HMS EAGLE in the Falklands

[Riain]

I'd point out that the Gannets radar was in the belly and pointed downwards, and the Gannet flew its missions at 3000' where the 65nm fighter detection range met the horizon. It was not well suited for high level radar coverage, but given the existence of the Type 965 AKE2 and Type 984 3D radars in the RN fleet the medium -high level radar picture was well taken care of.

On a side note, when it comes to squeezing more planes onto the Eagle I think the RN might choose to put all 7 of its Gannets and 1 or 2 more Buccaneer maxi tankers in the CAG rather than 2 more phantoms ans buccaneers.

 

[Óstöðvandi]

You're both missing the point, and moving the goalposts. Eagle's Phantoms have the range to intercept inbound raids from similar positions that Invincible and Hermes were in, and they will have sufficient raid warning to do so thanks to the AEW planes they carried.

Agreed. Really the only way to kill Eagle is with a SSK placed at Ascension, or limpet mines at Portsmouth.

 

[Óstöðvandi]

Therefore some jiggery pokery must have been employed to get the Scimitar to fit their lifts because AFAIK neither its nose or its tail folded.

Stick a radar in that nose and we’ve got a Sparrow armed fighter. Just wish it was supersonic like the similar Grumman Tiger. Man the Brits made some slugs for the FAA. Did the FAA ever field a supersonic fighter that wasn’t a Phantom?

 

[Alanith]

Agreed. Really the only way to kill Eagle is with a SSK placed at Ascension, or limpet mines at Portsmouth.

In the later case, the Junta might as well blow their own brains out. It’ll be over slightly faster then when the Brits adopt a big shit eating grin, look over at Brussels and across the pond to DC, and say “Article Five”.

 

[mcducky]

Stick a radar in that nose and we’ve got a Sparrow armed fighter. Just wish it was supersonic like the similar Grumman Tiger. Man the Brits made some slugs for the FAA. Did the FAA ever field a supersonic fighter that wasn’t a Phantom?

Nope but there were plans for one but the Royal Navy's oldest enemy the treasury killed it.

 

[Óstöðvandi]

In the later case, the Junta might as well blow their own brains out. It’ll be over slightly faster then when the Brits adopt a big shit eating grin, look over at Brussels and across the pond to DC, and say “Article Five”.

We might see the collapse of NATO at that very moment, when everyone looks away whistling.

 

[Alanith]

We might see the collapse of NATO at that very moment, when everyone looks away whistling.

Pretty much. In this case, either everyone HAS to join Britain in taking back the Falklands if the British so activate A5, or NATO is completely worthless if the Soviets come over the Inter-German Border.

 

[Óstöðvandi]

Pretty much. In this case, either everyone HAS to join Britain in taking back the Falklands if the British so activate A5, or NATO is completely worthless if the Soviets come over the Inter-German Border.

And then Britain turns to Australia, NZ and perhaps Canada for help. In the latter case, the invasion occurred before Britain relinquished final control over Canadian politics in 1982. What is the Commonwealth’s reaction? Anyway.... that’s another topic I think.

Did Britain consider article 5 IOTL? An attack on Puerto Rico or the USVI would have similar status.

 

[Blue cat]

Pretty much. In this case, either everyone HAS to join Britain in taking back the Falklands if the British so activate A5, or NATO is completely worthless if the Soviets come over the Inter-German Border.

A few comments:

-IMHO I doubt the UK would formally invoke article 5 unless they more or less knew what answers they were going to receive ahead of time.

-I have my doubts the UK would actually want direct support from foreign combat forces unless they were loosing.

-If absolutely necessary I could see the U.S. or another ally providing a replacement carrier without article 5 needing to be invoked.

 

[Pseudo]

Pretty much. In this case, either everyone HAS to join Britain in taking back the Falklands if the British so activate A5, or NATO is completely worthless if the Soviets come over the Inter-German Border.

Surely the obvious answer is that Article 5 would avoid being invoked by support being agreed that would make invoking Article 5 unnecessary.

 

[Óstöðvandi]

My thinking is if they hit HMS Eagle at Portsmouth, that’s a SAS strike to Galtieri’s villa. But hit Eagle at Ascension with a pre-positioned SSK and I’d say the ROE is pretty much per history. Of course with only two submarines, they’d have to be lucky.

 

[Blue cat]

And then Britain turns to Australia, NZ and perhaps Canada for help. In the latter case, the invasion occurred before Britain relinquished final control over Canadian politics in 1982. What is the Commonwealth’s reaction? Anyway.... that’s another topic I think.

Did Britain consider article 5 IOTL? An attack on Puerto Rico or the USVI would have similar status.

Re Canada.

-I don't recall much in the way of enthuasim for a direct combat role for Canada IOTL during the Falklands / Malvinas conflict.

-I can't imagine any Canadian govt in 82 accepting a UK directive to join the war if Canada wasn't inclined to do so.

-If Canada did decide to join in I'm thinking possible contributions might have been:

A few DDH280 class destroyers (sea sparrow sam's / automatic 5" gun / 2 SeaKing helos each) along with an UNREP ship (which also probably would have had a few more Seakings).


Maybe an older destroyer to serve as a guard ship at Ancession ?

Maritime partrol aircraft based at Ancession ?

One or perhaps two 707 inflight refuelling tankers ?

Maybe a batallion or so of light infantry ?

 

[Alanith]

-If absolutely necessary I could see the U.S. or another ally providing a replacement carrier without article 5 needing to be invoked.

True. How are the Essex's doing, or maybe one of the Midways?

Or Forrestal.

 

[Óstöðvandi]

Re Canada.

-I don't recall much in the way of enthuasim for a direct combat role for Canada IOTL during the Falklands / Malvinas conflict.

-I can't imagine any Canadian govt in 82 accepting a UK directive to join the war if Canada wasn't inclined to do so.

-If Canada did decide to join in I'm thinking possible contributions might have been:

A few DDH280 class destroyers (sea sparrow sam's / automatic 5" gun / 2 SeaKing helos each) along with an UNREP ship (which also probably would have had a few more Seakings).


Maybe an older destroyer to serve as a guard ship at Ancession ?

Maritime partrol aircraft based at Ancession ?

One or perhaps two 707 inflight refuelling tankers ?

Maybe a batallion or so of light infantry ?

If Eagle is still CATOBAR, how about some ex-RCN CS2F? Unfortunately their ASW kit was removed by 1981. Perhaps it can be reinstalled?

Did Canada have aerial refueling or transport aircraft that could help the British cause? Can the drogues on the Boeing CC-137 work with FAA or RAF aircraft?

 

[Alanith]

If Eagle is still CATOBAR, how about some ex-RCN CS2F? Unfortunately their ASW kit was removed by 1981. Perhaps it can be reinstalled?

As long as no one ran around with a bunch of torches, any removals can probably be solved with enough overtime!

 

[SsgtC]

Stick a radar in that nose and we’ve got a Sparrow armed fighter. Just wish it was supersonic like the similar Grumman Tiger. Man the Brits made some slugs for the FAA. Did the FAA ever field a supersonic fighter that wasn’t a Phantom?

I've always gotten the impression that the UK got stuck modernizing and updating their kit just a hair too early. And then getting stuck with a lot of very expensive, brand new, and completely outdated equipment when technology jumped right after they bought their new kit.

 

[L4a1]

And then Britain turns to Australia, NZ and perhaps Canada for help. In the latter case, the invasion occurred before Britain relinquished final control over Canadian politics in 1982. What is the Commonwealth’s reaction? Anyway.... that’s another topic I think.

Did Britain consider article 5 IOTL? An attack on Puerto Rico or the USVI would have similar status.

New Zealand sent a Frigate to the Indian Ocean to replace a RN Frigate that went to the Falklands IIRC.

 

[FriendlyGhost]

The FI aren't covered by Article 5 of the NATO Treaty.

For the purpose of Article 5, an armed attack on one or more of the Parties is deemed to include an armed attack:

• on the territory of any of the Parties in Europe or North America, on the Algerian Departments of France, on the territory of Turkey or on the Islands under the jurisdiction of any of the Parties in the North Atlantic area north of the Tropic of Cancer;
• on the forces, vessels, or aircraft of any of the Parties, when in or over these territories or any other area in Europe in which occupation forces of any of the Parties were stationed on the date when the Treaty entered into force or the Mediterranean Sea or the North Atlantic area north of the Tropic of Cancer.

 

[JudgeKing]

True. How are the Essex's doing, or maybe one of the Midways?

Or Forrestal.

If I remember correctly, the US offered to let the RN use the USS Dwight D. Eisenhower for the duration of the Falklands War in OTL.

 

[L4a1]

The FI aren't covered by Article 5 of the NATO Treaty.

Agreed. Really the only way to kill Eagle is with a SSK placed at Ascension, or limpet mines at Portsmouth.

But Portsmouth is which is what was being discussed.