HMS EAGLE in the Falklands

[Hammerbolt]

That being said, as the means exist here, I'm struggling to understand why the mainland airfields haven't come under attack as the landings commenced. Catching the enemy on the ground whilst assembling (remember, they don't really have an all weather / night attack capability except, to a degree, with the SuE's) would surely be too good an opportunity to miss.

I can think of 2 reasons:
-avoiding an escalation of the political side of the conflict, which such an attack would cause:
-avoiding risks to the attackers; flak and SAMs would undoutable score kills, and defending fighters would have the edge on fuel/radar warning.

 

[dvyws]

IOTL Sandy kept his carriers as far east as possible from the Islands as possible making it that much harder for the Argentineans to find and fix the fleet.

With aircraft that have longer range and reach, combined with the capabilities of the Gannet, I see no reason why he would not continue to position his carriers further east.

This scenario of a Carrier fighting against land based air would have been exercised ad nauseum over the years, so the Brits should be able to handle this situation.

Or, he could go for the equivalent of Ark Royal's OTL "Reign of terror" against the US East Coast. If she could do that against the Spams, then Eagle should do at least as well against the Argentine forces.

 

[steamboy]

Or, he could go for the equivalent of Ark Royal's OTL "Reign of terror" against the US East Coast. If she could do that against the Spams, then Eagle should do at least as well against the Argentine forces.

True but the Ark's rampage was also basically a suicide run, she would be caught and sunk eventually. but, against the Argentinian's it probably could get away with it. But, its a big escalation of attacking the mainland. The Argentine govt was unpopular and went to war for a quick and easy victory. If the RN bombed the bejasus out of the mainland and levelled airfields then it could well harden the populace's support for the war if there was civilian casualties. And politically it probably wouldn't have gone down too well. Hell look at the reaction towards sinking the Belgrano, think that's bad, bomb argentina and then see how the other countries react in the region and abroad.

Whilst bombing the airbases makes some military sense (even if it does risk the carrier doing it) politically its a no no.

 

[KokkenKunten]

I can think of 2 reasons:
-avoiding an escalation of the political side of the conflict, which such an attack would cause:
-avoiding risks to the attackers; flak and SAMs would undoutable score kills, and defending fighters would have the edge on fuel/radar warning.

Rather late to worry about 'the political side of the conflict' when you're already in a shooting war - and it's an easy sell, too - a necessary action to protect 'our boys' to the best of our military ability. If a bunch of 'tin pot' little nations (which is how they are / will be perceived) get a little huffy, that's tough titties. Seriously, in a world where this is actually possible, it happens.

Perhaps the Argentinian's meagre air defences WILL bag a couple of kills, but don't forget that they can also be heavily suppressed by both electronic & kinetic means. Both Phantom and Buccaneer are possessed of a range far in excess of anything that can be launched against them, and they also have tanking available for persistence. Even if the FAA get lucky & launch an ersatz QRA in an attempt to intercept an inbound raid, they can be picked off BVR, to which the defenders have no answer or capability of their own. Again, what would you rather risk / lose - a couple of aircraft, or a couple of ships??

Whilst bombing the airbases makes some military sense (even if it does risk the carrier doing it) politically its a no no.

Some military sense? It is (or should be) the basic starting point! Why would the carrier be risked when her airgroup has the ability to operate at ranges which put her out of reach of any likely attackers? For the political angle, see above - and don't count on US insistence on doing otherwise, either. They might 'ask', but they'll certainly accede to the RN's operational requirements as being needed and justified. There's no way they're going to piss off or alienate their key ally at the height of the cold war.

 

[sonofpegasus]

A RN plan to ambush the Argentine tanker aircraft could really pay dividends, as it would seriously impact the operational capabilities of the Argentine air force. if the British can get real time intel on the take off if the tankers, who I assume would get airborne first of any strike package, then this might well be doable.

 

[steamboy]

Aye I agree it makes sense but you can't just view this from a military PoV. This is basically a fairly small scale skirmish over territory despite the nasty loss of life. If you suddenly up the ante by bombing the mainland..it would be like if the Belgrano sailed to the UK and bombarded portsmouth (yes an impossibility but still lets say it happens). Its a HUGE escalation right? And I think that bombing the mainland would be seen as the same kind of thing. What happens if a bomb misses and it hits civilian quarters on the base? What would the international reaction to that be. The support you got in the UN might very well evaporate and the US might be more guarded in its support too.

And whilst the risk to the CV is fairly low admittedly, especially if the strikes do a lot of damage, its still the politcal fallout that the UK would not want risking that kept it from being an option.

IIRC, attacks against the Argentine mainland was actually brought up but it was diplomatically unacceptable so they didn't go ahead with it (god knows how they would save risking the carriers sending harriers to go after air bases). And in this kind of war, not a war for survival but a territorial scuffle, diplomacy will trump military common sense.

 

[Hammerbolt]

Rather late to worry about 'the political side of the conflict' when you're already in a shooting war - and it's an easy sell, too - a necessary action to protect 'our boys' to the best of our military ability. If a bunch of 'tin pot' little nations (which is how they are / will be perceived) get a little huffy, that's tough titties. Seriously, in a world where this is actually possible, it happens.

There's always time to worry about it, and it should always be thought of. Don't forget multiple South American nations were, if not activelly, at least passively and politicaly on the side of Argentina. There were background talks in the UN.

If the UK starts to up the body count on operations that the political /social world might very well see as unnecessary ("we thought you wanted just to free the islands. Now you bomb Argentina?!"), not only the preassure on the UK will increase, the other SA nations might pitch in to help "defend against more european colonialism"). And, if as some here have writen, the UK attacks Buenos Aires then there will be serious trouble, casualties or not. Regardless of the actual results, Argentina can come up with stories of "dead civilians bombed (children!!)", civilians attacked, we shot down a bomber, etc...

The UK owns the space and water above and around the Falklands, which is their objective. Sticking to their mandate will allow them to difuse further international problems, regardless of short term military issues.

 

[KokkenKunten]

Aye I agree it makes sense but you can't just view this from a military PoV. This is basically a fairly small scale skirmish over territory despite the nasty loss of life. If you suddenly up the ante by bombing the mainland..it would be like if the Belgrano sailed to the UK and bombarded portsmouth (yes an impossibility but still lets say it happens). Its a HUGE escalation right? And I think that bombing the mainland would be seen as the same kind of thing. What happens if a bomb misses and it hits civilian quarters on the base? What would the international reaction to that be. The support you got in the UN might very well evaporate and the US might be more guarded in its support too.

And whilst the risk to the CV is fairly low admittedly, especially if the strikes do a lot of damage, its still the politcal fallout that the UK would not want risking that kept it from being an option.

IIRC, attacks against the Argentine mainland was actually brought up but it was diplomatically unacceptable so they didn't go ahead with it (god knows how they would save risking the carriers sending harriers to go after air bases). And in this kind of war, not a war for survival but a territorial scuffle, diplomacy will trump military common sense.

It's rather more than that - at least if you value the liberties, wishes and safety of your citizens. It's also, lest we forget and as Admiral Leach himself pointed out OTL, a place marker for Britain and her perception (and honour) globally.

The targeted attack of military facilities ONLY in theatre is a world away from your Belgrano example, too. UN support, whilst certainly nice to have, isn't really relevant in this context when you're a permanent member of the security council, either.

In OTL, the only operation to attack the mainland to reach the planning stage, was the mooted attack by a pair of 44 Sqn Vulcans planned by Air Commodore Baldwin under the aegis of 1 Grp. This was subsequently abandoned as unnecessary / unlikely to succeed. At no stage was serious consideration given to attacking the mainland with either the SHar or GR.3. Some consideration WAS given to using the RAF's Buccaneers, although this plan was also abandoned as the round trip from / to Ascension would exceed the oil consumption parameters of the Rolls Royce Speys used by this aircraft.

 

[KillerT]

Lots of guessing going on here, but no doubt the OTL MI6 operative and Chilean assistance will be to hand, plus there's the Gannets there as mentioned, the picket SSN plus things that the author will have planned. It's one huge (and rather fraught and dangerous) operation to coordinate all those aircraft so no doubt there might be the odd ditch, the occasional 'incident' while forming up before they even get anywhere close by.

 

[Cryhavoc101]

Regarding an attack on the Argentine Mainland I would suggest an attack on the Rio Grande air base which is where the Super Etendards are based and one would assume their exocet missiles and associated equipment

The Navy shares the airbase (which is located on the South West corner of the airport) with a civilian terminal and there are civilian hangers etc but it is the southernmost airbase (in Tierra del Fuego) and so potentially the safest to attack and as I said home base of the Exocet carrying Super Etendards.

Sort of found a map

 

[andys]

If the Brits can play havoc over the US, as they did in exercises in the 60s or 70s(?), then a raid on the Argentine's southernmost airbase should be well within their capabilities.

 

[haider najib]

Reading the telegraph just recently argentina complaining (to the uk embassy) about british military conducting exercise in the 'illegaly occupied' falklands. So how will the uk force the Argentineans to completely give up their claim to the islands? As even the democractic Argentina still goes on about it, maybe more so than their dictatorship did.

Also question everyone saying attacking mainland Argentina will make the populace support the war and and get greater support from south america. My question is so what? What can argentine population supporting the war do they have no navy, are they all going to get into boats and sail out and fight? Also bringing in the rest of latin America to support Argentina is not going to change anything, their navies could just be sunk and their material support will change nothing. The uk also has allies who are much stronger, ie the usa who can easily make sure not latin americans suffer. The latin american nations i doubt would want to bring greater US support for the brits or a more likely chance of a pro american coup as the americans are kinda good at making sure latin america follow their rules.

 

[WILDGEESE]

A RN plan to ambush the Argentine tanker aircraft could really pay dividends, as it would seriously impact the operational capabilities of the Argentine air force. if the British can get real time intel on the take off if the tankers, who I assume would get airborne first of any strike package, then this might well be doable.

Trouble is from reading "The Royal Navy and The Falklands War" by David F Brown, for some reason it said that either the Admiralty back home, or poor intel or a lack of judgement with Sandy Woodward and his command staff failed to realize that the Argie Air Force were using C-130 tankers or believed there weren't enough of them to do any good.

Regards.

 

[Blue cat]

Trouble is from reading "The Royal Navy and The Falklands War" by David F Brown, for some reason it said that either the Admiralty back home, or poor intel or a lack of judgement with Sandy Woodward and his command staff failed to realize that the Argie Air Force were using C-130 tankers or believed there weren't enough of them to do any good.

Regards.

Hmmm... I can't comment re the books you mentioned but,

I seem to recall the news media in Canada at the time mentioned that Argentina had two C130 air refuelling tankers.

 

[sonofpegasus]

Surely targeting their two C130 tankers is a given, Take them out and the argentines attack options are degraded more than by just losing jets. It must be better to have to defend against less potent attacks than not.

 

[Simon]

Aye I agree it makes sense but you can't just view this from a military PoV. This is basically a fairly small scale skirmish over territory despite the nasty loss of life. If you suddenly up the ante by bombing the mainland it would be like if the Belgrano sailed to the UK and bombarded Portsmouth (yes an impossibility but still lets say it happens). It's a HUGE escalation right?

It's one of the paradoxes of being powerful militarily and/or diplomatically influential in that you often have to be restrained in your use of its exercise to avoid damaging your reputation. If you lean on someone much weaker than yourself then you run the risk of damaging your image, no-one like to see someone much larger picking on someone weaker - and as close as things were militarily with the Falklands, Britain - as a permanent member of the UN Security Council, nuclear power, and more developed economically - was seen as the larger nation compared to Argentina.

And, if as some here have writen, the UK attacks Buenos Aires then there will be serious trouble, casualties or not. Regardless of the actual results, Argentina can come up with stories of "dead civilians bombed (children!!)", civilians attacked, we shot down a bomber, etc....

That's why with my half-serious idea of flying a heavy bomber over Buenos Aires for a quick pass I suggested dropping leaflets, have then read something along the lines of we didn't want this fight but the junta forced our hand. The fact that they could have been bombs is left unstated but very obvious. The point about the junta lying about casualties or shot down aircraft, shades of HMS Invincible, is a good one. The best I can think of is to tip off some off the international media to be at such and such a place in Buenos Aires at a certain time without telling them exactly what's happening, it won't do anything for inside Argentina but internationally would help counteract any Argentinian claims.

Some consideration was given to using the RAF's Buccaneers, although this plan was also abandoned as the round trip from/to Ascension would exceed the oil consumption parameters of the Rolls-Royce Speys used by this aircraft.

Just to clarify when you write 'oil' do you mean fuel or engine oil and lubricants? I can remember reading somewhere that the Spey was a thirsty bugger for the latter, it often being the limiting range factor when using air-to-air refuelling.

 

[KokkenKunten]

Just to clarify when you write 'oil' do you mean fuel or engine oil and lubricants? I can remember reading somewhere that the Spey was a thirsty bugger for the latter, it often being the limiting range factor when using air-to-air refuelling.

Engine oil - which is why I said oil. Had I meant fuel, I would've said 'Avtur' or 'Jet A-1' which, whilst distillates thereof, are not themselves oils.

Six hours, give or take, is about the practical limit for a Buccaneer sortie regardless of fuel use, due to oil tank capacity.

 

[Hammerbolt]

That's why with my half-serious idea of flying a heavy bomber over Buenos Aires for a quick pass I suggested dropping leaflets, have then read something along the lines of we didn't want this fight but the junta forced our hand. The fact that they could have been bombs is left unstated but very obvious. The point about the junta lying about casualties or shot down aircraft, shades of HMS Invincible, is a good one. The best I can think of is to tip off some off the international media to be at such and such a place in Buenos Aires at a certain time without telling them exactly what's happening, it won't do anything for inside Argentina but internationally would help counteract any Argentinian claims.

And then something goes wrong with the bomber and it crashes, or a Mirage gets a lucky shot...

 

[tgifriday]

And then something goes wrong with the bomber and it crashes, or a Mirage gets a lucky shot...

or as otl diverts to brazil

 

[calvinhobbesliker]

or as otl diverts to brazil

Was there a leaflet run OTL?