how long could HMS Queen Elizabeth and HMS Duke of Edinburgh lasted

KC-130F 1960. First iteration.

How much smaller is the fuel capacity of a KC-130F compared to the KC-130J, how does that effect your plans for Op Mentalist and what is the UK not going to procure in order to have a fleet of AAR Hercs that we don't really need for any other role in place before the Falklands War kicks off?
 

McPherson

Banned
So how does building RAF Arendelle on top of a glaciated mountain one and a half thousand kilometres from port Stanley, and then flying dedicated ground attak aircraft from them, help with the issue that British Air defence system in during the conflcit were inadequate?

Hint: It doesn't

Think it through.

The GR4 is not supposed to air defend. it is supposed to BOMB so that the convoy, when it gets there does not have Argentine infantry in too good a shape and no Pucaras and Argentine helos to worry about. The troops go in and take Stanley airfield and then you extend the runway. THEN you bring in your FAA to defend the airfield.

What would help is having radar equipped air defence fighters with AEW support, and and radar guided missiles flying CAP for an invasion task force. There is a much better way to get those on station than having to build a brand new airbase in the harshest conditions imaginable, by airlift alone. I know this is going to souind crazy but hear me out.

But even with these aircraft carriers of the OP, why risk them when you can lay back and slug the Argentinians when they cannot hit you? Whatever flattops you have should be for the dash in and the dash out. Has no-one ever heard of Guadalcanal?

What if there was a kind of ship that, had a long flat deck for aircraft to land and take off from. Kind of like an mobile air base. It also has a hanger to store the aircraft and service them. I know it couldn't be that big, so maybe we could sue some kind of catapult ot launch the aircraft off, and some strong wires and hook to catch them again for landing. I know it sounds mad, but I think it could just about work.

Don't risk your carriers when you have other safer, saner, options

Also whether or not we have been to the Bering sea is irrelevant. Firstly I don't think you have either, and secondly it has nothing to do with the South Atlantic.


This is the place you are proposing to build FOB Niflheim. Take note of the shots of the glaciers, and the giant deep crevasses that cover them, which coincidently were also mentioned in that video you linked that talked about how bloody awful the place is. (Though perhaps you didn't even watch it, at this point I have my doubts.)

I've been to Unalaska. Awful is comparative. Mine is as about as bad as yours. Could be worse because the Bering Sea is a cyclone alley right at the Arctic Circle and ice bergs love to travel south by east making ship handling hazardous in region in the extreme. My nation's air force fought out of there under worse conditions and using more primitive means 80 years ago than were available to Operate Corporate in 1983, so I believe what is possible there is possible anywhere.

And that includes building a runway on a glacier.

Why is it, some say can't, when Aussies and Americans say; "Why?" and then go ahead and do it?
 

McPherson

Banned
How much smaller is the fuel capacity of a KC-130F compared to the KC-130J, how does that effect your plans for Op Mentalist and what is the UK not going to procure in order to have a fleet of AAR Hercs that we don't really need for any other role in place before the Falklands War kicks off?

How many tonnes does a Tonka take? 2.5 usually? The KC-130F can do TWO. Might mean 6 additional needed over the 16 alloted. And there are additional tranches;

KC-130F: 1962
KC-130R: 1976
KC-130T: 1983

I think the KC130T is not available but there is the KC-130R. Can do with the R. Beg for them. US did from allies when we were short.
 
Loving the thread, but who needs refueling aircraft? Let's just do what China has done and create some islands of our own, I'm sure the weather and the seas won't be too rough (or deep). Come to think about it, it might save some time and effort if we could create a floating island and move it from place to place by tugs or, even better, incorporating an engine. We could call it RAF Queen Elizabeth.
 
How many tonnes does a Tonka take? 2.5 usually? The KC-130F can do TWO. Might mean 6 additional needed over the 16 alloted. And there are additional tranches;

KC-130F: 1962
KC-130R: 1976
KC-130T: 1983

I think the KC130T is not available but there is the KC-130R. Can do with the R. Beg for them. US did from allies when we were short.

Beg for them from who? The USAF and the RAF use different refuelling systems so who is the RAF getting these aircraft from?

You've already added a year or more onto the war (probably leading to the UK giving up on trying to recover the islands), probably caused the fall of the Tory government and saddled the RAF with an unusable airbase that's painfully exposed to commando raids and enemy air attack while leaving the people of the Falklands under the rules of a murderous dictatorship.

How do you see your plan as better than the RN having fleet carriers or even the existing 'real life' fleet which won the war in the space of a few weeks?
 
Think it through.

The GR4 is not supposed to air defend. it is supposed to BOMB so that the convoy, when it gets there does not have Argentine infantry in too good a shape and no Pucaras and Argentine helos to worry about. The troops go in and take Stanley airfield and then you extend the runway. THEN you bring in your FAA to defend the airfield.



But even with these aircraft carriers of the OP, why risk them when you can lay back and slug the Argentinians when they cannot hit you? Whatever flattops you have should be for the dash in and the dash out. Has no-one ever heard of Guadalcanal?



Don't risk your carriers when you have other safer, saner, options



I've been to Unalaska. Awful is comparative. Mine is as about as bad as yours. Could be worse because the Bering Sea is a cyclone alley right at the Arctic Circle and ice bergs love to travel south by east making ship handling hazardous in region in the extreme. My nation's air force fought out of there under worse conditions and using more primitive means 80 years ago than were available to Operate Corporate in 1983, so I believe what is possible there is possible anywhere.

And that includes building a runway on a glacier.

Why is it, some say can't, when Aussies and Americans say; "Why?" and then go ahead and do it?

Your option is not sane.

The glaciers on South Georgia are high mountain ice fields, covered in boulders and deep crevasses big enough to swallow helicopters. Totally unlike the large flat and smooth Antarctic glaciers. There would be no way to even get up to them due to the steep mountain slopes, other than by helicopter. You cannot build alarge forward strike and logisitc airfield in these conditions using helicopter lift alone.

GR.4 is not in service, and won't be untill the 1990s.

The carriers in operation Corporate were never under threat, the Argentines never really located them. This would go even further for CVA-01 since the Phantoms with Skyflash and Gannet AEW would ahve been able to interdict not just the Argentine strike packages but also their recon flights. The carrier would never have been found. The Phantoms would have prevented Argentine airstrikes for hitting the task force. And the Buccaneers would have massacred the Argentine navy, and pounded any fixed Argentine army position flat. Total air superiority.


Your reapeated talk about directly assaulting Stanley demonstrates your total lack of understanding of the realities of amphbious operations. Opposed landings are disaster waiting to happen, opposed landings when your enemy knows you are coming are even worse. The area around Stanley was the most heavily fortified location on the islands. This is why the British landed on the opposite side of the island at San Carlos water. You don't understand the Falklands war at all, and your insane plan for the Fortress of Solitude (South) shows it.

Go read some books on the subject, and actually watch some videos. Educate yourself.

Here is a good start:
 
Think it through.

The GR4 is not supposed to air defend. it is supposed to BOMB so that the convoy, when it gets there does not have Argentine infantry in too good a shape and no Pucaras and Argentine helos to worry about. The troops go in and take Stanley airfield and then you extend the runway. THEN you bring in your FAA to defend the airfield.
Your reapeated talk about directly assaulting Stanley demonstrates your total lack of understanding of the realities of amphbious operations. Opposed landings are disaster waiting to happen, opposed landings when your enemy knows you are coming are even worse. The area around Stanley was the most heavily fortified location on the islands. This is why the British landed on the opposite side of the island at San Carlos water. You don't understand the Falklands war at all, and your insane plan for the Fortress of Solitude (South) shows it.
The British never had the option of a direct assault on Port Stanley, because the Argentines had laid minefields off it - and SPARTAN had watched them doing so. Hence the indirect approach.
 

McPherson

Banned
You know I'm red-teaming you guys to refine the conop, right? Keep it coming, including your errors. Nothing insurmountable I see, so far. There are more ways to solve the problem than just charge at them at one go. One can take the problem one step at a time. It is called the phased approach.

Ever hear of CARTWHEEL?

Because someone did not take preventive action when the warning signs were there, a costly and I mean costly operation in phases had to occur to retrieve a situation.

The step method works better when it is a long logistics problem in time and distance. It just takes that time when you have terrain, logistics bottlenecks, inexperienced political and military leadership and lack of means to carry forward by coup de main which is what Corporate tried and failed to do. Whether MacArthur or Woodward, whether hemorrhagic fever or frostbite, whether jungle or tundra, whether bog marsh or glacier, in practical terms you find the nearest useable (not ideal, USEABLE ground,), build an airstrip, gather supplies and forces forward, throw planes in there for air cover and projections and bound forward under that land based air cover. You do not risk carriers unless it is necessary, and then only long enough to get ashore and seize another airfield. You guys keep missing the central concept. Get the Stanley airfield the quickest and cheapest way possible and then FLY in your reinforcements. Corporate was not the quickest way to do it. Nor was it the cheapest with the means to hand. As for the weather, the Argentinians have the same problems as the British. Deal with it. If Operation Frostbite is any guide metric to the complaints the againsters raise, then Plan South Georgia is actually A CAKEWALK in 1983.

The USN did it, repeatedly (Mainbrace.). I am not the one selling the RN/RAF short here. You guys are.

P.S. Minesweeping is an old art-form, land or sea. And Mister Chinook carries you over the beach.

What about Shorads? THAT is why you bombed and NGSed the Argentinians before you started your over the beach assault. Nothing is impossible. You just have to plan for it, Red-team.
 
I am not the one selling the RN/RAF short here. You guys are.

In real life the RN/RAF won the war (along with the British Army, obviously).

With the proposed large fleet carriers which are far superior to the ones used in real life they'll almost certainly win with fewer losses to ships and men.

Under your bizarre plans they'll lose the war (because the country will demand the war is ended long before an airfield can be built), see the sitting government wiped out, probably see large cuts to the defence budget under Michael Foot's incoming regime, certainly see the end of the UK being a nuclear power and the removal of US forces from the UK (with no chance of cruise missiles ever being deployed here) while probably seeing a return to the industrial unrest and financial hardships of the 1970s.
 
You keep ignoring the fact that there is nowhere on South Georgia that is suitable for Skyrim Aerodrome, citing the fact that the US has constructed several temporary airfields on larger flat arctic and antarctic glaciers as evidence.

South Georgia has NO abundantly flat areas that were in any way comparable to any of the examples you have listed. Unless you have discovered a secret British project from the 1970s for a nuclear powered machine that grinds mountains flat what you describe cannot be done, not just by Britain, but by anyone.

Also while minesweeping is an operation that is well understood, conducting said ops is not something that is done as part of an amphibious assault under the guns of the enemy.

at least not by sane people

what you are describing would not be as you say "the quickest and cheapest way to take Stanley airfield"
it would be the longest and most expensive.
in both money and lives

your statement that is would be required to fly in reinforcements is beyond stupid as Port Stanley was the nucleus of the Argentine power on the islands, once you take Port Stanley the war is over.

what you have described would have taken months longer and cost untold hundreds of millions more then IRL and completely ignores the geopolitical situation Britain was in at the time.

you have consistently shown that you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about on almost every level and have resorted to petulantly saying "i don't see any barriers" when people provide ample evidence as to why your insane ideas are impractical and based on a critical misunderstanding of the situation that existed in 1982 both politically and militarily, as well as the basic geography of the region.
 
Last edited:
You know I'm red-teaming you guys to refine the conop, right? Keep it coming, including your errors. Nothing insurmountable I see, so far. There are more ways to solve the problem than just charge at them at one go. One can take the problem one step at a time. It is called the phased approach.

Ever hear of CARTWHEEL?

Because someone did not take preventive action when the warning signs were there, a costly and I mean costly operation in phases had to occur to retrieve a situation.

The step method works better when it is a long logistics problem in time and distance. It just takes that time when you have terrain, logistics bottlenecks, inexperienced political and military leadership and lack of means to carry forward by coup de main which is what Corporate tried and failed to do. Whether MacArthur or Woodward, whether hemorrhagic fever or frostbite, whether jungle or tundra, whether bog marsh or glacier, in practical terms you find the nearest useable (not ideal, USEABLE ground,), build an airstrip, gather supplies and forces forward, throw planes in there for air cover and projections and bound forward under that land based air cover. You do not risk carriers unless it is necessary, and then only long enough to get ashore and seize another airfield. You guys keep missing the central concept. Get the Stanley airfield the quickest and cheapest way possible and then FLY in your reinforcements. Corporate was not the quickest way to do it. Nor was it the cheapest with the means to hand. As for the weather, the Argentinians have the same problems as the British. Deal with it. If Operation Frostbite is any guide metric to the complaints the againsters raise, then Plan South Georgia is actually A CAKEWALK in 1983.

The USN did it, repeatedly (Mainbrace.). I am not the one selling the RN/RAF short here. You guys are.

P.S. Minesweeping is an old art-form, land or sea. And Mister Chinook carries you over the beach.

What about Shorads? THAT is why you bombed and NGSed the Argentinians before you started your over the beach assault. Nothing is impossible. You just have to plan for it, Red-team.


All of this is irrelevant. It is categorically impossible to build a military airfield capable of supporting an invasion anywhere on South Georgia. The terrain is razor sharp glaciated peaks. You cannot build anything anywhere, except on thin strips of gravel beaches, none of which are large enough to build a jet capable airfield.

Establishing a forward FOB for the Harriers was one of the primary objectives of the landing at San Carlos, and it was moderately successful, though was signifcantly hampered the loss of large amounts of material on the Atlantic Conveyor. It is very likely that in a scenairo where the CVA-01 replaces Invincible and Hermes that RAF ground attack Harriers would be taken south by the task force and transferred ashore to a much more extensive FOB that has been set up free from Argentine air attacks. A protection provided by proper fleet air defence.

Anywhere near Stanley was not useable ground, since it was garriosned by near division strength numebrs of Argentine ground troops, equipeed with AFVs, light attack aircraft, radar guided missile and gun AA, and artillery. And as mentioned before is heavily mined. So an invasion of that area would require the mines to be cleared under fire, then a close bombardment of the beach under fire, then a landing of troops be air and water under fire. IF this is succesfful and the inital Argentine defences overwhelemd to create a beachhead, thaen that foothold will end to be continually reinforced under fire with singficant threat of counter attack. Then as troops breakout sinficant ashore facilities and supply depots would have to be established to support the advance, whislt under threat of counter attack and under artillery fire. The people planning corporate had insitutional memory of D-Day when they had done jsut these things, they remembered it sucked. Their response, which was the correct one was to decide they would rather not.

Perhaps Britain could have accomplished such a feat, but it would have been bloody. Which perhaps is not so much of a problem when your centre of supply is across the channel 15km away, and your nation is geared up for total war that it is committed to winning. When your centre of supply is 12,500km away, the economy is weak, and public and politcal support is brittle to say the least, its an entirely different proposition.

Every part of your plan from D-Day down under, to building and operating the Narnia Flying Club is absolutely batshit insane and goes agaisnt every concept of sound military operations.


It would be more feasible to redeploy the BAOR to Chile and invade Argentina over the Andes mountains, than to do what you are suggesting.
 

Nick P

Donor
...whether jungle or tundra, whether bog marsh or glacier, in practical terms you find the nearest useable (not ideal, USEABLE ground,), build an airstrip, gather supplies and forces forward, throw planes in there for air cover and projections and bound forward under that land based air cover. You do not risk carriers unless it is necessary, and then only long enough to get ashore and seize another airfield. You guys keep missing the central concept. Get the Stanley airfield the quickest and cheapest way possible and then FLY in your reinforcements.

And there is your problem. The one we keep telling you. The one you keep ignoring. There is NO USEABLE ground on South Georgia for a 3000ft long jet suitable runway. Not without taking years to grind down mountains and fill in deep crevasses in a near constant winter conditions.
We'd have been better building this mythical airstrip on the Falklands themselves.

YOU keep missing the central concept here. You repeatedly show us you know very little about the practicality of fighting in the South Atlantic. You don't listen when we say there are time limits on this. You ignore the reality of what happened.

Go off and do some research please.
 
I will note that 3,000ft is the absolute minimum take off distance for a Tornado, to carry any sort of payload is going to require much much more.
 
Loving the thread, but who needs refueling aircraft? Let's just do what China has done and create some islands of our own, I'm sure the weather and the seas won't be too rough (or deep). Come to think about it, it might save some time and effort if we could create a floating island and move it from place to place by tugs or, even better, incorporating an engine. We could call it RAF Queen Elizabeth.

We could call it a Aeroplane Hauler.
 
here you go


from the mouth of the man who was there and was responsible for part of the planning

watch comprehend and understand
 
now that i think about it mainland Argentina would be the perfect place to construct Winterfell AFB.

Of course, Buenos Aires would never expect it. Britian invades and secures the Junta's base of power, and then can recruit divisions of gratefully liberated Argentinians to launch the final asault on Fortress Falklands using the newly built Misty Mountains International Airport as a springboard.
 
Top