Mega Falklands War

PoD is a much more severe coldwar. Argentina booms with US aid, after Brazil goes communist, or something.

Meanwhile in Britain, the Duncan Sandys never became defence minister, and successful export orders for various military and civilian aircraft, vastly improved the balance of payments. Blue Streak eventually also became a highly profitable satellite launcher. Sadly however, Concorde never flew in this TL...

Anyway by the late 70s Britain is still creaking under defence expenditure, strikes, etc., and Margaret Thatcher comes to power. Among her policies are major economic reforms, and defence cuts, particularly in the royal navy.

With the Brazilian threat apparently neutralised, facing domestic unrest, and with Britain apparently weakened, Argentina's ruling military junta, decides on a military adventure... the invasion of the Falklands

Margaret Thatcher immediately dispatches a task force...


** ARGENTINA ** - MAJOR UNITS

CARRIERS:
- ARA Independencia (formerly HMS Ark Royal) - with Phantoms, Skyhawks, Super Etendard
- ARA Rivadavia (formerly HMS Eagle) - with Phantoms, Skyhawks, Super Etendard
- ARA Veinticino de Mayo (formerly HMS Venerable) - with Skyhawks

BATTLESHIPS
- ARA Moreno - (formerly HMS Vanguard) - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Vanguard_(23)

CRUISERS
- ARA Nueve de Julio - (formerly USS Boston) - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Boston_(CA-69)
- ARA General Belgrano - (formerly USS Phoenix)

SUBMARINES
- 6 Type 209s

OTHER SHIPS
- Small number of frigates, destroyers, corvettes, patrol boats, etc.

AIRFORCE
- F14 Tomcats
- Phantoms
- Mirage F1
- Super Etendard
- Boeing E-3 Sentry
- Lockheed P-3 Orion
- Alphajet
- Pucaras
- Hercules C-130 transports

** BRITAIN ** - MAJOR UNITS

CARRIERS*:
CVA-01 Queen Elizabeth - Phantoms, Buccaneer, Gannets, Sea King (should I put DH127 instead of Phantom?) - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CVA-01
CVA-02 Duke of Edinburgh - Phantoms, Buccaneer, Gannets, Sea King (should I put DH127 instead of Phantom?) - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CVA-01

ASW CARRIERS*
Hermes - Sea Harrier & Sea King
Invincible - Sea Harrier & Sea King
Illustrious - Sea Harrier & Sea King

COMMANDO CARRIERS*:
Albion
Bulwark
Centaur

AIR-DEFENCE SHIPS
8 Type 82s

SUBMARINES
7 SSN

DESTROYERS & FRIGATES
Assorted

ROYAL AIRFORCE (nearest base = Ascension, except Canberras in Chile)
- Avro 730 bomber/recon - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avro_730
- BAC TSR-2 - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TSR-2
- Vulcan B2
- Phantom (?) - air defence of Ascension
- Victor tankers
- VC10 tanker/transport
- AW681 V/STOL long range transport - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armstrong_Whitworth_AW.681
- Jumbo (3 body) VC10 tanker/transport
- Nimrod Maritime Recon
- Canberra PR recon (secretly based in Chile)

* = equipped with Phalanx CIWS
Also: British have independent spy satellite capability over the area, by the time the taskforce arrives - launched by Blue Streak of course

No comments, even to say "butterflies"?

(for the sake of a good battle, I'm going to ignore butterflies)

Should I actually write the war up?

Does anybody have any idea have the war might go? Tactics, etc.?

Some ideas that I'm toying with:
1. An Avro 730 making sonic booms over Buenos Aires to distract the Argentines, the next day, the real attack is by Vulcans on Stanley (similar to OTL Blackbuck)

2. AW681s enable British paras to be airlanded (flown from Ascension) in East Falkland

3. Big naval battle, of course,

Why should the US let two "important allies" fight each other and weaken Atlantic defenses against the SU?

In your TL such a powerful Argentine ( no idea how could pay such a big Navy ) would be an important asset ... and a difficult crack to open for the Brits ...

It's ASB for 2 reasons:

1 - where is the money coming from for such large navies?

2 - Argentina is not going to invade with such a large RN

Argentina struggled OTL to float as large a military as they did, even if much of it until the late 70's was built upon U.S. aid. Such a large navy is highly improbable and verging upon ASB. Also I agree with Faralis - a war on that scale between such important U.S. allies is highly likely to end in mediation rather than war.

CARRIERS:
- ARA Independencia (formerly HMS Ark Royal) - with Phantoms, Skyhawks, Super Etendard
- ARA Rivadavia (formerly HMS Eagle) - with Phantoms, Skyhawks, Super Etendard
- ARA Veinticino de Mayo (formerly HMS Venerable) - with Skyhawks

Click to expand...

All of these carriers, especially the audacious class are highly manpower intensive. Argentina, even with conscription struggled to man the Veinticino de Mayo - part of the reason along with lack of money and spare part that that particular vessel sat at the dockside throughout most of the 80's and 90's.

All of this would also require a greatly expanded naval aviation arm.

BATTLESHIPS
- ARA Moreno - (formerly HMS Vanguard)

Click to expand...

I doubt Argentina would have been interested and nor would Britain. it would be political suicide for any British government to sell the countries LAST battleship to a foreign power. Especially when so many in the British political establishment were struggling to come to terms with the fact that naval warfare was no longer going to consist of pointing big guns at each other and shooting.

Also, the Argentine navies only naval base, Port Belgrano is pretty small and only has one dry-dock. In order to support such a large fleet it would need to vastly expand such infrastructure in a cost exercise equaling if not exceeding that of building up the fleet in the first place.

ASW CARRIERS*
Hermes - Sea Harrier & Sea King
Invincible - Sea Harrier & Sea King
Illustrious - Sea Harrier & Sea King

COMMANDO CARRIERS*:
Albion
Bulwark
Centaur

Click to expand...

I doubt the military or the treasury would make the distinction between Commando and ASW carriers. Most likely they would be merged and perhaps only three hulls would remain. Also, the Sea Harrier probably wouldn't exist. Its very existence would be both unnecessary in the eyes of the treasury and undesirable in those of the navy - the existence of small VTOL jets operating from small carriers put the fleets big boats at risk

- Avro 730 bomber/recon
- BAC TSR-2
- Vulcan B2

Click to expand...

All of these are possible but probably not at the same time. The Avro 730 would certainly have made a good recon platform - equal to the SR-71 (but would incidentally probably cancel out the PR Canberra’s). The TSR-2 is also clearly possible but might not exist with the 730 already about, despite clearly being different types of bombers; the Treasury often fails to make such distinctions. The Avro Vulcan would almost certainly be gone. The only reason it lingered on was because Britain lack an adequate low level strike package until the advent of the Tornado along with a shortage of tankers.

- AW681 V/STOL long range transport

Click to expand...

An expensive and bogus design. Most modern technicians agree that a V/STOL transport built on such principles would probably fail. Offers little over other cheaper conventional designs.

- Jumbo (3 body) VC10 tanker/transport

Click to expand...

Was never seriously proposed and probably for a good reason - it would have been totally financially unviable and wholly impractical. By the time it would be ready for service the Boeing 747 would easily sweep the market.

Russell

Also, the Argentine navies only naval base, Port Belgrano is pretty small and only has one dry-dock. In order to support such a large fleet it would need to vastly expand such infrastructure in a cost exercise equaling if not exceeding that of building up the fleet in the first place.

Click to expand...

Let's say the US did it. In the late 50s, 60s, and early 70s, the US fought an ultimately unsuccessful war to stop the spread of communism in South America. This included building a naval base in Argentina. The Argentine population was massively swelled by refugees from neighbouring communist states. The economy boomed on US money. At the end of the war, Brazil and several other South American regimes were communist, but Argentina was relatively rich, more populated, well-armed, and firmly in the Western camp, albeit with a dictatorial government.

Faralis said:

Why should the US let two "important allies" fight each other and weaken Atlantic defenses against the SU?

In your TL such a powerful Argentine ( no idea how could pay such a big Navy ) would be an important asset ... and a difficult crack to open for the Brits ...

Click to expand...

In this TL, the collapse of the Soviet bloc happens in 1981 - increased defence spending means their regime falls sooner. This takes down the Brazilian and other SA communist regimes too.

As a result, super-Argentina has a large military with not much to do, and Britain is looking for drastic defence cuts given its own dire economic situation. The US is in post-cold war mode, and President Kennedy (Teddy that is) refuses to take sides between a fascist dictatorship and a colonial power.

Of course, I'm really trying to handwave the background, for the sake of a good war.

SunilTanna said:

Anyway by the late 70s Britain is still creaking under defence expenditure, strikes, etc., and Margaret Thatcher comes to power. Among her policies are major economic reforms, and defence cuts, particularly in the royal navy.

Click to expand...

Good morning, Argentina, we are a nuclear power, you have 72 hours to evacuate the Falklands...

With the amount of hand-waving going on this belongs in ASB.

There are several assumptions that are ASB.

But a general comment: The Royal Navy had prepared for WW3 against the Warzaw Pact for 30 years. Hunting soviet subs, defending against air attack, infiltrating subs into soviet basing areas etc. Argentina, and all junta countries (with exception of Drakka , simply don't do realistic training. They try to repeat last war, or hold parades.

So the British SSNs would take position between the Falklands and Argentina, just waiting for the Argentinan surface fleet to leave harbour. And then it would be Belgrano on a larger scale. Especially with british satellite capacity.

The british surface fleet wouldn't enter the Argentinian attack radius until their opposites were destroyed. It is possible that the UK would do some SAS/commando attack against Argentinian air bases - Argentina should have a lot of anti-shipping missiles that would be difficult to defend against. Then it would simply be OTL Falklands.