirosos e impopulares.
Si a UK le interesaban las Islas, debió haberlas defendido mejor y evitar la guerra.
Pero esto pasa cuando los gobiernos desean ganar popularidad o hacer negocios con la guerra.
Siempre sale mal.
Como esta ocurriendo en este momento en Irak.

Las guerras por razones economicas o por propaganda salen mal.
Y las pagan los ciudadanos.
Conocer la verdad será bueno para los argentinos y tambien para los britanicos.

Quedo esperando toda la evidencia que han prometido usted y el señor Stumason.

[edit on 26-9-2005 by 55heroes]

Yes Vince went for a refit on 19/9/82 - but you don't need to be in dry dock for a refit. In fact I doubt she needed a major one, just a post war one. Perfectly reasonable to have visitors in this time.

I`ve contacted both teh BBC and ITV for footage taken in 1982 of the arrival home of the ships - there is enough footage.


So , if TV footage taken from the time is shown , will 55heroes FINALLY shut up about this rubbish?

The tv footage will show close ups of the ships arrival

and you CANNOT remove phalanx at sea , or they would have added one during the war!

ohh my god
Here say that the Vince go to refit the day after return, the 18/9/82

But Mister MojoUK said thar he visited this ship in october 1982, in Portsmouth.

Other contradiction !!
This is not a contradiction, I can tell you that this is a genuine photo of Mojouk on the flightdeck as a boy and also on the bridge, I should, I have also been there.
The other information that is wrong in the statement given about where the Invincible is launched, is that yes the keel was laid in 1973 - saw it, witnessed it, she was launched in 1977 Tuesday actually at 11.25! was there in person. The completion date that you give is 11 July 1980 ???? this in fact was the day that the Invincible was commissioned and finally handed over to the RN. The Invincible left Barrow on the 15th March 1980, so was already completed 4 months prior. So they do make a few mistakes in those statements!!!!

L

Jim, I do not believe that they allow to raise a ship in refit.
And I do not believe either that refit has been made in Portsmouth. Perhaps our friend mojouk raised the other twin ship, that arrived at principle of November of 1982.
The Argentina Navy does not allow the visits of public to its ships when they are in refit.

Originally posted by Jim30
Yes Vince went for a refit on 19/9/82 - but you don't need to be in dry dock for a refit. In fact I doubt she needed a major one, just a post war one. Perfectly reasonable to have visitors in this time.

There is no way that this would be a major refit like you say!
She had only been in service just over 2 years, so she wouldn't need one so early. Sometimes it's just maintanence work! and short work at that.
The phalanx was designed for 1977! hence the same year Vinci was launched.

L

Originally posted by 55heroes
Jim, I do not believe that they allow to raise a ship in refit.
And I do not believe either that refit has been made in Portsmouth. Perhaps our friend mojouk raised the other twin ship, that arrived at principle of November of 1982.
The Argentina Navy does not allow the visits of public to its ships when they are in refit.

LOOK! this was a picture of Mojouk on the Flightdeck OK! he will have had the opportunity being in Portsmouth.
I don't any proof! that the Invincible is OK, I got this 2 months ago when I boarded the Ship myself and a photo of me stood on the flighdeck OK!!
and there have been lots of times.

Please read other peoples posts clearly before you make any comments! of course the pictures where taken on board the Invincible, there is NO OTHER SHIP!!!!

Aircraft Carriers And The Falklands War

Out of all the different units involved in the 1982 Falklands Conflict is perhaps the aircraft carrier participation that people most remember. For a few months Invincible and Hermes were household names and some of the most vivid images of the war are of their victorious return to Portsmouth. However it could have been a very different story and as the task force left for the South Atlantic in April 1982 many feared that the carriers would never return....

The Royal Navy Carrier Fleet Before the War

When the Argentine forces invaded the Falkland Islands in early April 1982 the Navy could only immediately supply two carriers- Invincible and Hermes. The only other carriers on the scene was Illustrious, then under construction at Swan Hunter, and Bulwark laid up in Portsmouth Dockyard. The 1960s and 70s had seen the run down of Britain's carrier fleet, most notably with the cancellation of the CVA fleet carrier replacement programme. In its place the Navy ordered a class of anti-submarine helicopter cruisers that over time developed into the Invincible Class small fleet carriers. Under the 1981 defence review the newly commissioned Invincible was to have been sold to the Australians where she would serve as the R.A.N's flagship (named H.M.A.S Australia) replacing the long serving Melbourne (ex- H.M.S Majestic). Indeed the future was bleak for the Invincible Class as a whole- even if they weren't sold there was the possibility of mothballing at least one of them. The sale of Invincible was part of a number of reductions (including that of the Ice Patrol ship Endurance) that sent the wrong messages to Argentina regarding Britain's willingness and ability to defend the Falkland Islands. Meanwhile after some years in reserve at Chatham the aircraft maintenance ship (and former aircraft carrier) Triumph had been sold for breaking up in Spain in 1981. Together with the conversion of Albion, Bulwark and Hermes into commando carriers during the 1960's and the cancellation of the CVA programme meant that the Ark Royal and Eagle would be Britain's last true aircraft carriers. Eagle was decommissioned at Portsmouth on 26th January 1972 and later that year she was towed to Devonport where she remained until the 13th October 1978 when she left for breaking up in Cairnryan. Ark Royal served slightly longer arriving at Devonport for the final time on 4th December 1978. She remained there until the 22nd September 1980 when, despite public dismay and some calls to preserve her, she began her tow to Cairnryan for breaking up and by the time of the Falklands war she was nearing the end of the scrapping process. However in a stroke of luck the commando carrier Hermes had undergone a second conversion, this time to a ski-ramp carrier during a £30,000,000 refit in 1981. She was now capable of operating the new Sea Harrier aircraft that would prove so vital in outcome of the war.

Operations

Hermes and Invincible both left Portsmouth on the 5th of April 1982 after a frantic period of preparation. Invincible sailed under the command of Captain J.J. Black and was joined by nine Sea King helicopters of 820 Squadron and eight Sea Harriers from 801 Squadron in the channel. Both vessels were tempting targets as not only were they amongst the largest, most powerful and important units of task force but Prince Andrew was a Sea King helicopter pilot from 820 Squadron on Invincible, while Hermes was the flagship of the task force with Admiral Woodward aboard. Although the threat principally came form the air there was also the somewhat smaller, yet none the less dangerous threat from the submarines beneath the waves. This threat was confirmed after the war when it was revealed an Argentine submarine fired six torpedoes at the British fleet, none of which had any success. In addition the Argentines believed they had hit Invincible when they struck both Sheffield and Atlantic Conveyor. However this set back did not stop the Argentine propaganda machine claiming to have sunk Hermes on three separate occasions. In fact, to this very day, many Argentines still believe they hit Invincible either sinking her or forcing her to put into Cape Town for repairs. As for the actual participation in the war both Invincible and Hermes served as floating airfields. Sea Harriers from the two ships were involved in air strikes following the initial Vulcan raid on Port Stanley and were frequently in action after that. Hermes original air group was later augmented with Sea Harriers flying from Ascension. With the end of the war Hermes sailed for the UK on 5th July while Invincible left a little later on, on the 29th July. She was relived by her brand new sister ship Illustrious on 27th August 1982. Hermes arrived back at Portsmouth on the 21st July to a terrific welcome (including a flypast by a Victor and three Sea Harriers) that was repeated for Invincible together with destroyer Bristol on the 17th September. Invincible had spent 166 days at sea- believed to be the longest period of continuous carrier operations.



Above: (left) H.M.S Invincible passes the Round Tower as she leaves Portsmouth. A Sea Harrier can be seen on the ski ramp and her sailors line the decks. Uncertain water lay ahead: many believed the situation would be resolved by the time the task force reached the Falklands while others feared the navy would loose one or both carriers.

'Veinticinco De Mayo'

Of course Britain wasn't alone in operating carriers. The Argentine Navy had one too- Veinticinco De Mayo (named after Argentina's national day: the 25th of May). She started life as the British Light Fleet Carrier H.M.S Venerable, launched in December 1943. After a brief career with the Royal Navy, Venerable was sold to the Netherlands and renamed 'Karel Doorman' in 1968. She suffered a major fire and was re-sold to Argentina in 1961 and named 'Veinticinco De Mayo'. The deployment of four nuclear powered 'hunter-killer' submarines by the Royal Navy and the subsequent sinking of the General Belgrano by one of them, Conqueror, confined most of the Argentine fleet to home waters. Veinticinco De Mayo, the largest unit in the Argentine Navy, was no exception. For the duration of the conflict she remained in Argentina's shallow coastal waters and played little part in the conflict. However some of her aircraft were later flown on raids from mainland Argentina. If it hadn’t been for Conqueror and the other nuclear submarines a direct confrontation between the Argentine and British carriers may have occurred.

Offer from the Americans

The departure of Invincible and Hermes to the South Atlantic raised one important question in those both in the Falklands and at home- what would happen if either carrier was disabled or destroyed? Their presence was paramount to the mission. As Admiral Woodward had said "Loose Invincible and the operation in severely jeopardized, lose Hermes and the operation is over". The other British commando carrier, an earlier sister ship of Hermes, Bulwark, was laid up in No.3 basin Portsmouth Dockyard. She underwent a survey to see the suitability of sending her if the war continued or a carrier was rendered inactive and work was started to take her out of mothballs. However her re-entry into service would take some time by which time the war may well be over and at worst lost. The other option was waiting for the completion of Illustrious. She was in fact completed 3 months early and after hurried and brief sea trials headed down south, commissioning en-route (20th June 1982). Lessons learnt from the war had already been put into practice and she was fitted with the Phalanx close in weapon system- previously considered too expensive. Illustrious arrived on scene as the conflict ended but if it had gone on any longer her arrival would have given the battle weary fleet a significant boost. If one of the carriers had been lost it was likely that the British forces would have been pulled back, regrouped and waited for Illustrious and Bulwark before attempting to retake the islands a second time. Although never officially acknowledged there are reports that during the conflict the United States offered Britain the loan of a US Navy aircraft carrier should the worst happen to either Invincible or Hermes. One source claims the American carrier in question was the U.S.S Eisenhower* while another source suggests that it was the Keersage† . The Guam and Oriskany are also mentioned and it is rumoured that Royal Navy officers visited the Norfolk navy yard to inspect two Iwo Jima class vessels. Regardless of the ship and regardless of weather the offer was even made it is almost certain that it would have been turned down or would never have materialised. The problems involved with manning and equipping a foreign vessel of this size in a time of the war would be difficult to say the least. Where would the Royal Navy get the manpower for a capital ship of this size? After all there were and still are significant technical differences between RN and USN equipment. Then there are the political implications. The US and UK had always had a 'special relationship' but this would be pushing it to its limits. By merely supporting UK the USA were jeopardizing relations with South America and additionally the American public may not have the same resolve to lend American equipment to fight a battle thousands of miles from not only the United States but also from Britain. * The Secret War for the Falklands by Nigel West † Falklands Documentary on the Discovery Channel.

Temporary Carriers

Such was the need to transport and operate aircraft in the Falklands, the Ministry of Defence requisitioned many merchant ships. Whilst some were converted to hospital ships or troop carriers several were converted into basic aircraft carriers. The container ship Atlantic Convoyer was one such vessel. She had been laid up on the River Mersey but she and her sister ship Atlantic Causeway were taken to Devonport where they were hurriedly converted into 'harrier carriers'. However, the Atlantic Convoyer was one of the more unfortunate participants of the war. On May 25th she was struck by an exocet missile and was immediately evacuated as fire spread through the ship. Together with her loss was the destruction of 3 Chinook and six Wessex helicopters and the tragic deaths of 12 men, including several from the merchant navy. Other Royal Navy ships had some aircraft capability including the helicopter support ship RFA Engadine and the Assault ships Fearless and Intrepid ,which at one point during the campaign both successfully landed Sea Harriers on their helicopter flight decks.



Above: Two very different views of the SS Atlantic Convoyer. (left) The Atlantic Convoyer was converted into a temporary 'harrier carrier' thanks to the versatility of the Sea Harrier which has vertical takeoff and landing ability. As can be seen from the photograph the flight deck was shielded from the elements by walls of containers at each side.(right) The Atlantic Convoyer after it was struck by the exocet.

Carriers After the War

Soon after the war ended and to the relief of many the sale of Invincible was cancelled and H.M.A.S Melbourne decommissioned on 30th June 1982 without replacement although the Australians were offered the elderly Hermes instead. This decision appears to have been vindicated with Invincible's successful operation off the former Yugoslavia and off Iraq. After decommissioning two years after the end of the war Hermes was laid up at Portsmouth dockyard until 1986 when it was announced she had been sold to the Indian navy. She had a refit at Devonport in 1987 and was handed over to her new owners who commissioned her on May 12th 1987 and renamed her 'Virrant'. She has finally been replaced by a new purpose built commando carrier named Ocean. Hermes sister ship Bulwark never did sail again other to the breakers yard. Finally, the Veinticinco De Mayo was laid up in 1993, plans to refit her for further service never materialised and in December 1998 she left Argentina bound for the scrapyard at Alang, India. Some of her equipment was sold to Brazil for use on her sister ship 'Minas Generias' (ex-H.M.S Vengeance).

The Falklands proved the need for Britain to have two operational carriers at any one time. This has been hard to meet even with three carriers- taken late 1999 for example. Illustrious is active, Invincible is undergoing a period of maintenance in dry dock at Portsmouth while Ark Royal has just started a major refit at Rosyth. The loss of Britain's fleet carriers will be reversed in the future with the introduction of two large carriers from 2012.

Our carriers are two Hercules KC-130, tank planes for refueled in the air.
The old veteran carrier Class Colossus (Made in Egnland) only abort a attack the 1/5/82 because there was not wind, to A4Q full bombs.

But our glorious naval aviation changed the rules of the air-naval operations.

The Super Etendard swarm, sank 3 modern ships without no material or human loss.
An historical record without precedents.
And against NATO !!

The A4Q swarm, sank 2 class 21 frigates, only with bombs.

Without carriers, we have the best naval aviation of the planet.
The best pilots.
The best tactics and strategy in air-naval operations.
Proven in real combat
Not in games military or simulators of flight

In order to practice and to improve your Spanish


Artículo de notable impacto emotivo, publicado por
el diario ABC de Madrid, de su corresponsal José María Carrascal, que
expresaba:
La audacia de los pilotos argentinos en los combates del Atlántico
Sur:
"Son sólo unos centenares -o eran- pero llevan sobre sus hombros el
último peso de esta guerra, no menos cruenta por no estar declarada.

Parece, sin embargo, no importarles la muerte de sus camaradas o la
posibilidad de perder la suya en la próxima salida.
Pocas veces se ha visto tanta gallardía ante la vida, tanta responsabilidad ante la muerte, tanta consideración ante los propios, tanta audacia ante lo
ajeno.
Actúan en condiciones extremas con el objetivo a quinientos
kilómetros y el carburante justo para estar sobre él tres o cuatro
minutos y regresar. Un ojo puesto en el blanco, el otro, en la aguja
del depósito, olvidándose de los misiles que llegan por todas parte,
de los barcos, de los aparatos enemigos, de las baterías de tierra.

La mayoría de sus reactores no tienen radar "todo tiempo", lo que les
obliga a actuar de día, y dejar las nubes, a esquivar la niebla.

Otros como los Super Etendard, tienen que ser repostados en vuelos,
tan corto es su radio de acción.
No importa.
Como aquel príncipe de Gracián que suplía la cortedad de su espada dando un paso adelante, ellos bajan un poco más hasta rozar los palos de las fragatas inglesas, aunque eso signifique consumir más combustible.
Lo hacen una y otra vez, como si fueran meros ejercicios.
Como si no se jugaran la vida -con bastantes posibilidades de
perderla- en cada misión.
En máquinas revisadas por los mecánicos a la carrera. Tras ser recargadas de bombas, cohetes y combustible.
Con el tiempo justo de echar una cabezada, tomarse un café, examinar las
siluetas de los navíos enemigos que aún quedan. Y salir de nuevo.
Sin alardes, sin hablar siquiera. Dejando a los ingleses la cuenta de
los derribos y de los impactos. Ellos se limitan a protagonizarlos.
Sin aspavientos ni petulancia. Como si fuera la cosa más natural del
mundo.

No está de moda en nuestros días el panegírico de las glorias
militares y no estoy nada seguro que esta crónica lo sea; es la
calidad humana de los pilotos argentinos lo que inspira.

En un mundo
como el nuestro, donde la norma es exigir pero no dar, el ejemplo de
estos aviadores, dándolo todo sin pedir nada, ni siquiera un aplauso,
es de tal sobria elegancia que deslumbra en su lucidez.

La mente moderna necesita hacer un esfuerzo para abarcarlos y aun así no lo consiguen.

No dan la vida, naturalmente, por la Junta Militar.

Ni siquiera la dan -cree uno- por conceptos abstractos, como el honor o la patria.

La dan por algo muy concreto, muy precioso. por su comunidad, que les ha
encomendado su defensa, y en último término, por algo tan simple como
el cumplimiento del deber.

Individuos así ennoblecen toda especie.

En este caso particular nos ennoblecen sobre todo a los hispanos, a los
latinos, a quienes tan mal nos va en los últimos tiempos. ¡Con qué
dolor y orgullo lee uno esos dobles apellidos españoles e italianos,
casi de lápidas antiguas!
No sé si el sacrificio de estos pilotos devolverá las Malvinas a su
país.

Pero sé otra cosa, tal vez más importante, porque las Malvinas
tarde o temprano, y el mundo gira hoy muy rápido, serán argentinas.

Sé que cuando en adelante se imagine uno al argentino, ya no pensará
en el gaucho típico, en el engominado cantante de tangos o en la
presidente de revista.

Pensará en esos pilotos que han sabido morir por saber por qué vivían, privilegio hoy al alcance de muy pocos.

Es lugar común decir que Argentina ha sido bendecida por todos los
dones del Cielo y de la Tierra. Pero sobre todo, ahora lo vemos, por
sus hijos que se hicieron aviadores.

José María Carrascal /ABC Madrid Mayo 1982

NATO was in the Falklands?

USA Sidewinders AA missiles version L
USA SAtellite information
USA Ascension Island
France training against Mirages for Harriers Pilots
France not giving 9 exocets and 9 Super Etendarts, that was payed.

Yes, withuot NATO Allied, UK can´t reusurpe Flaklands/Malvinas

*snort*

The US sold missiles to ANYBODY who wasn't allied with the USSR at the time.
France and England have been doing exercises together for a long time. Many countries do. It's called Dissimilar Air Combat Training. The US learned the hard way in Vietnam that you don't learn much if you constantly train to fight the same type of airplane that you are flying. (Ie. Harrier vs Harrier)
The US also gave SR71 photos to Israel and Egypt during one of THEIR wars, does that mean we were involved in that one too?

It's a war. If you are allies with someone and they go to war against someone that you are selling equipment to, guess what, the deal goes out the window. Otherwise your allies get really pissed off, and try to screw you in the long run. You're going to be allies with them a lot longer than your euipment deal will last.

But the thing is 55Heros we did it we went half way around the world and evicted you from the Falklands. It dont really matter how we did it, it dont matter that we recieved help and Sidewinders from the US. It certainly dont matter that you couldnt get the Exorsets you had paid for because MI5 had you tied in knots trying get your hands on them. You really didnt expect us to play fair did you? My God man we were at war, old Maggie would have made a deal with the Devil if it meant the Task Force won the conflict.
Now please for goodness sake stop your belly aching and face facts.
You know what? If you had kept you Latin machismo in check for another 10 or so years we would have prob given you the god forsaken rock back like we gave China the Hong Kong islands but no Argentinas Junta had to go and get macho and Invade.


[edit on 26-9-2005 by Janus]

Originally posted by 55heroes
USA Sidewinders AA missiles version L
USA SAtellite information
USA Ascension Island
France training against Mirages for Harriers Pilots
France not giving 9 exocets and 9 Super Etendarts, that was payed.

Yes, withuot NATO Allied, UK can´t reusurpe Flaklands/Malvinas

Ascension isn't American you muppet. It is a UK dependancy. As for the Sidewinders, I'll think you'll find we were charged for them, as with every other weapons procurement.

The training is a given also, do you honestly expect NATO NOT to train with each other?

I'll think you'll find us training with the Yanks, Germans and French (as well as every other NATO ally) well before your little escapade in '82.

Originally posted by 55heroes
Without carriers, we have the best naval aviation of the planet.
The best pilots.
The best tactics and strategy in air-naval operations.
Proven in real combat
Not in games military or simulators of flight

This is the funniest crap I have read in my life.

The best pilots!!!!

The best tactics!!!

If they were so damn good, why did they score ZERO air-to-air kills against the SHAR during the campaign?

If they were so damn good, why did so many of them die over the South Atlantic?

By that standard I guess the Poles proved they were the best airforce in Europe in 1939.