HMS EAGLE in the Falklands

Reader mode

Riain

Banned
L4a1 said:
But Portsmouth is which is what was being discussed.
Click to expand...

That's right, and Ascension is a long way from both the Falklands and Argentina and would be seen as a significant expansion of the war given Britain had declared a TEZ of 200 miles as their boundary of the fighting. NATO members would want to think long and hard about not giving direct military support to Britain after an attack that far from the theatre.
 

L4a1

IOTL Argentina agents in Spain were tasked with sinking British Naval Traffic in Gibraltar but were arrested and deported by Spain.
 

NOMISYRRUC

Óstöðvandi said:
9767f6e5a98c99fe8974c9bbfe941fbb.jpg


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?
Click to expand...
Thanks for that.

Many developments of the Scimitar were proposed.

A prototype of the two-seat radar equipped version of the Scimitar was ordered and was under construction when it was cancelled as part of the 1954 Defence Review. It duplicated the DH.110 which became the Sea Vixen and the FAA wasn't big enough to justify two radar equipped all-weather fighters.

However, IIRC the Scimitar squadron of the newly refitted Victorious was able to shoot down something like 19 out of 20 attacking aircraft (the 20th was driven off) in trials against the US Navy. This was thanks to her Type 984 radar and Comprehensive Display System.
 

NOMISYRRUC

Riain said:
Not really. Although USN F4, A6 and A7 did cross deck on the Ark in in 70s they did so at light fuel states and without much or any ordnance due to the detail difference between the Ark and USN carriers, namely the short and less powerful catapults, the 29kt top speed and small lifts. These are why the RN specifically developed the Spey Phantom, not as commonly believed as a pork barrel project.
Click to expand...
Do you have information on the steam catapults fitted to Clemenceau and Foch? According to my late 1960s copies of Jane's Fighting Ships they had 2 BS Mk 5s each. That suggests to me that they were capable of launching Buccaneers.

Whether the arrester gear and flight deck were strong enough for them to land is another matter.
 

JohnR

It should be noted that in OTL the Reagan approved the RN request to use USS Iwo Jima should one of the carriers be lost in the South Atlantic - it was Sea Harrier capable. I would imagine the loss of HMS Eagle would be treated similarly.

Also, France provided dissimilar aircraft training using for Harrier pilots. Again, I would imagine Phantom pilots would get similar in TTL.
 

Riain

Banned
NOMISYRRUC said:
Do you have information on the steam catapults fitted to Clemenceau and Foch? According to my late 1960s copies of Jane's Fighting Ships they had 2 BS Mk 5s each. That suggests to me that they were capable of launching Buccaneers.

Whether the arrester gear and flight deck were strong enough for them to land is another matter.
Click to expand...

I believe they were 151' BS5s, not 145' BS4A or 199' BS5A, so they could launch a Buccaneer under certain conditions.

When it comes to recovery I don't know, I get the feeling that the Clem's deck wasn't stressed very highly, the French Crusaders had a lot of modifications to make them suitable for landing including slowing the speed down to about 134kts from 141kts.

EDIT: The Clems lifts were capable of lifting only about 35,000lbs and were 52' x 40', which would make the Buccaneer with an empty weight of 30,000lbs marginal. I think that given the lifts can only handle 35,000lbs the desk and wires might only be capable of handling aircraft of that class, the Bucc with its BLC might have a low landing energy but I think it would be very marginal.
 
Last edited:

Beetle63

I'm intrigued too. Please keep it up, I'll be interested to see what route is taken now HMS Eagle is part of things. OTL I was revising for my A-levels during the Falklands Conflict.
 

Mumbles

SsgtC said:
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.
Click to expand...

That and being hamstrung by lack of funding and managerial and government incompetence. The British managed to produce some good aircraft post-war in spite of their industry rather than because of it.
 

Mumbles

Riain said:
Not really. Although USN F4, A6 and A7 did cross deck on the Ark in in 70s they did so at light fuel states and without much or any ordnance due to the detail difference between the Ark and USN carriers, namely the short and less powerful catapults, the 29kt top speed and small lifts.
Click to expand...

Good point, I'd forgotten about that.
 

KokkenKunten

Riain said:
Check out the first Buccaneer on the right, its one of the two Buccaneers in the squadron configured as a 'maxi-tanker' with a permantly attach slipper tank on the right pylon and the buddy tanking pod on the left pylon. I can't see it in this picture but it would also have the bulged belly tank as well as a tank in the bomb bay.
Click to expand...

No. FAA Buccaneers never flew with the bulged bay door tank, only with tanks in the bay itself. The bay door tank wasn't baffled, so unless you want a deck covered with Jet A-1 every time a Bucc launches or traps, it's not happening.

Whilst we're considering such esoteric points, other anomalies are:

No SNEB at sea - they're not considered electrically safe by the RN. Those podded rockets you see in FAA service are two inchers. Three inch rounds (on rails, not podded) are a possibility, I suppose, but haven't been used for years by 1982. The deployed GR.3's also used the 2" naval rocket when down south for the same reason

No centreline SUU-23 on the FG.1. Again, never carried by FAA Phantoms, although was carried on the FG.1 when in RAF service. No great loss - it needed boresighting every five minutes & in any case, the additional centreline tank brings larger benefits in this scenario.
 

Nick P

Donor
Óstöðvandi said:
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.
Click to expand...

I posted this in another Falklands thread two years ago and it's just as relevant today. No need for Article 5 with all this actual help.

Nick P said:
From reading GCHQ by Richard Aldrich. Lots of intelligence related stories going back 80 years, well worth the read.

Foreign help regarding the Falklands:

Portugal offered use of the Azores for refuelling under a treaty dating back to 1373.
Spain blocked a covert attempt by Argentine forces to sabotage ships in Gibraltar.
Dutch listening sites at Curacao and Eemnes (previously a US base) passed on intercepted diplomatic and maritime messages.
Germany also picked up and passed on Argentine signals. The code was of WW2 German origin, captured by the French and sold to Argentina....
France passed on signals intercepted at their spy base in French Guyana. They stopped a number of arms dealers who were selling to Argentina. French security forces blocked Exocet missile sales and told the RN how to spot and intercept them when inbound.
Norway picked up images and messages beamed down from newly launched Soviet satellites flying over the South Atlantic and passed them to the RN, helping us track the General Belgrano.

The Sierra Leone government allowed the troopship Canberra to restock and refuel in Freetown. This may have more to do with making money...

Chile secretly allowed British forces to use their bases and provided details of Argentine military forces. A Sea King helo crashlanded after dropping off an SBS force in Argentina, the crew were caught by Chile police and well-treated and sent home quite quickly. It is possible a few Nimrods flew from Chile on recon missions.

The US gave us new versions of the Sidewinder missile and lots of ammo delivered from NATO stocks in Europe to Ascension Island by Galaxy aircraft and plenty of intelligence. There was an offer of a full-size aircraft carrier if ours got sunk, more to do with the NATO role in reality. They also helped stall for time with the famous Haig negotiations.

New Zealand sent ships to take over the Persian Gulf patrol from RN ships which then sailed to the South Atlantic.

And this is just the stuff we know about....
icon_biggrin.gif
Click to expand...
 

NOMISYRRUC

Riain said:
Not really. Although USN F4, A6 and A7 did cross deck on the Ark in in 70s they did so at light fuel states and without much or any ordnance due to the detail difference between the Ark and USN carriers, namely the short and less powerful catapults, the 29kt top speed and small lifts. These are why the RN specifically developed the Spey Phantom, not as commonly believed as a pork barrel project.
Click to expand...
Is this easier to read? Let me know if there are any errors and I will correct the original.

Have you any information on the capacity of the BS Mk 4 steam catapults on Victorious?

Steam Catapults.png
 
Reader mode
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top
Top