A series of assumptions: a Britwank on a budget?

[NOMISYRRUC]

ITTL the CVA were 71-80 rather than 73-82 and Ark Royal was started in Dec 79 so its first 16 months of OTL construction can be set against the last 16 months of CVA02 construction ITTL.

Is Dec 79 a typo for Dec 78? My information is that she was laid down on 14th December 1978.

The good news is that £70 million in 1966 was worth £304.10 million in 1980 compared to £369.49 million in 1982. (Source Bank of England Inflation Calculator.)

The bad news is that if one deducts the first 16 months of the OTL Ark Royal from the construction cost of CVA.02 this will be cancelled out by the money spent on Illustrious after CVA.02 was completed. The TTL CVA.02 was completed in April 1980 (December 1978 plus 16 months) and the OTL Illustrious was completed in June 1982. That's 22 months later.

However, as I wrote it does avoid a lot of inflation as £1.00 in 1980 was worth £1.22 in 1982. (Source Bank of England Inflation Calculator.)

 

[Cryhavoc101]

IIRC Eagle's 12 Phantoms armed with four Skyflash each butchered the Argentine's in @flasheart's thread.

HMS EAGLE in the Falklands

Story only thread: https://www.alternatehistory.com/forum/threads/hms-eagle-in-the-falklands-story-only.506141/ 31st March 1982 Whitehall Pausing only to make a quick phone call to get a quick update on the disposition and readiness of his fleet and having found the defence secretary not in...

www.alternatehistory.com

However, in thinks thread RAF has Blue Jay and the small number of FAA Phantoms doesn't justify the development of Skyflash.

Could the FAA's Phantoms have been modified to fire Blue Jay?

Sparrow did not enjoy a high success rate but it was a USN weapon intended to allow for a stand off air to air weapon verses targets at sea which would almost undoubtedly be the enemy and used by the USAF after its AIM 4 failed big time during the Vietnam war.

Over Vietnam it was used in an environment where close range id of the enemy was often necessary - particularly in an environment where the majority of aircraft flying in the warzone would be US or allied aircraft and so prevent blue on blue most engagements took place at a range where the weapon was useless.

The weapon was also found to be poor at head to head engagements - which unlike the Sidewinder and gun engagements (where 90% of kills were tail chase shots) - where more likely the type that the Aim 7 would be used in.

I don't know how much better Sky flash would have been or indeed how much improved the Aim 7s of 1982 were compared to those of the Vietnam war?

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

2 CVA had the same number of Olympus GTs as 3 I's did, 1 less radar and combat system 2 less lifts and perhaps most importantly did not have to develop a new aircraft and buy 28 of them.

The cats cost money but they are the next step from the BS5A so shouldn't be a great burden.

I'm somewhat discombobulated by your reply. I can't tell if you're agreeing or disagreeing with me. I was agreeing with you and backing up what you wrote.

I think you're CVA.01 will be underpowered with four Olympus GT's unless they are more powerful than the versions that Invincible had. Depending on the source they produced 25,000shp to 28,000shp, which is a total of 100,000shp to 112,000shp. They will have to produce 33,750shp each to produce the 135,000shp that that the OTL CVA.01 was to have had. A six Olympus plant driving 3 shafts will cost more than a four Olympus plant driving 2 shafts, but as you wrote about the steam catapults that shouldn't be a great burden.

What you wrote about the radars and combat system is the same as what I wrote.

I don't know what you mean about Invincible having fewer lifts than CVA.01. The OTL version only had two. Did I miss something? That is, does your version has four? In common with the catapults they shouldn't be a great burden.

You're selling yourself short on the 28 Sea Harriers as the initial orders were for 34 aircraft.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

I don't know how much better Sky flash would have been or indeed how much improved the Aim 7s of 1982 were compared to those of the Vietnam war?

@Riain is giving Sparrow a one-in-four kill rate ITTL according to the post that I quoted. I don't remember the exact kill rate that @flasheart gave Skyflash other than it was a lot higher.

@Riain is also arming the Phantoms instead with four SRAAMs instead of four Sidewinders and giving the former a kill rate of three-in-four. I didn't follow the thread in detail, but my guess is that he's used the money spent on Skyflash IOTL to continue development of SRAAM which IOTL was cancelled in the Mason Review of 1974-75. AFAIK SRAAM was to have had the same or better performance as the AIM-9L Sidewinder.

AIUI one of the reasons why the Sea Harrier was so effective in the Falklands was that they were armed with AIM-9L Sidewinders that the USN had supplied. ITTL has the USN supplied the RN with a batch of the latest mark of Sparrow? That may be very important if they're better than the ones used in the Vietnam War.

 

[Warden]

Friedman has been known to make factual errors. This is from Quora...

What's your point exactly? Cryhavoc pointed out that the idea that ARA San Luis ever attacked Hermes is nonsense and you responded to that with this, but I don't see the relevance?

I also find your "analysis" of the sonar conditions and distances involved in ARA San Luis' attack on HMS Arrow head scratching.

One cannot split the baby on this one. The determinant is the sound conditions at the north end of the Falklands strait that close in to the coastal inlet mouth. It HAD to be closer than nine kilometers to HMS Arrow when the submarine launched. The frigate was toddling along until she heard the launch transient. The bottom is hard and the convergent zones (short interval due to shallow bottom bounce) echo returns on the shelf is sharp. the wire cut early, so that fish picked up something.

I presume you mean convergence zones and not convergent zones, but convergence zones do not seem possible at the depths experienced over the shelf? Furthermore, while I have little knowledge of the bottom conditions out to sea north of the Falklands a hard bottom would promote bottom bounce, which is when sound is reflected by the bottom, this obviously reduces transmission loss and increases detection range. In any event detecting a ship through passive sonar at a range further than nine kilometers is quite possible regardless of bottom bounce.

 

[marathag]

after its AIM 4 failed big time during the Vietnam wa

I've post the Stats from Sparrow v. Falcon over SE Asia, and honestly, Sparrow is not better. The biggest problem with Falcon was no proximity fuze, but that also meant hits were more damaging.
AIM-4 9.8% success
AIM-7 9.2%
AIM-9 19.8%
The other problem with the Phantom F4-D, was its IR seeker only had a runtime of two minutes before the active cooled sensor ran out of liquid Nitrogen, rendering the missile useless. Most Navy Phantom pilots were not aware of this, unlike USAF ADC pilots.

 

[McPherson]

What's your point exactly? Cryhavoc pointed out that the idea that ARA San Luis ever attacked Hermes is nonsense and you responded to that with this, but I don't see the relevance?

1. Pointed out that the Argentines did conduct submarine operations which did threaten British ships? That was the point.

I presume you mean convergence zones and not convergent zones, but convergence zones do not seem possible at the depths experienced over the shelf? Furthermore, while I have little knowledge of the bottom conditions out to sea north of the Falklands a hard bottom would promote bottom bounce, which is when sound is reflected by the bottom, this obviously reduces transmission loss and increases detection range. In any event detecting a ship through passive sonar at a range further than nine kilometers is quite possible regardless of bottom bounce.

2. I mean the refraction indexed sound paths in the water which are either surface interface or thermocline or bottom-bounced reflected/refracted between two "bounce mirrors". Convergence or convergent; that is a "nitpick". Bottom bounce SHORTENS the distance of boundaries between zones in shallow water.

3. Distance is a function of angle of refraction or carom of the bottom bounce. I I would expect at the 100 meter line (55 fathoms) the interval would be about 7,000-15,000 meters where HMS Arrow was attacked. It could be MUCH shorter if San Luis was direct path inside the first convergent zone boundary.

 

[Cryhavoc101]

@Riain is giving Sparrow a one-in-four kill rate ITTL according to the post that I quoted. I don't remember the exact kill rate that @flasheart gave Skyflash other than it was a lot higher.

@Riain is also arming the Phantoms instead with four SRAAMs instead of four Sidewinders and giving the former a kill rate of three-in-four. I didn't follow the thread in detail, but my guess is that he's used the money spent on Skyflash IOTL to continue development of SRAAM which IOTL was cancelled in the Mason Review of 1974-75. AFAIK SRAAM was to have had the same or better performance as the AIM-9L Sidewinder.

AIUI one of the reasons why the Sea Harrier was so effective in the Falklands was that they were armed with AIM-9L Sidewinders that the USN had supplied. ITTL has the USN supplied the RN with a batch of the latest mark of Sparrow? That may be very important if they're better than the ones used in the Vietnam War.

SHAR pilots - many of them having been Phantom pilots and also using the USNs experience from the Vietnam war were trained to go for 'pre-shot manoeuvre' to ensure tailpipe shots with the side winder regardless of the Lima's all aspect engagement ability due to its better seeker head.

That being said the Lima enjoyed something like an 80% 'kill' rate during the Falklands war which was a massive improvement over the previous versions using over Vietnam which achieved an 18% kill rate.

SRAAM sought to act as a very short range missile (<2 kms) capable of engaging from 'off bore sight' positions in a dog fight - unlike the Sidewinder I think that it would not have been as mature a weapon system

 

[Warden]

1. Pointed out that the Argentines did conduct submarine operations which did threaten British ships? That was the point.

2. I mean the refraction indexed sound paths in the water which are either surface interface or thermocline or bottom-bounced reflected/refracted between two "bounce mirrors". Convergence or convergent; that is a "nitpick". Bottom bounce SHORTENS the distance of boundaries between zones in shallow water.

3. Distance is a function of angle of refraction or carom of the bottom bounce. I I would expect at the 100 meter line (55 fathoms) the interval would be about 7,000-15,000 meters where HMS Arrow was attacked. It could be MUCH shorter if San Luis was direct path inside the first convergent zone boundary.

There is an enormous difference between a sub penetrating the screen around a carrier to attack it and launching an attack on a frigate. You made an entirely inaccurate statement of fact and now you're trying to distance yourself from it. How about you stop dissembling and simply admit that you were wrong about the ARA San Luis ever launching an attack on HMS Hermes.

2. I mean the refraction indexed sound paths in the water which are either surface interface or thermocline or bottom-bounced reflected/refracted between two "bounce mirrors". Convergence or convergent; that is a "nitpick". Bottom bounce SHORTENS the distance of boundaries between zones in shallow water.

3. Distance is a function of angle of refraction or carom of the bottom bounce. I I would expect at the 100 meter line (55 fathoms) the interval would be about 7,000-15,000 meters where HMS Arrow was attacked. It could be MUCH shorter if San Luis was direct path inside the first convergent zone boundary.

Fair enough about convergence and convergent being a nitpick, but I felt it necessary to raise the issue as I couldn't fathom what you were talking about. At least according to the theory I'm familiar the term convergence zone is applied to the effect were the water depth is sufficient that the sound waves are deflected upwards by the usually occurring positive gradient found in the deep isothermal layer. Since the deflection is greater the deeper the sound wave is in the ocean all the sound waves tend to converge at the same spot on the surface, where they are again reflected downward. This is why they're called convergence zones. Due to the ocean depth required for this effect it's obviously impossible to achieve over a shallow ocean shelf.
I've never before encountered anyone describing bottom bounce propagation as a convergence zone, but ok, I suppose that it does have results that are somewhat similar in that when the sound hits the bottom it is reflected upwards and conversely it's reflected downwards when it hits the surface. However, where the bending caused by the positive gradient in the deep isothermal layer causes a lens effect the bouncing effect on the seafloor and surface from bottom propagation does not and the sound waves are scattered by imperfections in both. In my view it makes little sense to describe them as convergence zones. Might I suggest that those interested study figure 6 and 7 at this link to comprehend the difference? Note that figure 7 represents an idealized case and that the waves would be diffused by the interaction with the sea floor, note that while this effect places a heavier burden on the term convergence than it can reasonable be expected to bear, it can in fact be advantageous in the context described in the text above figure 7.
Could you perhaps explain what math or table you pulled the figure of 7-15km from? It makes no sense to me for bottom bounce at a depth of 100 meters. Typically bottom bounce rays have an angle of 30 degrees or more from the horizontal plane. How you go from that fact to 7-15km of propagation for a bounce in 100 meters of water is beyond my mathematical knowledge to comprehend. Perhaps if we assume that the sea floor is tilted about 80 degrees from the horizontal? I would appreciate it if you could educate me on this point.
As a final sidenote I would like to note that I still don't understand how these convergence zones or convergent zones, in whatever definition of the terms, make it impossible for a submarine to detect a surface vessel beyond 9 kilometers, perhaps you forgot to explain this to me in your previous post?

 

[McPherson]

There is an enormous difference between a sub penetrating the screen around a carrier to attack it and launching an attack on a frigate. You made an entirely inaccurate statement of fact and now you're trying to distance yourself from it. How about you stop dissembling and simply admit that you were wrong about the ARA San Luis ever launching an attack on HMS Hermes.

One has to get through the screen to see and hear what is inside. The facts were accurate to the case as found.

Fair enough about convergence and convergent being a nitpick, but I felt it necessary to raise the issue as I couldn't fathom what you were talking about. At least according to the theory I'm familiar the term convergence zone is applied to the effect were the water depth is sufficient that the sound waves are deflected upwards by the usually occurring positive gradient found in the deep isothermal layer. Since the deflection is greater the deeper the sound wave is in the ocean all the sound waves tend to converge at the same spot on the surface, where they are again reflected downward. This is why they're called convergence zones. Due to the ocean depth required for this effect it's obviously impossible to achieve over a shallow ocean shelf.

That is fair, but your other comments show me you do not understand underwater acoustics at all. Sound is not focused until end of path. Neither is the bounce echo off a hard surface. The paths actually scatter and are quite smudgy at depth until refraction bends them up. And we are talking a submarine, not a surface vessel listening..,

I've never before encountered anyone describing bottom bounce propagation as a convergence zone, but ok, I suppose that it does have results that are somewhat similar in that when the sound hits the bottom it is reflected upwards and conversely it's reflected downwards when it hits the surface. However, where the bending caused by the positive gradient in the deep isothermal layer causes a lens effect the bouncing effect on the seafloor and surface from bottom propagation does not and the sound waves are scattered by imperfections in both. In my view it makes little sense to describe them as convergence zones. Might I suggest that those interested study figure 6 and 7 at this link to comprehend the difference? Note that figure 7 represents an idealized case and that the waves would be diffused by the interaction with the sea floor, note that while this effect places a heavier burden on the term convergence than it can reasonable be expected to bear, it can in fact be advantageous in the context described in the text above figure 7.
Could you perhaps explain what math or table you pulled the figure of 7-15km from? It makes no sense to me for bottom bounce at a depth of 100 meters. Typically bottom bounce rays have an angle of 30 degrees or more from the horizontal plane. How you go from that fact to 7-15km of propagation for a bounce in 100 meters of water is beyond my mathematical knowledge to comprehend. Perhaps if we assume that the sea floor is tilted about 80 degrees from the horizontal? I would appreciate it if you could educate me on this point.

I did not describe bottom bounce as refraction I described it as a carom.

As a final sidenote I would like to note that I still don't understand how these convergence zones or convergent zones, in whatever definition of the terms, make it impossible for a submarine to detect a surface vessel beyond 9 kilometers, perhaps you forgot to explain this to me in your previous post?

Because there is a sound shadow or DEAD ZONE. See citation for explanations.

 

[JudgeKing]

On a somewhat unrelated note, Mitsubishi and TRDI would've begun work on developing the J/APG-1 radar (the world's first fighter mounted AESA radar) at this time. Perhaps ITTL, British companies join in as well.

 

[Riain]

I'm somewhat discombobulated by your reply. I can't tell if you're agreeing or disagreeing with me. I was agreeing with you and backing up what you wrote.

I think you're CVA.01 will be underpowered with four Olympus GT's unless they are more powerful than the versions that Invincible had. Depending on the source they produced 25,000shp to 28,000shp, which is a total of 100,000shp to 112,000shp. They will have to produce 33,750shp each to produce the 135,000shp that that the OTL CVA.01 was to have had. A six Olympus plant driving 3 shafts will cost more than a four Olympus plant driving 2 shafts, but as you wrote about the steam catapults that shouldn't be a great burden.

What you wrote about the radars and combat system is the same as what I wrote.

I don't know what you mean about Invincible having fewer lifts than CVA.01. The OTL version only had two. Did I miss something? That is, does your version has four? In common with the catapults they shouldn't be a great burden.

You're selling yourself short on the 28 Sea Harriers as the initial orders were for 34 aircraft.

I'm agreeing with you, the whole point of this TL is making decisions in a straight line more or less rather than all the twists and turns that resulted in bad outcomes or good outcomes reached in a difficult and expensive way.

CVAs will have 6 GTs each, which is the same amount that were built for the 3 I's, I've tried to match OTL spending with TTL.

I don't think McTaggart Scott lifts work for deck edges, I think they're only for inboard and the deck edge will be the old style.

 

[Riain]

Is Dec 79 a typo for Dec 78? My information is that she was laid down on 14th December 1978.

The good news is that £70 million in 1966 was worth £304.10 million in 1980 compared to £369.49 million in 1982. (Source Bank of England Inflation Calculator.)

The bad news is that if one deducts the first 16 months of the OTL Ark Royal from the construction cost of CVA.02 this will be cancelled out by the money spent on Illustrious after CVA.02 was completed. The TTL CVA.02 was completed in April 1980 (December 1978 plus 16 months) and the OTL Illustrious was completed in June 1982. That's 22 months later.

However, as I wrote it does avoid a lot of inflation as £1.00 in 1980 was worth £1.22 in 1982. (Source Bank of England Inflation Calculator.)

Yes, 78. Fair enough on the Lusty, but the inflation is the killer and as you say 2 years does make a big difference in the 70s.

 

[Riain]

I don't know how much better Sky flash would have been or indeed how much improved the Aim 7s of 1982 were compared to those of the Vietnam war?

In 1991 the Sparrow got to 40%, I picked 25% here because I failed maths in year 9 and it's close enough for realism without me having to work out what 33% of 8 is or whatever.

Also, I don't want to get so far down into the weeds with this sort of detail because I think it compartmentalises history and raises more questions than it answers. The discussion about the San Luis is a case in point. The range of its torpedos to me isn't nearly as important as that the attack took place on the same day as Black Buck 1,the Sea Harrier attacks on airfields, the Dagger attacks on the shore bombardment ships, Sea Harriers shooting down Mirages, a Canberra and another jet while the de Mayo's Trackers had found the TF but were't being covered by Splendid and Belgrano was being covered by Conqueror but could shake her over the Burwood Bank as part of the 'massive attack' that the ARA had been ordered to undertake.

That's a lot of information for a handful of leaders to process and make decisions on. Imagine waking up on 2 May with all that rattling around in your head while knowing that today was the day the ARA was going to launch their attack from 3 directions. Little wonder they wanted the Belgrano sunk.

 

[Cryhavoc101]

In 1991 the Sparrow got to 40%, I picked 25% here because I failed maths in year 9 and it's close enough for realism without me having to work out what 33% of 8 is or whatever.

Also, I don't want to get so far down into the weeds with this sort of detail because I think it compartmentalises history and raises more questions than it answers. The discussion about the San Luis is a case in point. The range of its torpedos to me isn't nearly as important as that the attack took place on the same day as Black Buck 1,the Sea Harrier attacks on airfields, the Dagger attacks on the shore bombardment ships, Sea Harriers shooting down Mirages, a Canberra and another jet while the de Mayo's Trackers had found the TF but were't being covered by Splendid and Belgrano was being covered by Conqueror but could shake her over the Burwood Bank as part of the 'massive attack' that the ARA had been ordered to undertake.

That's a lot of information for a handful of leaders to process and make decisions on. Imagine waking up on 2 May with all that rattling around in your head while knowing that today was the day the ARA was going to launch their attack from 3 directions. Little wonder they wanted the Belgrano sunk.

Works for me.

 

[Riain]

IIRC Eagle's 12 Phantoms armed with four Skyflash each butchered the Argentine's in @flasheart's thread.

HMS EAGLE in the Falklands

Story only thread: https://www.alternatehistory.com/forum/threads/hms-eagle-in-the-falklands-story-only.506141/ 31st March 1982 Whitehall Pausing only to make a quick phone call to get a quick update on the disposition and readiness of his fleet and having found the defence secretary not in...

www.alternatehistory.com

However, in thinks thread RAF has Blue Jay and the small number of FAA Phantoms doesn't justify the development of Skyflash.

Could the FAA's Phantoms have been modified to fire Blue Jay?

I didn't follow the thread in detail, but my guess is that he's used the money spent on Skyflash IOTL to continue development of SRAAM which IOTL was cancelled in the Mason Review of 1974-75. AFAIK SRAAM was to have had the same or better performance as the AIM-9L Sidewinder.

SRAAM sought to act as a very short range missile (<2 kms) capable of engaging from 'off bore sight' positions in a dog fight - unlike the Sidewinder I think that it would not have been as mature a weapon system

The Blue Jay is basically an improved and stretched Red Top with a SARH seeker, so it will have the 23cm diamter of the Red Top and fin placement based on it. The Sparrow was ~20cm (8") in diameter and had it's own fin placement that was built into the Phantom. I suppose it's possible that the Phantom could be modified but that's a difficult and expensive project that wouldn't be worth it.

SRAAM more or less uses Skyflash money but I have taken(but not spelled out in the TL) liberties due to the butterflies. arising from the different aviation industry ITTL. Britain had built hundreds of Lightnings, TSR2 and VG Jaguar, dozens of Buccaneer and Harrier not to mention ~300 Trident, BAC111 and ~150 VC10 in the 60s and 70s, ITTL industry can do things that OTL industry could not, developing Blue Jay and SRAAM into peer weapons at a reasonable cost being among these capabilities.

I acknowledge that this is a bit vague and hand-wavy but industry success was more important to me than the development of particular missiles.

 

[Cryhavoc101]

The Blue Jay is basically an improved and stretched Red Top with a SARH seeker, so it will have the 23cm diamter of the Red Top and fin placement based on it. The Sparrow was ~20cm (8") in diameter and had it's own fin placement that was built into the Phantom. I suppose it's possible that the Phantom could be modified but that's a difficult and expensive project that wouldn't be worth it.

SRAAM more or less uses Skyflash money but I have taken(but not spelled out in the TL) liberties due to the butterflies. arising from the different aviation industry ITTL. Britain had built hundreds of Lightnings, TSR2 and VG Jaguar, dozens of Buccaneer and Harrier not to mention ~300 Trident, BAC111 and ~150 VC10 in the 60s and 70s, ITTL industry can do things that OTL industry could not, developing Blue Jay and SRAAM into peer weapons at a reasonable cost being among these capabilities.

I acknowledge that this is a bit vague and hand-wavy but industry success was more important to me than the development of particular missiles.

It works for me...again.

Given the limitations of pre-Amraam BVR missiles I think, as you have done here, the Skyflash money would be better spent on a better Heat Seeking missile, leveraging the AIM 7 of the day for Phantom.

 

[Riain]

As the Amphibious Task Group slowly steamed into San Carlos water(1) QEII tuned into the wind and launched the first of her Gannet sorties of what was expected to be a long day. This elderly plane slowly chugged her way to an orbit over the northern part of Falkland Sound where her elderly AEW radar could see the whole Islands includng the full length of the Sound, and some 50nm past west Falkland. However she was subject to some severe constraints, her slow speed meant that with her prolonged transit to and from the carrier station well to the East Falkland Sound was about as far west as she could go with 2 hours on station. Keeping fell AEW coverage during daylight would be a real challenge for QEIIs 5 Gannets, with PoWs 6 Gannets tasked with protecting the fleet. This station meant that there was a lot of land between her and the low level radar horizon, over 60nm away to the South West toward Port Stephens, however this could not be helped. As she climbed into position she picked up her helper 25 miles away the the North West near Pebble Island, the Type 64 combo of HMS Coventry and HMS Broadsword(2) operating as a picket and missile trap. Much closer to the south, in the widest part of the Sound a ‘gunline’ was forming of ships from the Amphibious Task Group escort. None of these was as potent a combination as the Type 64, equipped with older radars and weapons including the Sea Slug and Sea cat missile, however there were a lot of them and in the tight confines of Falkland Sound were expected to give a good account of themselves to protect the Landing Force.

However by the time the Gannet reached it’s station that Amphibious ships had already been detected and engaged with mortars and recoiless rifles by the aptly named Fanning Head Mob. The Mob were in turn engaged with naval gunfire and assaulted by a 25 man SBS team, scattering in the face of this attack. As dawn broke the three RM Commandos in Hermes, Fearless and Intrepid landed by LCU and Sea King Mk4 with 3 Para remaining on Canberra to act as a floating reserve while the first Phantom CAP arrived on station. At 8.30 the 4 Belfasts flying from Ascension, escorted by 4 Phantoms, arrived over San Carlos and disgorged it’s 400 Paratroopers from 2 Para(3) in the longest range parachute assault in history, with these Phantoms then relieving the pair on CAP station since dawn. However by this time the Fanning Head Mob was taking it’s revenge, while 1st Lt Carlos Esteban informed Goose Green garrison about the landings other troops shot down a pair of British Gazelles with machine guns and fired on the survivors in the water.

1. IOTL the landings took place on 21 May, the landing window driven by Intrepids availability was 21-24 May.
2. IOTL the Type 64 combo was not north of Pebble Island until 25 May
3. IOTL 2 Para landed by sea from MV Norland

 

[Cryhavoc101]

As the Amphibious Task Group slowly steamed into San Carlos water(1) QEII tuned into the wind and launched the first of her Gannet sorties of what was expected to be a long day. This elderly plane slowly chugged her way to an orbit over the northern part of Falkland Sound where her elderly AEW radar could see the whole Islands includng the full length of the Sound, and some 50nm past west Falkland. However she was subject to some severe constraints, her slow speed meant that with her prolonged transit to and from the carrier station well to the East Falkland Sound was about as far west as she could go with 2 hours on station. Keeping fell AEW coverage during daylight would be a real challenge for QEIIs 5 Gannets, with PoWs 6 Gannets tasked with protecting the fleet. This station meant that there was a lot of land between her and the low level radar horizon, over 60nm away to the South West toward Port Stephens, however this could not be helped. As she climbed into position she picked up her helper 25 miles away the the North West near Pebble Island, the Type 64 combo of HMS Coventry and HMS Broadsword operating as a picket and missile trap. Much closer to the south, in the widest part of the Sound a ‘gunline’ was forming of ships from the Amphibious Task Group escort. None of these was as potent a combination as the Type 64, equipped with older radars and weapons including the Sea Slug and Sea cat missile, however there were a lot of them and in the tight confines of Falkland Sound were expected to give a good account of themselves to protect the Landing Force.
View attachment 614807
However by the time the Gannet reached it’s station that Amphibious ships had already been detected and engaged with mortars and recoiless rifles by the aptly named Fanning Head Mob. The Mob were in turn engaged with naval gunfire and assaulted by a 25 man SBS team, scattering in the face of this attack. As dawn broke the three RM Commandos in Hermes, Fearless and Intrepid landed by LCU and Sea King Mk4 with 3 Para remaining on Canberra to act as a floating reserve while the first Phantom CAP arrived on station. At 8.30 the 4 Belfasts flying from Ascension, escorted by 4 Phantoms, arrived over San Carlos and disgorged it’s 400 Paratroopers from 2 Para(2) in the longest range parachute assault in history, with these Phantoms then relieving the pair on CAP station since dawn. However by this time the Fanning Head Mob was taking it’s revenge, while 1st Lt Carlos Esteban informed Goose Green garrison about the landings other troops shot down a pair of British Gazelles with machine guns and fired on the survivors in the water.

1. IOTL the landings took place on 21 May, the landing window driven by Intrepids availability was 21-24 May.
2. IOTL 2 Para landed by sea from MV Norland

3 para must be doing its nut!

 

[Riain]

3 para must be doing its nut!

For a few hours yes, but as Mike Tyson said everyone has a plan until they get punched in the face.

IOTL 9 Daggers attacked between 10.25 and 10.50, with A4s not far behind. There's your punch in the face.