If CVA-01/02 are built, Falklands War happen?
- Thread starter abc123
- Start date
It depends on what the rest of the fleet is like. If the Navy gets the budget for a decent escort force, I doubt it, but if it ends up like the Navy is going to in a few years with 2 carriers, 11 frigates and a couple of guys in rowing boats, then I think they'd still try it.
I think it's a possibility. At cancellation the RN's carrier plan was for 3 CVA-01's, CVA-01 (HMS Queen Elizabeth) was scheduled for service in 1973/74, CVA-02 (HMS Duke of Edinburgh) in 1978/79 replacing Ark Royal and finally CVA-03 (HMS Ark Royal?) in 1983/84 replacing Eagle. I think that CVA-01 would have been due a refit at this stage so by 1982 the RN has Duke of Edinburgh and a modernised Eagle in service.
On the other side Argentina has an hugely unpopular junta, an economic collapse and the junta know that if they are toppled they will face retribution for all their crimes. The single biggest mistake Argentina made in 1982 was they failed to produce a plan for defending the islands as they assumed Britain wouldn't fight back. Knowing that Britain will make an attempt to reclaim the Falklands Argentinean defence planners have to come up with a strategy to defeat this attempt. The first thing they should do is extend Stanley airfield so it can operate Mirage III's and Super Etendards, they also need to use their navy more cleverly. A direct attack on 2 CV's is suicidal but Britain's operation is going to depend on immensely long SLOC's, while Duke of Edinburgh and Eagle give Britain much greater capability they have much greater resource requirements. If Argentina can sink some of the supply ships then the British task force may not have the supplies necessary to carry out the mission.
The air war could have been a lot like Vietnam with the Phantom, a superb interceptor but as agile as a cement lorry against the more nimble Mirages. If the British had obtained AIM-9L's and had learnt the tactics the USN used in the closing years of Vietnam then they may well have prevailed.
Therefore I think Argentina could have had enough going for it to make a Falklands invasion a viable proposition. It would still have been risky but desperate military regimes standing to face retribution for terrible crimes don't always think rationally!
On the other side Argentina has an hugely unpopular junta, an economic collapse and the junta know that if they are toppled they will face retribution for all their crimes. The single biggest mistake Argentina made in 1982 was they failed to produce a plan for defending the islands as they assumed Britain wouldn't fight back. Knowing that Britain will make an attempt to reclaim the Falklands Argentinean defence planners have to come up with a strategy to defeat this attempt. The first thing they should do is extend Stanley airfield so it can operate Mirage III's and Super Etendards, they also need to use their navy more cleverly. A direct attack on 2 CV's is suicidal but Britain's operation is going to depend on immensely long SLOC's, while Duke of Edinburgh and Eagle give Britain much greater capability they have much greater resource requirements. If Argentina can sink some of the supply ships then the British task force may not have the supplies necessary to carry out the mission.
The air war could have been a lot like Vietnam with the Phantom, a superb interceptor but as agile as a cement lorry against the more nimble Mirages. If the British had obtained AIM-9L's and had learnt the tactics the USN used in the closing years of Vietnam then they may well have prevailed.
Therefore I think Argentina could have had enough going for it to make a Falklands invasion a viable proposition. It would still have been risky but desperate military regimes standing to face retribution for terrible crimes don't always think rationally!
Proper carriers for the Royal Navy in the falkands
With proper carriers the RN can deploy the Blackburn Buccaneer an all weather ultra low level nuclear capable maritime strike aircraft. No Argie surface vessel is safe. Port Stanley airfield can be denied by the Buccaneer and Mirage will have major trouble finding, acquiring and intercepting them travelling at over 500kts at 100ft or less across the sea. (US F16 pilots gave up against the Buccaneer on Red flag in the late 70s when they dropped below 100ft and then hit the air brakes over the hot Nevada desert). Phantom is a capable CAP aircraft and we may be able to deploy Harrier if necessary. The RN biggest problem in 1982 was preserving the small carriers from air attack. The larger carriers carry more aircraft and project more air power to defend the carriers from further out thus allowing more flexibility in use, greater protection for other surface ships and ground forces. The Black Buck Operation was based on what we had that could strike Port Stanley Airfield. Whilst this option was still available Northwood, I'm sure would have sanctioned carrier strikes to deny the runway before considering the long range risker option of Vulcan. Without control of the air over the Falkands the ground troops are doomed. Similarly if the Argies could knock out the carriers then the Navy would have to withdraw. The war is won or lost in the air. We won the Falkands war with a far less capable air force than we could have deployed if we had large carriers. The Royal Navy was very lucky not to lose a lot more surface ships in Falkands Sound during the landings than it did. The range and refueling capability of the Bucanneer even gives it an offensive role against the southern air bases in Argentina such as at Punta Arenas, Ushuaia, and Commodoro Riverdaria. SF were landed on the main land and could have readily directed attacks aginst the key naval and air bases.
Not having proper carriers and still beating the largest air-force in the Southern Hemisphere with less than 20 Harriers illustrates what a fantastic job the Fleet Air Arm and RN did against a well motivated, determined, professionally trained and equipped air-force the Argentine were able to deploy in 1982 to retake the Falkands.
With proper carriers the RN can deploy the Blackburn Buccaneer an all weather ultra low level nuclear capable maritime strike aircraft. No Argie surface vessel is safe. Port Stanley airfield can be denied by the Buccaneer and Mirage will have major trouble finding, acquiring and intercepting them travelling at over 500kts at 100ft or less across the sea. (US F16 pilots gave up against the Buccaneer on Red flag in the late 70s when they dropped below 100ft and then hit the air brakes over the hot Nevada desert). Phantom is a capable CAP aircraft and we may be able to deploy Harrier if necessary. The RN biggest problem in 1982 was preserving the small carriers from air attack. The larger carriers carry more aircraft and project more air power to defend the carriers from further out thus allowing more flexibility in use, greater protection for other surface ships and ground forces. The Black Buck Operation was based on what we had that could strike Port Stanley Airfield. Whilst this option was still available Northwood, I'm sure would have sanctioned carrier strikes to deny the runway before considering the long range risker option of Vulcan. Without control of the air over the Falkands the ground troops are doomed. Similarly if the Argies could knock out the carriers then the Navy would have to withdraw. The war is won or lost in the air. We won the Falkands war with a far less capable air force than we could have deployed if we had large carriers. The Royal Navy was very lucky not to lose a lot more surface ships in Falkands Sound during the landings than it did. The range and refueling capability of the Bucanneer even gives it an offensive role against the southern air bases in Argentina such as at Punta Arenas, Ushuaia, and Commodoro Riverdaria. SF were landed on the main land and could have readily directed attacks aginst the key naval and air bases.
Not having proper carriers and still beating the largest air-force in the Southern Hemisphere with less than 20 Harriers illustrates what a fantastic job the Fleet Air Arm and RN did against a well motivated, determined, professionally trained and equipped air-force the Argentine were able to deploy in 1982 to retake the Falkands.
Frankly, the carriers matter a lot less in this situation than the replenishment ships. If the Brits skimp on fleet oilers in order to build their CVAs, they won't be able to sustain their fleet.
According to some recent interviews I've seen the logistics margin was hair thin IOTL. Bigger carriers and heavier air groups burn more fuel and consume more ordnance. Add fewer support ships to that mix and the fleet will run out of fuel before the ground troops can finish their job.
According to some recent interviews I've seen the logistics margin was hair thin IOTL. Bigger carriers and heavier air groups burn more fuel and consume more ordnance. Add fewer support ships to that mix and the fleet will run out of fuel before the ground troops can finish their job.
The far more capable Cva-o1 carriers would have given the FAA the ability to project more air power against the Argentinians. Of course that would mean a need to produce more support ships. But with the More capable carriers there might have been less loses to the Royal Navy from the enemy's Anti shipping Missiles. By the time of this war the British Fleet Air Arm would have learned a lot of the things that the US had learned from the Vietnam War and from the Israelis.
It is even possible that the Fleet Air Air might have been equipped with a British version of the F-14 thus giving the British a clear superiority in air power.
It should also be recalled that the British were quite concern with the Augies having diesel powered submarines built by the Germans so the nuclear submarine might have been kept busy trying to hunt them down.
It is even possible that the Fleet Air Air might have been equipped with a British version of the F-14 thus giving the British a clear superiority in air power.
It should also be recalled that the British were quite concern with the Augies having diesel powered submarines built by the Germans so the nuclear submarine might have been kept busy trying to hunt them down.
It was Callaghan in 1977 but you are correct!
Thatcher's government weren't paying attention to the situation and when they realised that the Argentineans were serious they announced the despatch of an SSN to the region. The Argentineans realised that if they wanted to invade they had to do it in the time before the sub arrived on station. What Britain should have done was bluff that the sub was already there as Argentina had no way of knowing.
HMS Ark Royal helped dissuade a potential Guatemalan invasion of British Honduras in the seventies- I suspect it's not a complete coincidence that the Argentinian invasion took place only after she was broken up.
Almost certainly not.
The Junta looked at the RN, the logistics involved, and the force correlation and chose to throw the dice. No one realized just how handy a fighter the Sea Harrier could be in the hands of a skilled pilot (we tend to forget that the Harrier was a ground attack aircraft with limited fighter cred before the Falklands) so the Junta figured the RN would be at severe disadvantage.
You replace/supplement the through deck cruisers with a couple of fully capable carriers and the calculation changes radically. Phantoms give the RN an overwhelming advantage in the air, especially with E-2C AWACS to provide raid warning. Even without the F-4, just the half hour of raid warning the Hawkeyes would provide would be enough to utter defeat potential Argentine air raids.
With both the Buccaneer AND Phantom to do ground/anti-shipping attack the Argentine navy would also be meat on the table and the Junta would know it. The full decks could also be a refueling source for heavy bombers (something that is often overlooked), bring the Vulcan into seroius usage.
Since the Junta was military officers, they could count bayonets. No way they go up against the RN in this case.
The Junta looked at the RN, the logistics involved, and the force correlation and chose to throw the dice. No one realized just how handy a fighter the Sea Harrier could be in the hands of a skilled pilot (we tend to forget that the Harrier was a ground attack aircraft with limited fighter cred before the Falklands) so the Junta figured the RN would be at severe disadvantage.
You replace/supplement the through deck cruisers with a couple of fully capable carriers and the calculation changes radically. Phantoms give the RN an overwhelming advantage in the air, especially with E-2C AWACS to provide raid warning. Even without the F-4, just the half hour of raid warning the Hawkeyes would provide would be enough to utter defeat potential Argentine air raids.
With both the Buccaneer AND Phantom to do ground/anti-shipping attack the Argentine navy would also be meat on the table and the Junta would know it. The full decks could also be a refueling source for heavy bombers (something that is often overlooked), bring the Vulcan into seroius usage.
Since the Junta was military officers, they could count bayonets. No way they go up against the RN in this case.
I think the British having those two carriers could be problematic to our air raids.
But on land, the problem was that the Junta was utterly stupid and sent mainly conscripts who hadn't really trained, from the Northern provinces(where talking about a cold day is saying 15°C), and without supplies or clothes.
And this is serious stuff when doing things in a cold climate. Most of my family is from Chaco, in the North, and when they came here(I live in Ushuaia), they almost literally freeze, they can't leave buildings, even if it's 10°C and they are heavily clothed.
The only real thing that could change the fate of the Invasion would be to sent people from more southern provinces, like Buenos Aires or the Patagonian ones, cloth them well and send the ones who already finished their service, not the ones who just started it.
But on land, the problem was that the Junta was utterly stupid and sent mainly conscripts who hadn't really trained, from the Northern provinces(where talking about a cold day is saying 15°C), and without supplies or clothes.
And this is serious stuff when doing things in a cold climate. Most of my family is from Chaco, in the North, and when they came here(I live in Ushuaia), they almost literally freeze, they can't leave buildings, even if it's 10°C and they are heavily clothed.
The only real thing that could change the fate of the Invasion would be to sent people from more southern provinces, like Buenos Aires or the Patagonian ones, cloth them well and send the ones who already finished their service, not the ones who just started it.
If RN built those two CVA's with mentioned air groups would it have money for anything else?
I don't see it happening. One of the major reasons for Argentina invading the Falklands was Thatcher's military cutbacks. Butterflies alone should be enough to ensure British intelligence takes the invasion threat seriously and lets the Argentinians know a nuclear sub is snooping around the area.
IOTL that's true, one the reasons why CVA-01, TSR2 and several other military projects were cancelled was because Britain was broke. In order to have CVA-01 as part of a balanced RN then Britain's post war economic performance needs to be like that of West Germany. Just about every economic decision since 1945 would have had to have been taken differently and that probably needs POD's going back into the 1920's.
I've read on other forums that there would have been the money to build one CVA-01 but given the economic train wreck that hit Britain in the late 1960's and 1973 that would probably have been it and other capabilities would have had to be sacrificed to free up resources to meet operating costs
whatisinaname
Donor
It could be possible that RN cutbacks are announced (1981), thus allowing the Argentinean government invade (1982) before the RN cutbacks have been implemented (1983), just like John Nott’s cutbacks announced in 1981 e.g. the sale of HMS Invincible to Oz in OTL?