Falklands: How far would Britain have gone?

[amphibulous]

A fair point, it will just leave the Falklands potentially in a worse combat condition for the follow on task force then.

However what if the cause of the withdrawal had been naval related. I severly doubt even if the Argentinian Carrier had gotten her strike off that it would have been successful, but wasn't one of the SSK's out but armed with defective torpedoes? I can't remember as I said it's been a while since I read anything on the subject, if it was an managed to score any kills that might, (a Very big might I admit) embolden the navy to try something.

The more modern torps the SSNs carried were defective: that's why the kill was made with WW2 style weapons.

The danger in the air was that the Argentines would launch a large number of fighters at once and simply overwhelm the Harriers. Ballsy commanders might have decided to send some fighters on a one way mission, ejecting over the islands. This would have given them vastly more fuel for combat.

 

[omega21]

On that note, why was the Stanley airfield used to base Pucara ground-attack craft and for landings of C-130s, but not used for recovery of Argentinian fighters? Was it judged as unsafe, or was it too short or something?

 

[sparky42]

The more modern torps the SSNs carried were defective: that's why the kill was made with WW2 style weapons.

The danger in the air was that the Argentines would launch a large number of fighters at once and simply overwhelm the Harriers. Ballsy commanders might have decided to send some fighters on a one way mission, ejecting over the islands. This would have given them vastly more fuel for combat.

I'm familiar with the RN's issues, I meant the Argentinian Sub, San Luis a 209 class sub. She reportedly did try to engage RN ships but failed due to issues with her torpedoes (the engineer reversed the polarity of the power to the torpedoes).

If this had been prevented and she was able to score some kills, maybe even mission kill some of the amphibious assets that might have impacted the task force. Again not enough to make a huge difference but it might have impacted on the calculations.

Take for example the attack on HMS Brilliant on the 1st of May, suppose Brilliant was damaged and forced to withdraw, that leaves the taskforce down to 1 Type 22, their most modern Frigate (and who downs the 3 Skyhawks on the 15th? And if they aren't shot down then what else could they achieve afterwards?), if San Luis survived and was successful in the later attack on the 10th against 2 of the Type 21's then the modern Frigate screen would start to look weakened, add in the loss of Ardent and Antelope later on and things have gone slightly worse for the RN.

Again the RN could muster up reinforcements given time and use the SSN's to cut off the islands but a better engineer and things might have been a little worse for the RN.

 

[Simon]

On that note, why was the Stanley airfield used to base Pucara ground-attack craft and for landings of C-130s, but not used for recovery of Argentinian fighters? Was it judged as unsafe, or was it too short or something?

If memory serves it wasn't long enough. The Argentinians did have the possibility of sending some combat engineers to potentially extend/improve it but I seem to recall that they got bumped off the flights because the higher ups decided some other unit or equipment had higher priority. One of the many things that just happened to go right for the British.

 

[Riain]

On that note, why was the Stanley airfield used to base Pucara ground-attack craft and for landings of C-130s, but not used for recovery of Argentinian fighters? Was it judged as unsafe, or was it too short or something?

Yes, it was considered too short especially when wet, which as often. They did take some PSP to lengthen it but only by 500ft, and I also think they took arrestor gear but didn't install it.

Stanley airfield is one of the great lost opportunities of the war for the Argies. They could have flown their attack missions with more bombs and fuel and then landed at Stanley to fuel up for the transit home. The British made great use of Sid's Strip when they had it going, it was a real force multiplier.

 

[ModernKiwi]

There were exactly 22 completed Sea Harriers in the world on April Fools Day 1982, 20 were embarked with the initial Task Force, 1 was earmarked for the Indian Navy and weas not to be touched and another was a development aircraft which was retained in Britain for development trial associated with the war such a Blue Eric ECM Pod.

Another 8 were in the final stages of construction, it was these that were rushed to completion and sent south on the Atlantic Conveyer via Ascension, flying off the Atlatic Conveyer on about May 21. This bought the Sea Harrier strength up to 25 after 3 earlier losses. In contrast the RAF had 3 full sized sqns of GR3 Harriers, perhaps 70 odd aircraft, some 14 of which were modified to operate from carriers for the Falklands, 6 were with the Sea Harriers on the Atlantic Conveyer.

The point of this is that should the Sea Harrier fleet start to seriously be run down from losses more GR3s could be modified to relieve them from more and more tasks. Indeed all 6 Sea Harrier losses were from ground fire, so the GR3s could take up all the ground attack missions and absorb these losses. They could take up some of the air to air missions as well, in appropriate circumstances. So it would take the loss of quite a lot of Sea Harriers before the force would have to withdraw due to a lack of dedicated air to air capability.

In the rough environment of the South Atlantic (from recollection), the ratio of aricraft needed to keep one in the air was about 4:1. So the 25 SHAR's supported a CAP of around 4 aircraft at any one time.

I'd guess that if say 10 or 12 SHAR's were lost (which would certainly affect the ability to keep a CAP up), you could swap to a modified CAP system with one SHAR as lead/target finder and a GR3 to follow/assist.

 

[Pesterfield]

When do moral questions kick in, when does the British public question all this effort over some pretty poor property with more sheep than people?

 

[ModernKiwi]

Good question.

It's not post-1991 where every has come to expect results within weeks and with few or no casualties, so I think it'd be longer than that. 6 months to a year maybe.

 

[Simon]

When do moral questions kick in, when does the British public question all this effort over some pretty poor property with more sheep than people?

I would have thought the moral question was about what the islanders wanted and if the Argentinians should of been able to disregard them via armed force, or do you mean moral in the sense of people being killed? As for public opinion most people seem to have been rather supportive of the moves to take the islands back. If the initial task-force is forced back then I could see some people turning to peace position. However with the prospects of HMS Illustrious, HMS Ark Royal possibly being ready for the re-match after the winter weather subsides escorted by properly equipped air warfare destroyers like Rianin said, carrying Sea Harriers and more importantly the Sea King Airborne Surveillance and Control (ASaC) that sparky42 mentioned whilst a submarine based naval blockade is carried out until then, I think the mood would mostly be not to quit whilst down.

 

[sparky42]

If the UK had lost enough to force the withdrawal of the first task force, however that came about, ti could go either way.

The population of the UK might get behind the Government and the armed forces and support another attempt, or turn against the action. I really have no idea which way it might go.

 

[Riain]

In the rough environment of the South Atlantic (from recollection), the ratio of aricraft needed to keep one in the air was about 4:1. So the 25 SHAR's supported a CAP of around 4 aircraft at any one time.

I'd guess that if say 10 or 12 SHAR's were lost (which would certainly affect the ability to keep a CAP up), you could swap to a modified CAP system with one SHAR as lead/target finder and a GR3 to follow/assist.

Paper strengths are a deceptively misleading measure of air power. Sea Harrier strength dipped to 17 aircraft before reinforcements arrived on the Atlantic Conveyer, it then went to 25 plus 6 GRs and then dropped to 22 and GRs down to 4 or 5 at any one time. If another 6 Sea Harrier were lost the strength would only be 1 less than before reinforcements arrived but 4 or 5 GR2s would push the number of to 20 or 21 aircraft.

Prior to Sids Strip Sea Harriers would do 40 min transit 15 min CAP over San Carlos and 40 min transit back with 5 mins full throttle combat allowance. After Sids Strip was operational Sea Harrier did 40 min transit, 35 min CAP over SC, 5 min descent to Sids Strip for quick refuel and service check, 5 min climb to station, 35 min CAP and 40 min transit back to the carrier. So basically with the same resources the amout of time a CAP was over San Carlos was tripled.

My guess that if the war dragged on and Sea Harrier losses mounted but GR3s came online so too would Sea King AEW2s and HMS Southampton and Brilliant. This would allow a Carrier to operate much closer to San Carlos, reducing transit times and increasing CAP times and therefore air cover with the same resources. Also if the war dragged on the Sea Harriers would receive the 190 gal drop tanks in place of their 100 gal tanks, further increasing their CAP time and therefore air cover with the same resources.

When I add it all together I think that as long a couple of things don't happen such as the loss of Fearless and Intrepid and the loss of Hermes and Invincible close together and early on the british are bound to win.

 

[MUC]

When do moral questions kick in, when does the British public question all this effort over some pretty poor property with more sheep than people?

I like sheep!

New Zealand has 7 times more sheep than people too...