argentine fleet doesnt retreat

[herricks]

in the Falklands War Argentina pulled their fleet away from the Falkand islands after the sinking of the ARA General Belgrano. what i want to know is what would change if Argentina kept its fleet (which included a carrier) around the Falklands? once the British task force got closer could the Argentine navy being backed up by the airforce defeat the royal navy or at least sink one or both of its aircraft carriers & if so what would that do to the British invasion

[Devolved]

Originally Posted by herricks

in the Falklands War Argentina pulled their fleet away from the Falkand islands after the sinking of the ARA General Belgrano. what i want to know is what would change if Argentina kept its fleet (which included a carrier) around the Falklands? once the British task force got closer could the Argentine navy being backed up by the airforce defeat the royal navy or at least sink one or both of its aircraft carriers & if so what would that do to the British invasion

What fleet? A small carrier and 2 Type 42 destroyers was about it.

The nuclear subs would have got them before the Task Force arrived. The Argentine Navy lacked the capability to defend against nuclear subs. That's why they retreated to port.

[sharlin]

Then the two destroyers escorting the Belgrano would have been sunk and if the rumors are true there was a sub watching the argentine carrier waiting for orders to open fire. The 'fleet' was one small carrier, two modern destroyers and some WW2 refits.

[herricks]

Originally Posted by Devolved

What fleet? A small carrier and 2 Type 42 destroyers was about it.

The nuclear subs would have got them before the Task Force arrived. The Argentine Navy lacked the capability to defend against nuclear subs. That's why they retreated to port.

Originally Posted by sharlin

Then the two destroyers escorting the Belgrano would have been sunk and if the rumors are true there was a sub watching the argentine carrier waiting for orders to open fire. The 'fleet' was one small carrier, two modern destroyers and some WW2 refits.

couldnt the carrier move into shallower waters around the islands where the subs couldnt go or at least not as easily

[sharlin]

So steaming even closer into range of the FAAs Harriers then. Somehow also surviving the 200 odd mile journey with us (the brits) knowing full well where it was and not be sunk. Unless the folks in the UK military all took the day off or for some reason decided to start hitting themselves in the face with ballpine hammers, that would never happen. If the carrier launched or approached the island it would be a threat, torpedoed and sunk and its escorts too.

[Orry]

Originally Posted by herricks

couldnt the carrier move into shallower waters around the islands where the subs couldnt go or at least not as easily

That's not where you put carriers. It would be vulnerable to anti-ship missiles as well.

Also there already was a plan to destroy it if it had not retreated. To get to the Islands it has to enter the exclusion zone - the RN would have loved that happening.

Back in those days the RN was a half decent fleet unlike today - it was a case of move it or lose it.

There are things the Argentinians could have done to improve their chances - putting their carrier where it can be easily sunk is not one of them.

[The Oncoming Storm]

I've often thought that the best thing for the Argentine Navy to have done was to head north and try to interdict the supply ships heading south. The loss of the Atlantic Conveyor badly upset Britain's plans, which were on a tight enough schedule anyway. The loss of more supplies could have been terminal.

[Devolved]

Originally Posted by Orry

That's not where you put carriers. It would be vulnerable to anti-ship missiles as well.

Also there already was a plan to destroy it if it had not retreated. To get to the Islands it has to enter the exclusion zone - the RN would have loved that happening.

Back in those days the RN was a half decent fleet unlike today - it was a case of move it or lose it.

There are things the Argentinians could have done to improve their chances - putting their carrier where it can be easily sunk is not one of them.

I wouldn't be too hard on the modern Royal Navy. A couple of Type 45 destroyers fully equipped would have shot all the exocets out of the sky and with the Type 23s they would be a more capable force than the awful Type 42s and mediocre Type 21s that were sent into battle in 1982. Also the nuclear subs today are still enough to take out whatever Argentina has.

[herricks]

could argentina have refitted their indepencia carrier & kept it operational an aditional 12 years & have it in service? would that help them out at all

[RandomChance]

Originally Posted by Devolved

I wouldn't be too hard on the modern Royal Navy. A couple of Type 45 destroyers fully equipped would have shot all the exocets out of the sky and with the Type 23s they would be a more capable force than the awful Type 42s and mediocre Type 21s that were sent into battle in 1982. Also the nuclear subs today are still enough to take out whatever Argentina has.

On the flip side, no carriers at present. With the Queen Elizabeth's being oversized and under-equipped (should've been nuclear powered with catapults and F18s), we won't be much better off.

As for the original post - if the Argentinian fleet didn't withdraw, it's likely the subs would have sunk them. The fallout in the years afterward would have been even worse than Belgrano. Even more revisionist theories would come out of the woodwork.

[sparky42]

Originally Posted by RandomChance

On the flip side, no carriers at present. With the Queen Elizabeth's being oversized and under-equipped (should've been nuclear powered with catapults and F18s), we won't be much better off.

As for the original post - if the Argentinian fleet didn't withdraw, it's likely the subs would have sunk them. The fallout in the years afterward would have been even worse than Belgrano. Even more revisionist theories would come out of the woodwork.

While I fully agree with the Cats I'm not sure about the Nuclear power, the French haven't had the best time with the CdeG and even with the special relationship I doubt the US would make a USN reactor available to the RN. If the RFA was taken in hand the conventional system would do the job I think.

As for the combat certainly the RN would have taken steps to defeat them, an interesting result might be the RN getting more support after demonstrating their combat power more. Perhaps the Sub fleet gets increased due to their actions.

[CalBear]

The Argentine fleet stays at sea it dies. No muss, no fuss, not even much bother. A couple sub skippers get to tie a broom to the mast head when they return to port and probably get the UK equivalent of a Navy Cross (Distinguished Service Cross? Distinguished Service Order?).

The Argentinians didn't have anything that could deal with an SSN, not that this is a real surprise (realistically there about a half dozen navies on Earth that have the capability to deal with a Nuclear powered boat in open water).

[CalBear]

Originally Posted by RandomChance

On the flip side, no carriers at present. With the Queen Elizabeth's being oversized and under-equipped (should've been nuclear powered with catapults and F18s), we won't be much better off.

As for the original post - if the Argentinian fleet didn't withdraw, it's likely the subs would have sunk them. The fallout in the years afterward would have been even worse than Belgrano. Even more revisionist theories would come out of the woodwork.

Without CATOBAR, you really don't have a true "Attack Carrier" You have a rather serious weak spot when it comes to AEW and even to ASW (although the USN seems to have put itself into the same fix, quite intentionally with the retirement of the S3).

The RN ever has to play for keeps against a semi-decent OPFOR, they will find out that the $50-75M they are saving by using the ski ramp system was the worst money they ever banked.

[deathscompanion1]

Kind of OT but what would the Royal Navy look like today if Argentina for whatever reason still was agressively obsessed with the Falklands but was rich and stable enough to have 1st or at least 2nd class navy?

CalBear

Without CATOBAR, you really don't have a true "Attack Carrier" You have a rather serious weak spot when it comes to AEW and even to ASW (although the USN seems to have put itself into the same fix, quite intentionally with the retirement of the S3).

The RN ever has to play for keeps against a semi-decent OPFOR, they will find out that the $50-75M they are saving by using the ski ramp system was the worst money they ever banked.

The Argentine fleet stays at sea it dies. No muss, no fuss, not even much bother. A couple sub skippers get to tie a broom to the mast head when they return to port and probably get the UK equivalent of a Navy Cross (Distinguished Service Cross? Distinguished Service Order?).

The Argentinians didn't have anything that could deal with an SSN, not that this is a real surprise (realistically there about a half dozen navies on Earth that have the capability to deal with a Nuclear powered boat in open water

[juanml82]

Originally Posted by Orry

That's not where you put carriers. It would be vulnerable to anti-ship missiles as well.

Also there already was a plan to destroy it if it had not retreated. To get to the Islands it has to enter the exclusion zone - the RN would have loved that happening.

Back in those days the RN was a half decent fleet unlike today - it was a case of move it or lose it.

There are things the Argentinians could have done to improve their chances - putting their carrier where it can be easily sunk is not one of them.

Well, the RN didn't have AShM capable of being launched from Harriers, so air attacks would have to have been conducted by helicopters (maybe at night?). The British guided torpedoes didn't work, so any submarine would have to get a bit closer to use the older, non guided, torpedoes. Both things are doable. I'd say British surface ships would finish the battle by closing in and firing exocets at the Argentine tasks forces. Maybe the Argentine corvettes get away.

could argentina have refitted their indepencia carrier & kept it operational an aditional 12 years & have it in service? would that help them out at all

In short notice, I don't think so. In any case, the Navy wouldn't risk the Super Etandards and there were no more carrier capable aircraft anyway.

[herricks]

Originally Posted by juanml82

Well, the RN didn't have AShM capable of being launched from Harriers, so air attacks would have to have been conducted by helicopters (maybe at night?). The British guided torpedoes didn't work, so any submarine would have to get a bit closer to use the older, non guided, torpedoes. Both things are doable. I'd say British surface ships would finish the battle by closing in and firing exocets at the Argentine tasks forces. Maybe the Argentine corvettes get away.

In short notice, I don't think so. In any case, the Navy wouldn't risk the Super Etandards and there were no more carrier capable aircraft anyway.

well i know the british would still prolly win but how much bigger could the sea war be because of it

i wasn't sure if the indepencia could hold A-4's like the Venticinco de Mayo

[BigWillyG]

Originally Posted by juanml82

Well, the RN didn't have AShM capable of being launched from Harriers, so air attacks would have to have been conducted by helicopters (maybe at night?). The British guided torpedoes didn't work, so any submarine would have to get a bit closer to use the older, non guided, torpedoes. Both things are doable. I'd say British surface ships would finish the battle by closing in and firing exocets at the Argentine tasks forces. Maybe the Argentine corvettes get away.
In short notice, I don't think so. In any case, the Navy wouldn't risk the Super Etandards and there were no more carrier capable aircraft anyway.

Is the Sea Skua in service in time for the Falklands? I know heli-launched Sea Skua's did well in the Gulf.

[The Oncoming Storm]

Originally Posted by BigWillyG

Is the Sea Skua in service in time for the Falklands? I know heli-launched Sea Skua's did well in the Gulf.

Yes, it was used to successfully sink two Argentinean ships, this is from a Wiki article, sorry but I can't get the link to work

Sea Skuas were launched eight times during the Falklands War, sometimes in appalling weather conditions, scoring a very high hit rate. Four were used against the 800 ton patrol boat/rescue tug ARA Alférez Sobral, fired by two Lynx helicopters from HMS Coventry and HMS Glasgow. Two struck the patrol boat on the bridge, one hit the ship's fibreglass sea boat, and one passed over the ship.[3] Extensive damage was inflicted and eight crewmen (including the captain) were killed, but the ship was not sunk and returned to Puerto Deseado unaided. Another four Sea Skuas were used to destroy the wrecks of the cargo ship Río Carcarañá (8,500 grt) and the patrol boat Río Iguazú.

[BigWillyG]

Originally Posted by The Oncoming Storm

Yes, it was used to successfully sink two Argentinean ships, this is from a Wiki article, sorry but I can't get the link to work

Didn't know that. Probably wouldn't be big enough to sink a carrier but would certainly cause a mission kill, especially is she is prepared for combat and has armed aircraft on deck when she's hit. Could cause a Forrestal type fire.

[Bureaucromancer]

Originally Posted by BigWillyG

Is the Sea Skua in service in time for the Falklands? I know heli-launched Sea Skua's did well in the Gulf.

According to Wikipedia eight were fired on a couple of Argentine transports and a patrol boat, almost all hitting.