Aircraft carrier battle in the Falklands War

Thande

Thande

Donor
Just came across this on Wiki... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ARA_Veinticinco_de_Mayo
During the Falklands War,[1] the Veinticinco de Mayo was deployed in a task force north of the Falkland Islands, with the ARA General Belgrano to the south. The British had assigned HMS Spartan, a nuclear-powered submarine, to track down the Veinticinco de Mayo and sink her if necessary.

After hostilities broke out on May 1, 1982, the Argentine carrier attempted to launch a wave of Skyhawk jets against the Royal Navy Task Force after her S-2 Trackers detected the British fleet.

However what would have been the first and only battle between aircraft carriers since World War II did not take place, as poor winds prevented the heavily loaded jets from being launched. After British nuclear-powered submarine HMS Conqueror sank the General Belgrano, the Veinticinco de Mayo returned to port for safety. Spartan never tracked down the carrier.
Click to expand...

So, what if the weather conditions had been different and that battle had occurred?

The Falklands War is already said by some to be the only real test of naval combat doctrines since WW2, so would this raise even more uncomfortable questions than OTL?

And would it have any effect on the outcome of the war?

Opinionated experts, open fire! :D
 
MrP

MrP

Banned
Thande said:
Opinionated experts, open fire! :D
Click to expand...

We'd see an instant return to the building of battleships as carriers are exposed for the white elephants they are! :cool: Yes, I'm joking, o silly person who's penning a rebuttal to my self-evident nonsense.
 

TeaDaemon

If the Skyhawks launch an attack on the British task force whilst they're on the open ocean, then they'll have to deal with air defences that don't have significant radar blind spots due to the proximity of land, and ships that are moving at flank speed and manoevering violently. Add in Harriers from Invincible, Hermes, and Atlantic Conveyer, and I think you've got a bona-fide carrier fight on your hands.

Given that the Argentines were fusing their bombs incorrectly (right up until some pundit on the BBC told everyone that's what was happening) then I doubt that even if they did hit a carrier, they'd be able to sink one. Possibly the most interesting prospect is the VdM being sunk or seriously damaged by either a British submarine or a counter-strike from the British taskforce (I notice that VdM had no embarked fighter aircraft or surface to air missiles, total air defences were 12 40mm Bofors).
 

Jason

I think her sea hawks would be rapidly dealt with (I think she could carry a dozen?); as to the carrier's fate I think that will depend on the quality of her escort-were the argies 2 type 42 destroyers operational and if so were they likely to be assigned to protect her? If they are then I think a harrier attack isn't so likely, otherwise I could see a couple of harriers being sent in and firing off a couple of missiles at long range and suddenly the Argentinian navy is having a very very bad time with its two largest vessels lost.
 

PMN1

Wozza said:
How many Skyhawks did she have? It was not many.
Click to expand...

Her official aircraft complement was 21 but that included the Tracker A/S aicrfat and the sea King helicopters - 8 rings a bell as far as Skyhawks is concerned.
 

Riain

Banned
The 25DM had 8 Skyhawks, and would have faced 20 Sea harriers and I think 11 escort ships in close proximity. I wonder how the Argies would have located the RN CBG, Trackers perhaps? I doubt that many of the 8 Skyhawks would be able to penetrate the CAP and escorts to successfully attack either carrier with iron bombs.The Atlantic Conveyer wasn't an aircraft carrier, it ferried harriers down and flew them off a pad on the bow, it didn't arrive until just before the landing, it was nowhere near the area on 1 April.
 
Rasputin

Rasputin

I doubt the Carrier's Skyhawks would have made much of a dent on the Task Force, but as far as 'return fire' goes it would be interesting if the Veinticinco de Mayo was sunk by a ship-to-ship missile or a submarine. 'Interesting' in that, along with the Sheffield being sunk by a single Exocet and the Belgrano being torpedoed, this would actually be pretty good ammunition for the debate on whether Carriers are white elephants, since a single missile or torpedo could inflict far more damage on the enemy than a squadron of ship-based fighter/bombers could.

Instead we're going to have to wait until the Great Persian Gulf Sunburn Turkey Shoot. Pity.
 

jazz26

Ok, to me it would have gone this way.

8 Skyhawks armed with 2 or 3 bombs plus 2AIM9B.
They would be intercepted by one or two CAP Sea Harriers each carrying 2. Probably resulting in 2 skyhawks going in flames.
Then is the Sea Wolf and Sea Dart turn. 2 more sky hawks downed
After that the 4 ramaining sky hawk would try to hit the first thing they see. Remember they had no advance electronics and are being guided by the S-2 trackers. Probably 2 of them would go for the closest scort ship and the other two going for the carriers. One of the carriers recieves some damage that can put it out of action for a few days. Of the 4 skyhawks 2 would evade the CAP again. Getting back to the carrier might not be a problem. Considering that in OTL Spartan never got a shot at the carrier, the skyhawks might be able to land and rearm for CAP. But 2 aircraft without proper radar coverage are not enough to defend a carrier and a SeaHarrier counter attack might have put the ARA 25 de Mayo out of the war and maybe straight to the bottom of the South Atlantic.
After that the war might have gone different but with the same result.
 

Michael B

It has been assumed the the Harriers attacking Veinticinco de Mayo would be missile armed. I was not that they could be fitted with air to ship missiles and if this is correct they too would be using bombs. Whilst they would be expected to do better than Skyhawks, the V d M could well survive a strike or two.
 

Philip

Donor
Rasputin said:
'Interesting' in that, along with the Sheffield being sunk by a single Exocet and the Belgrano being torpedoed, this would actually be pretty good ammunition for the debate on whether Carriers are white elephants, since a single missile or torpedo could inflict far more damage on the enemy than a squadron of ship-based fighter/bombers could.
Click to expand...

What, exactly, do you think a squadron of ship-based fighter bombers carry? Aircraft flying SUCAP typically carry 1-4 ASMs. A dedicated anti-ship strike package from an American carrier typically include several dozen ASMs.

Instead we're going to have to wait until the Great Persian Gulf Sunburn Turkey Shoot. Pity.
Click to expand...

Perhaps the most overrated weapon in the history of naval warfare.

fhaessig said:
To continue : seriously damaged by a malfunctionning Exocet ( the warhead didn't explode )
Click to expand...

Yep, but there was still plenty of jet fuel in the missile. Fire on a ship is deadly.

It should also be noted that the Sheffield was struck because of human error.
 

Fellatio Nelson

1) The Argentinian carrier was escorted by the two Type 42s the UK built for them in the 1970s.

2) A UK submarine did get within striking range of sinking the 25 May - with SubHarpoon - but this was before hostilities proper and so she was told not sink her.

3) Sea Eagle anti-ship missiles hadn't been fully developed by then, although interestingly, in their haste to scrounge all available Sea Harriers, one was taken off Sea Eagle trials. This same Shar was downed by AAA over Stanley and the Argentinians noted Sea Eagle-related gizmos in her wreckage; they feared the British had these missiles in service (much as with Sea Skua, which was taken and was used but had yet to be 'declared' as operational).

4) As stated, the major problem encountered was dealing with aircraft overflying land and anti-ship missiles.

The 3 Sea Dart ships with the original task group could have easily dealt with a dozen Skyhawks over open ocean (and the carriers were far closer in open ocean than during the landings, with CAP incorporating the entire naval force).
 

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
The A-4 was at the very end of it's service life & had never been designed to survive a SAM enviroment. The only advantage the Argies would have had is that they could have gotten fairly close before detection. The AEW version of the Sea King just wasn't up to long range detection. There MIGHT have been a lucky hit, that's the thing in war, sometimes, %^$& happens, but likely the strike package gets wiped out, or close to it.

The tactical changes are centered on the 25DM. By launching the strike the carrier provided a datum point that the RN can exploit, without even launching a counter strike. Find her, communicate with the SSN, and let the SSN kill her & her escorts. That would be a second, even more severe blow to the Argentine morale. Well before the invasion fleet even arrives the RN will have destroyed the Argentine Navy.
 

esl

The Arges demonstrated a fairly competant land based strike capability, so any carrier based strike mission could have been coordinated with a land based strike to maximize success with the Carrier planes arriving during or after the strike. Add to that a cruiser group that could probe the RN position drawing attention away at cruical point and this could be a very difficult position for RN. What happens if the Arges get a lucky hit on carrier and set fire to her. Could put the whole mission in jeapordy?

BTW Seadarts of that period were not that effective so don't count on them shooting down much. Back then as long as you could see an incoming SAM you had better than average chance of evading it with nothing more than an evasive maneuvers.

More than likely in this scenario, most of the A4s would get through but end up hitting the first target they see and escaping, which would probably be an escort warship. Most of the damage would be physical with some fires started which might go out of control resulting in another lost RN warship....Now add to the Arges side effective bomb fusing and the whole battle could shift.
 

Cockroach

esl said:
The Arges demonstrated a fairly competant land based strike capability, so any carrier based strike mission could have been coordinated with a land based strike to maximize success with the Carrier planes arriving during or after the strike.
Click to expand...
Are you aware of the following two facts:
1. The Argentine aircraft were flying to near the very limit of their range to attack the ships located directly off the Falklands.
2. The British carriers were opperating some distance East of the Falklands.
Hence the utility of land based air vs the carriers is at best marginal (read: most hardpoints taken up with fuels tanks, hence minimal load of bombs or missiles) or possibly non-existant.
fhaessig said:
To continue : seriously damaged by a malfunctionning Exocet ( the warhead didn't explode )
Click to expand...
Even then there would still have been a fair chance of the vessel remaining afloat. I mean, look at other examples: An OHP class Frigate, USS Stark, survived two Exocet hits in the Gulf and was returned to service.
 

DMA

Cockroach said:
Are you aware of the following two facts:
1. The Argentine aircraft were flying to near the very limit of their range to attack the ships located directly off the Falklands.
2. The British carriers were opperating some distance East of the Falklands.
Hence the utility of land based air vs the carriers is at best marginal (read: most hardpoints taken up with fuels tanks, hence minimal load of bombs or missiles) or possibly non-existant.
Click to expand...


I agree. Aircraft range was a major problem for the Argentines. Now if they could get the runway at Port Stanley to take Skyhawks & Mirages things could have been different...


Cockroach said:
Even then there would still have been a fair chance of the vessel remaining afloat. I mean, look at other examples: An OHP class Frigate, USS Stark, survived two Exocet hits in the Gulf and was returned to service.
Click to expand...


Oddly enough the exocets didn't explode either. Seems there's something wrong with exocets all things considered.
 

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
DMA said:
...




Oddly enough the exocets didn't explode either. Seems there's something wrong with exocets all things considered.
Click to expand...


More likely something wrong with the armorers who loaded the weapons onto the aircraft. Warheads probably never got the "live" command and went in inert. What killed Sheffield was her construction. Too much aluminium and not enough steel. That, and the fact she was in a war zone 8,000 miles from home, while the Stark was close to friendly shores and supported by a force that the RN couldn't even dream of possessing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top
Top