Aircraft carrier battle in the Falklands War

[esl]

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.
.

Are you aware of the fact that they RN could only keep a couple of Harriers airborne at any time since their patrol endurance was only about 1.5 hour. These had to patrol all over Falklands etc. So any attack from land based Mirages would draw off those CAP Harriers . If coordinated there would be insufficent time to get enough harriers to intercept.

Argies admit 34 Mirage/A4 losses and another 68 other planes lost [1/4 on ground]. Brits claim 72-104 kills but historically such claims of 'enemy planes shot down' are not trustworthy. Harriers claimed 20 kills but ground /ship based claim kills 51 kills. Over the period in question [~45 days] UK claim 2300 Harrier sortie with 2700 flying hours ,but roughly 1500 sortie were ground support. Thats an average of only 27 -sortie per day [1200/45]. If this is limited to 1.5 hour cap over daylight hours thats 2 Harriers at any one time with maybe 2 more on alert.

Argies report 505 sortie of which 445 carried out and 302 reached targets. So RN/RAF airdefence was only able to stop 1 out of every 3 attacking jets. The rest got through.

Source; Anthony Cordesmann, "The Lessons of Modern War:. The Afghan and Falklands Conflict", vol. 3 (Boulder: Westview Press, 1990),

 

[MrP]

Argies admit 34 Mirage/A4 losses and another 68 other planes lost [1/4 on ground]. Brits claim 72-104 kills but historically such claims of 'enemy planes shot down' are not trustworthy. Harriers claimed 20 kills but ground /ship based claim kills 51 kills.

The British claim 72-104 kills, which you suggest is untrustworthy . . . after saying that the Argentines admit losses of 102. A discrepancy of two against the highest British claims seems, well, small. Then you specify 71 British claims (20 by aircraft, 51 by other forces), not 72. So I'm a mite confused by the numbers and the label untrustworthy.

I'm not sure about the relevance of limited RN CAP when it's been pointed out that Argentine air units have only the most limited of chances to engage the British fleet at all. I mean, we could posit a later engagement, but that isn't what Thande's initial post specifies. IIRC, CTT has a Falklands defeat scenario on it somewhere, which may contain info of use.

 

[DMA]

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.

Not that I disagree here, but the point I was referring to was that in two different wars, waged by different militaries, the warheads of the exocets just wouldn't explode. That says something about how reliable, or in thise case, how unreliable they are.

 

[DMA]

I'm not sure about the relevance of limited RN CAP when it's been pointed out that Argentine air units have only the most limited of chances to engage the British fleet at all. I mean, we could posit a later engagement, but that isn't what Thande's initial post specifies. IIRC, CTT has a Falklands defeat scenario on it somewhere, which may contain info of use.

That's my article. Here's the link: Falklands War 1982

 

[Cockroach]

Typical esl... quote stats right out of context and draw conclusions on that.

Are you aware of the fact that they RN could only keep a couple of Harriers airborne at any time since their patrol endurance was only about 1.5 hour. These had to patrol all over Falklands etc. So any attack from land based Mirages would draw off those CAP Harriers . If coordinated there would be insufficent time to get enough harriers to intercept.

Yes, attacks on the ships close inshore may draw of the Sea Harriers. However, what I was adressing with those two points was that UNLESS the poms do something really stupid then the land-based aircraft are little threat to the Carrier taskforce.

Argies admit 34 Mirage/A4 losses and another 68 other planes lost [1/4 on ground]. Brits claim 72-104 kills but historically such claims of 'enemy planes shot down' are not trustworthy. Harriers claimed 20 kills but ground /ship based claim kills 51 kills.

34+68=102
~25% on the ground, hence subtract 25.5
76.5 kills
Which seems to lie quite cofortably within the range of kills claimed by the poms. Hence those figures do not seem as untrustworthy as you make out.

Argies report 505 sortie of which 445 carried out and 302 reached targets. So RN/RAF airdefence was only able to stop 1 out of every 3 attacking jets. The rest got through.

Largely irrelevent. Most of those attack are against RN units close to shore or in confined waters such as San Carlos... Places in which the terrain limited the missile guidence radar's line of sight, provided clutter low flying aircraft could sneak through etc. The case suggested in this thread involves attacks against the British Carriers which were opperating sufficiently far from land that those problems are less significant and hence the proportion of aircraft getting through to the carriers will be much less than you claim.
Also could you clarify by what you mean when you say "reached targets". I mean it could be intupruted as anything from "Oh, we could see the enemy" through to a sucessful bombing run.

 

[Fellatio Nelson]

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?

1) We are talking about a carrier strike on the TF when it was still outside the range of land-based fighter bombers.

2) The cruiser group? Oh, the Belgrano... which was already being trailed by Conqueror; the delay in sinking her was due to Woodward waiting for orders from Northwood and Conqueror's dodgy aerial.

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.

Is that why Sea Dart was credited with the most kills of any single missile system? (Even with the old 965 radar embarked aboard the early Type 42s having many drawbacks, since entry of the Tyoe 1022, the heart of the Sea Dart system, had been delayed.)

It had certain problems, but at worst it would have forced the Argentine aircraft to fly very low for some miles before reaching the TF, bleeding fuel when carrying a bombload. Depending on the dispositions of the TF ships, it would merely force them into perfect position for other SAM systems and guns. One cannot extrapolate from lessons learned in San Carlos, the geography was entirely different.

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.

[/QUOTE]

Before most had been shot down by ships and harriers? I grant if the dozen
A4s presssed on irregardless they might reach one of the outer screen ships and hit that...


Now, had the Argentinians launched a mass air attack from land bases when the TF was preparing to launch the re-invasion, instead of attacking in penny-packets, there might have been a different outcome.

 

[Riain]

How would the search Trackers fare, would they live long enough to shadow the TF to allow a good fix for the A4s to fly to? Keep in mind that the RN carriers were never tracked throughout the campiagn, even though they eneded cruising in the same area of sea for most of the time. The best the Argies did was send planes along the track where the Sea Harriers disappeared off their radar. It's very hard to find carriers in the open sea, especially for a 2nd rate military like Argenitina of 1982.

 

[PMN1]

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.

Hermes and Invincible were kept well east to avoid this (at the expense of Sea Harrier time over the Falkland Islands).

Some are said to have suggested Sandy Woodward was after a Burma star for how far east of the Falklands he kept the carriers.

 

[Riain]

The last SE/exocet attack was one plane carrying the last missile, a backup in case of radar failure in the lead plane and a pair of navy Skyhawks. These skyhawks were to follow the smoke of the exocet and attack what they found at the end of its flight. I've always found this attack fascinating, and wondered what could have happened if this was the Argie's standard procedure. I'd suggest using Canberra as the follow-up plane, both to economise on tankers due to it's range and to use them in a way that their vulnerability is lessened due to the chaos of the exocet. Even with OTL levels of success with only 2 air launched exocet hits the follow-up attacks could cause the TF to go even further east, to retain a much stronger CAP or perhaps cause attacks on the mainland by the RAF and RN.

 

[Grimm Reaper]

PMN1, a most amusing comment!


I was under the impression that Conquerer had actually passed the General Belgrano in search of the Argentine carrier before turning back to sink the second ship of the Argentine navy. Anyone?


esl's at it again. Wonder what someone using his approach to facts would make of 302 'attacks' reaching targets with limited air cover and only six British ships sunk or damaged beyond repair? That would be a requirement of every plane in two squadrons plus a bit to 'successfully' complete their mission to claim one British ship.


According to this reputable site Argentina had less than 200 combat aircraft in total, even including locally produced ground attack craft.

http://www.naval-history.net/F17argforces.htm

 

[Riain]

The Belagrano was to the south of the FI and the 25DM was to the north. The problem the Conquerer had was that the Belgrano was about to cross the Burwood bank, where the water shoals to shallow for a SSN and the acoustics are shocking, and it was having satcom trouble. It was decided that rather than it break contact with Belgrano, go around the banks and try to reaquire it on the other side it should be immediately sunk. This was because the Belgrano could do some serious damage to the RN TF while out of contact with the Conqueror.

 

[Fellatio Nelson]

PMN1, a most amusing comment!

I was under the impression that Conquerer had actually passed the General Belgrano in search of the Argentine carrier before turning back to sink the second ship of the Argentine navy. Anyone?

Nope, there were 4 or 5 nukes in the area - and a diesel boat on the way - fanned out to guard likely approaches to the Islands and the TF.

One of the S boats had the carrier in range of SubHarpoon during April, but was told not to sink it because the proper shooting hadn't started, and then lost contact.

IIRC, Conqueror's first sighting was on an Argentine supply vessel.

 

[whatisinaname]

Recalling from memory, the 25DM could carry "up to" 21 aircraft, 8 skyhawks and the rest helicopters and trackers.

The 8 skyhawks attacking the British carrier group would consist of 7 skyhawks with bombs and only one fitted with 2 sidewinder AAM as an "escort aircraft". Weight restriction for takeoff would prevent the 7 skyhawks carrying AAM.

FAA had two harriers on CAP plus 2 ready to launch from each carrier, making a total of 6 harriers against 8 skyhawks. I don't think that this attack would have succeeded the odds are not in the skyhawks favour.

The outcome of the air battle would also reveal the approximant location of the 25DM thus leading to one of the British SSN sinking the 25DM.

 

[TeaDaemon]

One thing I've noticed is that the 25dM is somewhat lacking in AA defences. If she were spotted and separated from her escorts, then she'd be very vulnerable to air attack by Harriers (and possibly helicopters as well if within range).

How about a scenario where an unsuccessful Argentine air attack leads to a counter-attack (whether sub, surface or air attack) against 25dM that damages her engines or rudder, leaving her unable to return to port, or at least too slow to escape, similar to what happened to Bismark?

In such a situation I could see 25dM being strafed by Harriers with rockets and cannon until they strike their colours, and the RN becoming the first navy to capture an aircraft carrier. Such an event combined with the sinking of the Belgrano might be enough to precipitate the collapse of the Argentine regime before the re-invasion of the islands, and would give the UK a spare carrier to sell to Australia for the price of a refit, instead of Invincible.

 

[Sargon]

One thing I've noticed is that the 25dM is somewhat lacking in AA defences. If she were spotted and separated from her escorts, then she'd be very vulnerable to air attack by Harriers (and possibly helicopters as well if within range).

How about a scenario where an unsuccessful Argentine air attack leads to a counter-attack (whether sub, surface or air attack) against 25dM that damages her engines or rudder, leaving her unable to return to port, or at least too slow to escape, similar to what happened to Bismark?

In such a situation I could see 25dM being strafed by Harriers with rockets and cannon until they strike their colours, and the RN becoming the first navy to capture an aircraft carrier. Such an event combined with the sinking of the Belgrano might be enough to precipitate the collapse of the Argentine regime before the re-invasion of the islands, and would give the UK a spare carrier to sell to Australia for the price of a refit, instead of Invincible.

Seems a bit far fetched, but it would be ironic, as the British would essentially be re-asserting ownership over a ship that used to be theirs - in fact they built it.


Sargon

 

[TeaDaemon]

Seems a bit far fetched, but it would be ironic, as the British would essentially be re-asserting ownership over a ship that used to be theirs - in fact they built it.

Well it would make the refit a bit easier.

I do think that a scenario where the RN captures 25dM is a bit far-fetched, but equally I could see that if the commanders on the scene thought they could accomplish such a feat without endangering the landings then they'd attempt to do so.

 

[Fellatio Nelson]

One thing I've noticed is that the 25dM is somewhat lacking in AA defences. If she were spotted and separated from her escorts, then she'd be very vulnerable to air attack by Harriers (and possibly helicopters as well if within range).

It had escorts. The Type 42s we sold them.

Such an event combined with the sinking of the Belgrano might be enough to precipitate the collapse of the Argentine regime before the re-invasion of the islands, and would give the UK a spare carrier to sell to Australia for the price of a refit, instead of Invincible.

The RN wouldn't have wanted it and neither would the Australians. As to capturing her? If she were still seaworthy and resources available, disarm her and the crew, send some bootnecks and sailors aboard as guards and supervisors and have the Argentine crew sail it to Ascension with a guardship ready to blow her to bits if anything naughty happens. Then, after due publicity, turn her into razor blades.

The forthcoming sale of Invincible to Australia was virtually signed and sealed at the time, although when we had a change of heart during the conflict they waived any claim to her. I believe they even had Harrier landings on HMAS Melbourne (when she was at the '77 Fleet Review?) when we were trying to flog them.

 

[Jason]

wasn't so much a change of heart-more we changed our minds, said they coudl have Hermes instead and the Aussies said they were fed up with old ships-there was a suggestion of building a 4th Invincible and still selling one to the Aussies instead (possibly as an unoffical thanks for their unofficial aid) but it never came to anything.

There were harrier demos on the Aussie carrier in either 74 or 75 when an example was sent out there to show off (cant remember which year, all I do remember was it was when my dad was still working on harriers and it was not long before I started school)

The forthcoming sale of Invincible to Australia was signed and sealed at the time, although they when we had a change of heart they waived any claim to her. I believe they even had Harrier landings on HMAS Melbourne (when she was at the '77 Fleet Review?) when we were trying to flog them.

 

[Fellatio Nelson]

wasn't so much a change of heart-more we changed our minds, said they coudl have Hermes instead and the Aussies said they were fed up with old ships-there was a suggestion of building a 4th Invincible and still selling one to the Aussies instead (possibly as an unoffical thanks for their unofficial aid) but it never came to anything.

I did say when we had a change of heart and the Nott cuts were reversed. I'm not Australian, Jason.

Good job they didn't want the Hermes. But the Indians still seem to have her running.

 

[Riain]

The Brits had a change of mind and we had a change of govt, that's why we didn't get the Invincible. Since when did RN SSNs have sub-harpoon in 1982?