Royal Navy Deployed Laser Weapons During the Falklands War

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Royal Navy Deployed Laser Weapons During the Falklands War

Posted by Unknown on Monday August 12, 2013 @04:02PM from the zap-zap-you're-dead dept.

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."

48 of 139 comments (clear)

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Yes, but... by Guspaz · 2013-08-12 16:05 · Score: 5, Informative

They were only strong enough to "dazzle" pilots, not do any actual damage.
1. Re:Yes, but... by Nidi62 · 2013-08-12 16:11 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Effective enough to keep the Falklands in the hands of the British, much to the consternation of the Argentinians. But hey, it does give them a perfect scapegoat to distract their population from any domestic issues.
  
  --
  The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
2. Re:Yes, but... by 0123456 · 2013-08-12 16:15 · Score: 3
  
  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.
3. Re:Yes, but... by TechyImmigrant · 2013-08-12 16:16 · Score: 4, 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.
  
  --
  I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
4. Re:Yes, but... by 0123456 · 2013-08-12 16:17 · Score: 4, 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.
5. Re:Yes, but... by MightyYar · 2013-08-12 16:27 · Score: 2
  
  My eyes! The goggles do nothing!
  
  --
  W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
6. Re:Yes, but... by 0123456 · 2013-08-12 16:35 · 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.
7. Re:Yes, but... by 93+Escort+Wagon · 2013-08-12 16:58 · Score: 4, 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.
  
  --
  #DeleteChrome
8. Re:Yes, but... by GNUALMAFUERTE · 2013-08-12 17:07 · Score: 3, 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.
  
  --
  WTF am I doing replying to an AC at 5 A.M on a Friday night?
9. Re:Yes, but... by Sir_Sri · 2013-08-12 17:20 · 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.
10. Re:Yes, but... by edwartr · 2013-08-12 17:25 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  The Argentine subs 'wreaking havoc'?!!? Argentina had TWO subs total. The 1st sub, the ARA Sante Fe was used to land some commandoes then later was caught on the surface by a helo and was too stupid to dive and so damaged by the helo's rockets and depth charges that it had to be beached on the coast with the crew later being captured. The 2nd sub, ARA San Luis, did patrol and did make three attacks on British ships but never hit ANY targets and were counter-attacked for over 20hours. The sub was in bad shape as its fire-control systems were completely down requiring all attacks to be calculated and launched manually. There were problems with torpedoes, equipment, etc. Argentinian submarines didn't do much and didn't effect the outcome of the war at all. Now the British had three subs in the area with 2, the HMS Spartan and HMS Splendid being mainly used as successful scouts of the location and movement of Argentinian naval vessels. And the 3rd sub, the HMS Conqueror, not only engaged but also sunk the Argentine Cruiser ARA General Belgrano with heavy loss of life. It did this using WWII vintage straight-running torpedoes instead of modern torps. It easily left the scene while the Belgrano sank. After the loss of the Belgrano, all Argentinian Naval ships stayed within 12 miles of the Argentine coast for the rest of the war. The Argentinians on the Belgrano and escorts had no idea the Conqueror was even there until her torpedoes stuck. Where as the British surface ships could detect and defeat the Argentine subs and were not detered by them at all. Argentinian subs - did nothing to really help their side and in fact lost half of their sub fleet while doing no damage to any British vessels but British subs had no losses, sank an enemy cruiser after which the entire Argentine Navy stayed within 12 miles of their own shores never venturing out to even hint at engaging the British. British subs sinks one cruiser and the Argentinians give up the entire naval engagement/war. Heck, just the threat of British subs in the area of the Falklands kept Argentine merchant vessels from the area denying any sea-lift / support from Argentine ground forces. Source: http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA279554
11. Re:Yes, but... by cusco · 2013-08-12 17:59 · Score: 2
  
  I knew of the Falklands Islands their location from the world map on the wall growing up, so when I read in the Wall Street Journal in (IIRC) 1981 that British Petroleum had hit petroleum drilling on the continental shelf near the Falklands I had a pretty good idea where they were talking about. I remember it being interesting that BP had more experience than anyone at the time working in that type of conditions because of their North Sea development. If BP had a few more years to explore the British government probably wouldn't have spent all that money holding onto the islands, since so far they haven't found any exploitable fields.
  
  --
  "Think about how stupid the average person is. Now, realise that half of them are dumber than that." - George Carlin
12. Re:Yes, but... by sortius_nod · 2013-08-12 18:04 · Score: 4, 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. ;)
13. Re:Yes, but... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-08-12 18:08 · 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.
14. Re:Yes, but... by Cochonou · 2013-08-12 18:39 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  It is unknown how much information the French gave about the Exocet missile and how effective the jamming was, especially given that there has been two other British ships killed by Exocets missiles after the Sheffield. However, what is very well known is that once the war started, there was a world-wide cooperation between the French and the British to prevent the Argentinians from procuring additional Exocet missiles from every weapon market, effectively leaving them with a very limited supply of Exocets. There were a lot of behind-the-scenes negotiations (sometimes quite rough) between the French and the British to make this happen.
15. Re:Yes, but... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-08-12 18:45 · 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.
16. Re:Yes, but... by Your.Master · 2013-08-12 18:50 · Score: 3, 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.
17. Re:Yes, but... by Cochonou · 2013-08-12 18:52 · Score: 2
  
  And to elaborate a bit of the "very limited supply" of Exocet missiles the Argentinians had, we are talking about a total number of 5 or so.
18. Re:Yes, but... by Richard_at_work · 2013-08-12 19:00 · Score: 4, 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.
19. Re:Yes, but... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-08-12 19:22 · Score: 2, Funny
  
  "no actual damage"? They could permanently blind pilots.
  Look on the bright side.
  I see what you did there.
20. Re:Yes, but... by beckett · 2013-08-12 19:50 · Score: 4, 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.
21. Re:Yes, but... by jklovanc · 2013-08-12 19:52 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  from this;
  
  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.
22. Re:Yes, but... by hawkinspeter · 2013-08-12 19:56 · Score: 2
  
  As I recall, the infamous show (Panorama? Newsnight?) had a member of the public, a woman, grilling Thatcher about destroying the Belgrano. I don't think she was a journalist.
  
  --
  You're a temporary arrangement of matter sliding towards oblivion in a cold, uncaring universe
23. Re:Yes, but... by hawkinspeter · 2013-08-12 19:58 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  Just looked it up, it was a housewife called Diane Gould. http://news.bbc.co.uk/player/nol/newsid_6460000/newsid_6467800/6467889.stm?bw=nb&mp=wm
  
  --
  You're a temporary arrangement of matter sliding towards oblivion in a cold, uncaring universe
24. Re:Yes, but... by hawkinspeter · 2013-08-12 20:09 · Score: 2
  
  They weren't designed to cause permanent damage. They used visible light, so the chances are that the pilot would close their eyes before enough heat could damage their retinas. It's the non-visible lasers that cause the real damage as your eyes don't protect themselves and the focussed energy burns the retinas.
  
  --
  You're a temporary arrangement of matter sliding towards oblivion in a cold, uncaring universe
25. Re:Yes, but... by jklovanc · 2013-08-12 21:19 · Score: 2
  
  According to this 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.
26. Re:Yes, but... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-08-12 21:55 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  turns out aluminium can catch fire
  Silly Brits, they should have used aluminum instead!
27. Re:Yes, but... by maroberts · 2013-08-12 22:23 · 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.
  
  --
  Donte Alistair Anderson Roberts - hi son!
  Karma: Chameleon
28. Re:Yes, but... by iainr · 2013-08-12 23:30 · 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 Harriers were employed up threat but the lack of AEW meant that they often had to fly round the "box" to catch incoming raids. Also there was a significant difference in experience and performance in the use of the blue fox radar in the SHAR between 800 (Hermes) and 801 (Invincible) squadrons that meant that the 801 pilots could be more effective in the air defense role (see Sea Harrier Over The Falklands: A Maverick at War by Cmrd Sharkey Ward)
  The fact that ships carried LDS is not news, it's mentioned in Woodwards book and various other Falklands war literature and when I went aboard HMS Plymouth in Glasgow in the 1990's they had some details about it on dispay boards. AFAICR it was mounted in the bridge wing and was on the "wrong side" of the ship when she was attacked. Most publications I've seen LDS mentioned state that it was never actually used.
29. Re:Yes, but... by mrbester · 2013-08-12 23:39 · 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.
  
  --
  "Wait. Something's happening. It's opening up! My God, it's full of apricots!"
30. Re:Yes, but... by jareth-0205 · 2013-08-12 23:57 · 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.
31. Re:Yes, but... by AmiMoJo · 2013-08-12 23:58 · Score: 2
  
  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.
  
  --
  const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
  SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
32. Re:Yes, but... by iainr · 2013-08-13 00:01 · 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.
33. Re:Yes, but... by maroberts · 2013-08-13 00:08 · 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.
  
  --
  Donte Alistair Anderson Roberts - hi son!
  Karma: Chameleon
34. Re:Yes, but... by iainr · 2013-08-13 00:31 · 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 are like arseholes....sorry no Opinons are like arseholes every critic is one. Sorry nope I'll get it right eventually ... Opinions are like arseholes everyone has one, ignore the opinions be guided by the facts. Given that the argentinian Navy was actively seeking out the royal navy carrier battle goup with three task forces and two air attacks on the day the Belgrano was sunk it was obvious that someone was going to come off badly. Unfortunately for those onborad the belgrano she was it. Perhaps ironically as of all the Argentinian navy ships she was best suited to survive a torpedo hit, as some of her sisters did in big mistake II.
35. Re:Yes, but... by K.+S.+Kyosuke · 2013-08-13 03:00 · Score: 2
  
  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".
  
  --
  Ezekiel 23:20
36. Re:Yes, but... by jklovanc · 2013-08-13 04:44 · Score: 2
  
  When they are using heat seeking Sidewinders and being directed by radar picket ships the lack of radar is not insurmountable.
37. Re:Yes, but... by iainr · 2013-08-13 06:57 · Score: 2
  
  I meant the RAF pilots not the GR3s
Re:"We" who? by ColdWetDog · 2013-08-12 16:24 · Score: 4, Funny

Do you see any sharks?
Well, do you?
Not even a mutant sea bass here.
We're waiting....

--
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
Re:"We" who? by stox · 2013-08-12 17:01 · Score: 2

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.

--
"To those who are overly cautious, everything is impossible. "
Soviet laser tank by simonbp · 2013-08-12 17:33 · Score: 3, Funny

Yeah, it was just designed to blind optical sensors (and eyeballs), but still: SOVIET LASER TANK.
1. Re:Soviet laser tank by wonkey_monkey · 2013-08-12 19:09 · Score: 2
  
  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 it's a lot easier to ban something before everyone has them.
  
  --
  systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
Re:Laser - NOT ! by Cochonou · 2013-08-12 18:21 · Score: 2

Optronics are also a prime targets for lasers.
Prime Minister's Office files (PREM) files by auric_dude · 2013-08-12 18:28 · Score: 2

Can be ordered / viewed via the National Archive https://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/news/prem-highlights-1983.htm, http://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk/SearchUI/s/res?_q=PREM%2019/972, http://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk/SearchUI/Details?uri=C13497591 & http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2013/aug/01/national-archives-cabinet-papers-1983 As for use of the lasers weapons, I can find no links but with suspicions of such weapons being deployed on the Kirov I expect it added another thing to be considered by the attacking airman.
Not new nor classified by post_toastie · 2013-08-12 18:55 · Score: 3, Interesting

If you played the 'Harpoon' paper and pencil naval wargame in the late 80s, early 90s - not the later computer game that was based on the board game - this system was available to British ships in the Falkland Island scenarios. Given that the rules for the game were based on openly published data, I don't see how this is really 'news' to anyone. A quick search shows that there are references to this system in other publications in the 90s as well. The game effect was to cause planes at low altitude to break off their attack. For planes at very low altitude, namely Argentine pilots trying to fly below the engagement altitude of British SAMs, there was a percentage chance the plane would crash into the water.
Hardly news by XNormal · 2013-08-12 19:43 · Score: 2

"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)

--
Stop worrying about the risks of nuclear power and start worrying about the risks of not using nuclear power.
Re:Laser - NOT ! by animaal · 2013-08-12 22:18 · Score: 2

Yeah, but just watch their productivity once they learn about unions.
Not quite by sunking2 · 2013-08-13 01:00 · Score: 2

Circa 1982 what they really meant was that they had covert plans to bedazzle Argentine pilots denim jackets, thus reducing combat efficiency as they marveled at their new designer clothes at retail prices.