Difference if Stanley airfield extended in April 1981?
- Thread starter Admiral Beez
- Start date
Admiral Beez
Banned
Adding 609 meters of runway to a civilian airfield is not "upgrading defenses", anymore than upgrading the port to take larger ships.
It's still too short for large jet transports like the RAF's Vickers VC10.
Barry Bull
Donor
It really depends on their load, combat aircraft or not. The Argentinean can reduce the amount of fuel loaded to aircraft in order to have more cargo loaded while having to accomodate a shorter runway. Calculations and analysis needed to done to see whether it is feasible for combat loaded fighters to refuel st Stanley before commencing CAP or attack runs.
However, such use of the Stanley is obvious very risky to the Argentinian Air force.
Admiral Beez
Banned
True, and having fighters at Stanley leaves the mainland exposed. A Black Buck strike over Buenos Aires, even if focused on military targets will trigger memories of the Doolittle Raid.
Riain
Banned
As I said earlier in the thread, there is no need to have fighters based at Stanley merely a rapid turnaround team to refuel and maybe rearm and conduct minor battle damage repair. The fighters fly out from home, do their CAP, land at Stanley to refuel, take off and do their CAP and head home with the time used on having only 1 400 mile transit instead going to the time spent on CAP. By having the fighters on the ground for only an hour while refuelling and minor checks are done the chance for the British to react and get them while on the ground is minimised. This could be minimised even further is rudimentary protective revetments were built for the aircraft while they're getting refuelled, filling used oil drums with dirt does the trick.
Aphrodite
Banned
If the airfield is extended, the British would never risk sending C130s to it or paratroopers of any kind, Port Stanley is in range of Argentine aircraft from the mainland as well as their carrier aircraft. It would be suicidal to send a large bulky transport without an effective fighter screen
The Argentines are still likely to take the islands as in OTL unless Thatcher had enough in the area to prevent it. She won't just because of this
With the extended airfield, Argentina would have been able to use its large fleet of A4's (spare parts were a problem. Hard to know exactly how many they could fly) Its likely a war winner for them
The Argentines are still likely to take the islands as in OTL unless Thatcher had enough in the area to prevent it. She won't just because of this
With the extended airfield, Argentina would have been able to use its large fleet of A4's (spare parts were a problem. Hard to know exactly how many they could fly) Its likely a war winner for them
Riain
Banned
During the last few days before the war the British could land a C130 or 2 at Port Stanley to deliver more troops and weapons to reinforce the garrison.
I agree, but having to fight 200 men with some heavy weapons could possibly give the Argentines some 2nd thoughts.
Aircraft on the airfield without extensive protection would be hideously vulnerable to naval gunfire and strikes from Sea Harriers and Vulcans, just like the Macchis and Pucaras were IOTL.
Aphrodite
Banned
A C-130 is a big lumbering aircraft that has to fly high in the sky and the British simply had no means of providing one with any type of escort. The Argentinians would have seen it coming and easily shot it down. The British would never risk it
Extending the runway was crucial to the Argentine plan. Unfortunately for them, the invasion timetable was moved up and the ship with the supplies couldn't sail. They considered their failure to extend the runway as the leading cause of their defeat. May have been, may not have but that is their assessment. An extended runway would have allowed for attacking the strike force when it was much further away from the islands preventing the more limited range Harriers and naval gunfire from hitting the airfield The Vulcans did little damage to the runway
Argentina comes a lot closer in this one then people give her credit for and don't have to sink too many British ships to turn the war. This would have been a big help by their calculations. Their other problems were the failure of their bombs to detonate and misfiring torpedoes. Either of those corrected would almost certainly have won the war. Argentina made mistakes but so did Britain. The British had a bigger stockpile but almost ran out of chips
Extending the runway was crucial to the Argentine plan. Unfortunately for them, the invasion timetable was moved up and the ship with the supplies couldn't sail. They considered their failure to extend the runway as the leading cause of their defeat. May have been, may not have but that is their assessment. An extended runway would have allowed for attacking the strike force when it was much further away from the islands preventing the more limited range Harriers and naval gunfire from hitting the airfield The Vulcans did little damage to the runway
Argentina comes a lot closer in this one then people give her credit for and don't have to sink too many British ships to turn the war. This would have been a big help by their calculations. Their other problems were the failure of their bombs to detonate and misfiring torpedoes. Either of those corrected would almost certainly have won the war. Argentina made mistakes but so did Britain. The British had a bigger stockpile but almost ran out of chips
It's not you know...
They're fairly regular up the Mach Loop and you don't do that at 15,000 feet...
It's not quite as easy to chuck round as a Typhoon or a Tornado but it's not an Airbus full of tourists either. A lot of big planes are deceptively agile.
Assuming Argentina still invades successfully, maybe the brits score more hits on the runway. It is after all a larger target
http://www.combatreform.org/portstanleyrunwayaftervulcanattack.jpg
I don't have it now, but if anybody has the map with naval gunfire and sea harrier attacks, they seem to have hit everything in the general area, except the runway.
http://www.combatreform.org/portstanleyrunwayaftervulcanattack.jpg
I don't have it now, but if anybody has the map with naval gunfire and sea harrier attacks, they seem to have hit everything in the general area, except the runway.
AndyC
Donor
Didn't feel either lumbering or high in the sky when I was in one doing a training exercise in North Wales.
They can throw those things around like you wouldn't believe.
And never go in one for a TALO landing unless you've got balls of solid steel.
Riain
Banned
Why would Argentina shoot down a fully loaded Hercules on a 'routine ' flight in peacetime? A key aim for the invasion was to be as bloodless as possible, so it would be easier for world opinion to swallow, and by and large it was. But they cannot present the world with a bloodless coup de main if they start with shooting down a Hercules without warning.
As for the practical matter of actually doing it, it would have to be by warship to have the persistence to lie in wait for the Hercules to arrive. Escorting fighters wouldn't be needed or useful, a Nimrod would be better.
As for the practical matter of actually doing it, it would have to be by warship to have the persistence to lie in wait for the Hercules to arrive. Escorting fighters wouldn't be needed or useful, a Nimrod would be better.
Perhaps an extended runway might inspire a plan to build in demolition chambers and a small detachment to put in place and set off the demolition charges upon the Governors orders? Perhaps even putting them in the existing runway too? Thus an invasion would cause there to be no runway useable at all. Argentina would then need to plan to initiate the invasion via an airborne assault on the airfield. That would probably succeed as it was not defended. Five Argentine C130s would bring in more than enough troops to take and hold the runway pending the seaborne invasion. Even if the C130s had to stay there there were stocks on hand to refuel them from airfield resources or bring in fuel by sea or air if those stocks were destroyed. Without the runway C130 loads would be limited and sea supplies blocked by the Royal Navy. The Argentine plans had to centre around a viable runway otherwise they were building their own prison island. One of the drivers for the decision to sink the Belgrano (among others of threats to the Task Force) might have been to demonstrate that bulk sea supplies to the Falklands from Argentina were impossible.
Admiral Beez
Banned
The airfield is extended prewar. If Thatcher was to use it it would be used to send a larger garrison pre-war, not a few days before the invasion.
Admiral Beez
Banned
That Hercules pass reminded me of this reminder not to push aircraft beyond their envelopes or fatigue hours.
Riain
Banned
I disagree, the garrison would be kept inadequate for budget reasons and probably justified on the grounds that it could be reinforced if need be. IOTL some unit, I can't recall which, was stood to, stood down, stood to again to fly to the FI in the days before the invasion.