Plausability check: Falklands War consequences

[Russell]

True.
But, as someone said- RAF Mt. Pleasant is good for one thing only. Carriers are good for more than one thing.

Yes - in terms of defending the Falklands Mount Pleasant is unrivalled. No govenment would dare leave the islands without a suitable air and land garrison - it would be sheer politcal suicide back home in Britain. The ability to rapidly re-enforce said garrison at short notice is also a far more cost effective strategically sound tactic than building lumering carriers take can take nearly a month to arrive.

Furthermore, your cost planning for the carriers is off - you have only taken into account for the carrier itself (which will cost more than you have assumed, probably around £2 billion). More so, you did not factor in maintainence costs, crew costs, aircraft costs and additional costs associated with a carrier battle group - Frigates, destroyers, subs, RFA vessels and so on.

Russell

 

[SunilTanna]

How about this?

Can UK decide to keep HMS Hermes and HMS Bulwark in service for another 10 years until they have more money?
And, since Bulwark was in bad condition, how much money could cost a major repair and adding a ski-jump?

What is better/cheaper, constructing No.4 and ( maybe ) No.5 Invincible class vessel or keeping these two in service and rebuilding them?

I admitt, these two are not some real quality improvements, but they do increase number of carriers.

Bulwark was said to be in poor condition in 1982 when the RN was considering reactivating. Major fires in 1979 and 1980, may well be part of the cause of this... so maybe without the fires, reactivating it would be easier?

 

[abc123]

Yes - in terms of defending the Falklands Mount Pleasant is unrivalled. No govenment would dare leave the islands without a suitable air and land garrison - it would be sheer politcal suicide back home in Britain. The ability to rapidly re-enforce said garrison at short notice is also a far more cost effective strategically sound tactic than building lumering carriers take can take nearly a month to arrive.

Furthermore, your cost planning for the carriers is off - you have only taken into account for the carrier itself (which will cost more than you have assumed, probably around £2 billion). More so, you did not factor in maintainence costs, crew costs, aircraft costs and additional costs associated with a carrier battle group - Frigates, destroyers, subs, RFA vessels and so on.

Russell

But, OTL Argentinians owerhelmed british garrison in Falklands in less than 24 hours.
Why should they not repeat that again? Stronger argentinian forces should be nescesarry, but that is possible...
One battalion of soldiers and 4 fighters are hardly a inbreakable wall around Falklands.
So would UK send reinforcements in Falklands if after 24 hours both airfields are out of use? Airborne attack from 6000 km is really a strech...


About carriers, look, I said that a 60 000 t carrier should cost about 2 bln pounds each.
So, where is the problem?
And if RN has enough frigates, destroyers, RFA vessels and submarines for escorting 3 Invincible class ships, so it should be enough for 2 bigger ships too.

I agree that a way for covering of aircraft costs and mainteinance costs is still a problem.
Manpower isn't problem, because personell from Hermes, one/two Invincible's and older Leanders should be enough to cover that.

After all, carrier construction is a long time project. If political descision is brought in 1983, first carrier should be commissioned 10 years later...

 

[abc123]

Bulwark was said to be in poor condition in 1982 when the RN was considering reactivating. Major fires in 1979 and 1980, may well be part of the cause of this... so maybe without the fires, reactivating it would be easier?

This way or another, I'm not fan of that solution. That would jjust spend good amount of money/time for rebuilding that carrier, and she would get maybe 10-15 years of service more...
And Hermes and Bulwark aren't really some big improwement, they are something like Kiev class as someone mentioned earlier...

 

[The Dean]

But, OTL Argentinians overwhelmed British garrison in Falklands in less than 24 hours.
Why should they not repeat that again? Stronger argentinian forces should be nescesarry, but that is possible...

A task force and thousands of troops to take out one platoon with no armour, artillery or air support.

So with the current garrison to get the same overwhelming odds they would have to pretty much beam in the entire Argentine armed forces. Surveillance satellites may notice that kind of movement and the the appropriate re-enforcements made.

 

[abc123]

A task force and thousands of troops to take out one platoon with no armour, artillery or air support.

So with the current garrison to get the same overwhelming odds they would have to pretty much beam in the entire Argentine armed forces. Surveillance satellites may notice that kind of movement and the the appropriate re-enforcements made.

Yes, because all british soldiers are like this one:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=63o8exNK4-Q

 

[The Dean]

Yes, because all british soldiers are like this one:

No, like this

 

[abc123]

No, like this

Nobody underestimates Royal Marines of British Armed Forces in general, but do not overestimate them. They are soldiers of blood and meat, they also bleed, bullets can kill them too....

 

[Russell]

But, OTL Argentinians owerhelmed british garrison in Falklands in less than 24 hours.
Why should they not repeat that again? Stronger argentinian forces should be nescesarry, but that is possible...
One battalion of soldiers and 4 fighters are hardly a inbreakable wall around Falklands.
So would UK send reinforcements in Falklands if after 24 hours both airfields are out of use? Airborne attack from 6000 km is really a strech...

In 1982 the islands were essentially isolated. There was a lack of infrastructure to support a significant build up of forces on the islands. The only airfield - the one at Stanley - had a runway too short to allow the landing of long ranged troops carriers, or for use by fighters. Mount Pleasant was built to solve that problem.

Furthermore, the military garrison is more than enough to meet the current OTL threat that Argentine Military poses (not that there is a real threat anymore). The four Eurofighter Typhoons present there easily outclass any fighters the Argentines have, this combined with the islands long ranged radar sites and several mobile SAM sites are more than enough to give both ample warning of incoming aircraft as well as suitable airspace denial.

Further even to that, attacks don't just happen all of a sudden. Usually they are preceded by a breakdown in diplomatic relations which gives a good indication of how the threat level is. This combined with intelligence gathering (of any potential military build up) would give the British military and political commanders more than ample time to strengthen the islands garrison.

RAF Mount Pleasant is a vaccination against invasion - carriers would be cure to be administered after the virus has struck. Prevention is better than cure. That's the OTL military thinking and for the most part, I trust their judgement over anyone else's, especially on this site.

Russell

 

[abc123]

Further even to that, attacks don't just happen all of a sudden. Usually they are preceded by a breakdown in diplomatic relations which gives a good indication of how the threat level is. This combined with intelligence gathering (of any potential military build up) would give the British military and political commanders more than ample time to strengthen the islands garrison.


Russell

Yep, that really was/is OTL military thinking...

 

[abc123]

And after all, why UK currently build 2 large carriers?
Because they aren't nescesarry?

 

[Russell]

Yep, that really was/is OTL military thinking...

Well, actually it wasn't in 1982. Military strategy was to sit and pray the Junta wouldn't invade. The only reason that the task force was sent to retake the islands was to save what little prestige we had left internationally, as well as save Mrs Thatcher from an electoral crushing. Prior to 1982, Britain couldn't have given less of a shit about an island of 2000 farmers and their half-a-million sheep. Hell, at time many in government were actively hoping to just give them away. But it's a political standpoint now and all that's changed.

And after all, why UK currently build 2 large carriers?
Because they aren't nescesarry?

Because time have changed. The threat of soviet submarines cutting off Britain’s supply lines has more or less vanished and since the fall of communism Britain has moved to a more interventionist military policy. Small ASW carriers are okay if you want to go chasing subs, but they're not in a major expeditionary war. In 1982 were were lucky - the advantages of the largely superior Argentine fighters were robbed by the distances that they had to cover (fuel) and the Sea Harrier, along with superior training won the day. Larger fleet carriers are far better for an expeditionary role as Britain has increasingly undertaken over the past two decade.

Quite frankly the idea that we will ever have "retake" the Falklands again is mad. The Argentines are not longer a military dictatorship and so less reactionary. They lack the military to do (it has seen little in money and upgrades since 1982) and on top of all that, they're completely broke. The argument of the South American invader sailing up the channel... er I mean the Falkland Sound holds about as much bearing as those who argued back in 1990 that a united Germany would try and take over Europe again.

Russell

 

[galveston bay]

Yes, because all british soldiers are like this one:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=63o8exNK4-Q

wow, no wonder it took my ancestors 8 years to win the Revolution (chuckle)

seriously though, the Argies have no chance at this time of carrying off a successful invasion of the Falklands. There is probably a British SSN that patrols the area as well, if not, there could be if the diplomatic situation warranted it.

 

[Blue cat]

And after all, why UK currently build 2 large carriers?
Because they aren't nescesarry?

Probably due to the shift away from Cold war missions to dealing with the current reality facing the UK where having mid sized carriers to base moderate numbers of high performance strike aircraft is useful Not having to pay for a large armored force to fight the nonexistent Soviet Union in nonexistent West Germany also makes make paying for the carriers more feasible.

IMHO this makes sense in light of the threats facing the UK today. I don't hear to many people complaining about the cuts to the UK tank force, the deletion of most nuclear weapons etc..

(I'll also be surprised if both of the carriers are ever operating F35's (or other fixed wing strike air craft) at the same time under the UK flag.)

 

[Blue cat]

How about this?

Can UK decide to keep HMS Hermes and HMS Bulwark in service for another 10 years until they have more money?
And, since Bulwark was in bad condition, how much money could cost a major repair and adding a ski-jump?

What is better/cheaper, constructing No.4 and ( maybe ) No.5 Invincible class vessel or keeping these two in service and rebuilding them?

I admitt, these two are not some real quality improvements, but they do increase number of carriers.

Keeping HMS Hermes in some form of "ready reserve" might be plausible during the 1980's and early 1990's. As mentioned by others HMS Bulwark was in rough shape in 1982 and I doubt it was going to come back into service unless the Hermes was sunk in combat in 1982, even then the UK might have decided it was to far gone and purchased a used carrier from the US instead.

 

[SunilTanna]

Keeping HMS Hermes in some form of "ready reserve" might be plausible during the 1980's and early 1990's. As mentioned by others HMS Bulwark was in rough shape in 1982 and I doubt it was going to come back into service unless the Hermes was sunk in combat in 1982, even then the UK might have decided it was to far gone and purchased a used carrier from the US instead.

Once again, no the UK would not have purchased or used a US carrier.

If Hermes or Invincible was sunk, the plan was to withdraw and await Illustrious.

Illustrious was commissioned on June 20th 1982 - 4 days after the actual end of the war - and was in fact already on to the Falklands when commissioned!

And BTW, Illustrious was commissioned with 2 Vulcan Phalanx CIWS, and I think Sea King AEW on board too. So was a lot less vulnerable to Exocets.

 

[Blue cat]

Once again, no the UK would not have purchased or used a US carrier.

If Hermes or Invincible was sunk, the plan was to withdraw and await Illustrious.

Illustrious was commissioned on June 20th 1982 - 4 days after the actual end of the war - and was in fact already on to the Falklands when commissioned!

And BTW, Illustrious was commissioned with 2 Vulcan Phalanx CIWS, and I think Sea King AEW on board too. So was a lot less vulnerable to Exocets.

I can agree with this if they lost Invincible, but I seem to recall that Hermes operated more air craft in the Falklands than Invincible.

In any event if they had some how lost both Invincible and Hermes then Illustrious on its own is not going to cut it.

I recall comments in the press at the time about the US loaning one of their helicopter carriers to the UK in case one of their carriers went down. I don't recall these reports being refuted by either the US or the UK. ISTR the US also had at least one modernized Essex class carrier in mothballs.

I've also read credible accounts of the Bulwark being surveyed for re activation and the UK being disappointed to discover how far gone she was. It's not entirely clear to me if they actually could have brought Bulwark back into service or not or what they were planning on doing with her if they got her back into service.

 

[SunilTanna]

The Argentines would have to get extraordinary lucky to sink both Hermes & Invincible, because they only had 5 exocets, it's doubtful a single exocet would be enough to sink these large ships, and if one ship was sunk the other is not going to hang around. Furthermore Hermes was kept a very long way back from the Falklands - I believe out of Argentine range AFAIK.

Bulwark was definitely surveyed in 1982, and the government even went so far as to announce it would be reactivated. It wasn't however because of the poor condition of the ship. I don't know how poor - it's worth remembering that it did actually do some service even after both fires, as recently as 1980 - so it seems doubtful that there was anything that couldn't be overcome if the need was desperate enough.

Apart from Illustrious, the British also had Ark Royal, which was launched in 1981. Of course, launch is a long way from commissioning, and in OTL, Ark Royal wasn't commissioned until 1985. Maybe this could be significantly sped up, although I think commissioning anytime in 82 is probably pushing it (?)

As far as American carriers, yes it was mentioned in the press, but it's unlikely unless the crew comes too - no RN crew would be trained on the ship, and converting would take a lot of time. Also AV-8As never served on an Essex, and the US carriers weren't fitted out for harriers (no ski jumps - don't know what else might be required).

Incidentally if the Argentines are significantly more successful with Exocets, and get some more of them, I think the most likely consequence is the British attempt Operation Mikado - the plan for the SAS attack on the Super Etendard base in Rio Grande. Assuming the attack isn't a total disaster, the plan was for the SAS troops to escape to Chile - but what they didn't know is the Argentines had several Marine battalions nearby who had orders to pursue any attackers into Chile. So either the SAS suffer a disaster, or maybe the war expands to include Chile.

 

[Astrodragon]

Hermes was a very tough ship to take out with Exocets. Remember she was designed in WW2, built to survive multiple torpedo hits (1,000 lb warheads) and hits from 1,000lb bombs.
As long as any fire can be contained (and carriers are rather good at firefighting, its rather important to them), exocets arent going to sink her.

damage, yes, and probably enough to make her have to withdraw for repairs, but she was built like a tank...

 

[Cook]

But, OTL Argentinians owerhelmed british garrison in Falklands in less than 24 hours.
Why should they not repeat that again? Stronger argentinian forces should be nescesarry, but that is possible...
One battalion of soldiers and 4 fighters are hardly a inbreakable wall around Falklands.

In 1982 the level of threat from Argentina was considered low; yes they had a claim on the Falkland Islands but they’d been making the claim for a very long time and seemed to be willing to use international forums to resolve the issue. Argentina and Britain had been on such good terms that the UK had been trying to sell Argentina Harriers only a few years before. Things changed with the decline in the Argentine economy; the Junta needed a distraction and the F.I. was it.

Argentina was not high on British Military Intelligence’s list of priorities, but even so preparations for the invasion were detected and correctly assessed five days before the landings were made. The response was to dispatch several submarines south.

These days there is much more intense scrutiny of Argentina and the base is designed for rapid reinforcement of the islands. The garrison in place is sufficient to defend against a small raiding force; any threat would prompt immediate reinforcing of both the air wing and ground forces.

In 1982 the British had a single company of Marines with no fire support of heavy weapons. Now they have a Battalion with attachments; the Argentines would want an assault force of at least Brigade strength, that isn’t something you can throw together at a moments notice.