Falklands – cruise missiles strike.

I think also what I really thought would be to have Tomahawks – just having the ability to target airfields should anything start would be helpful. The targets are non moving and we know them already, basically. Just a thought.

And they are in our inventory so are a known engineering quantity

I’m not familiar with terrain on the Falklands,

The IS a metalled road you know* but otherwise you are pretty spot on about lack of transport infrastructure

* which famously eats land rovers, as the drainage ditches are 12 times deeper than they need to be as the civil engineers read the figures for annual rainfall (about the same as UK) decided there must be an error and the figure must be for monthly and unilaterally specced them unnecessarily (and dangerously) too deep accordingly!

I think also what I really thought would be to have Tomahawks – just having the ability to target airfields should anything start would be helpful. The targets are non moving and we know them already, basically. Just a thought.

ANTI SHIP (potentially dual role):
LRASM-A. Lockheed Martin is basing this design on their stealthy, subsonic, turbofan-powered AGM-158B JASSM-ER (Joint Air-to-Surface Standoff Missile – Extended Range) cruise missile, which doubles the AGM-158 JASSM’s range to over 500 miles.
http://www.lockheedmartin.com/us/products/LRASM.html

LANDATTACK
Tomahawk Block IV TLAM-E – 900 nmi (1,000 mi; 1,700 km)

I’ve seen a similar kind of concept being advertised for the Klub..a container that could be stationary or be carried on a railway bogey and look like any other cargo container. Would be very hard to neutralise something like that without very very specific intelligence and a platform nearby to act as a shooter to take it down.

I’m not familiar with terrain on the Falklands, but assume there is not railsystem and only limited roadspace to move around. Over distance, containers would be moved primarily by ship and/or helicopter (CH-47), and only small distances by truck (Scammel/Leyland DAF or Foden DROPS), I would think. Not as mobile as in, say, a UK setting.

I think also what I really thought would be to have Tomahawks – just having the ability to target airfields should anything start would be helpful. The targets are non moving and we know them already, basically. Just a thought.

No I think the concept was a submersible ‘sled’ style underwater platform. Tow into position behind an SSN into suitably shallow water, plenty of shoal waters around the islands, slip the tow and the sled, complete with encapsulated sub-TLAM pack, streams an antenna buoy and patiently sits on the bottom waiting for an activation signal. That the operational concept Stan?.

Oddly enough I was studying a concept for this kind of thing, on a larger scale sled, for a small number of SLBM’s as an alternate to Successor SSBN a few years back. The idea being to drop 2- or 4-shot sleds with accoustic modems and relay buoys, mixed with a few decoy sleds, at a dozen or more underwater locations around UK coastal waters and move them at regular intervals. Put them in or near the oilfields and you could even use commercial oilfield servicing platforms to site, service and relocate them in a sneaky-beaky manner. In the end I suspected that the costs of developing the sled, the comms infrastructure, maintaining surveillance and security of the launchers and the associated support infrastructure would likely be not far different from just building the bloody submarines and the submarine would be a hell of a lot more flexible. I’d imagine the same sort of thing would apply to the TLAM sled concept.

The NSM-in-an-ISO container looks like it could be quite the solution though. A couple of ‘forgotten’ containers left lying around in the FIPASS hinterland could be quite useful for either keeping unwanted shipping away or for putting down precision fire inland following a landing.

Exactly what I was meaning. Thanks Jonesy

As Jonesy points out a container base NSM solution would be very interesting, the major issue would be providing targeting data.

I suppose you could use Typhoon for that but then you might as well integrate NSM on the jet and not bother with the container. Adding NSM to Typhoon would give a global rather than a Falklands unique solution. Not that it would happen aside from the cost it would interfere with Spear 3. Also putting any offensive antiship missiles on the Falklands would rather undermine the whole defensive posture we are trying to forward on the Islands.

Thats actually where the missile makes the difference Fed. The IIR seeker and target rejection capability of the weapon means that a target profile, general position, course and speed would be all that would be needed. The missile wouldnt attack a target not matching the profile…where an active radar missile would oblige us, under normal OTH missile RoE’s, to ensure that the target environment was clear. Realistically a modest paramilitary/civvy optronic turret on a FIGAS fisheries Islander and a laptop would be enough to target the NSM-in-a-box.

A commercial GPRS/EDGE 2G-and-a-bit GSM connection, such as that provided on the islands, could do the rest and would be sufficient to transfer that data at practical rates. Near-zero signature commercial fuel cell UPS systems are available that could power the receiver, for many months at a time, without out needing to be touched as well. Very doable at face value.

No I think the concept was a submersible ‘sled’ style underwater platform. Tow into position behind an SSN into suitably shallow water, plenty of shoal waters around the islands, slip the tow and the sled, complete with encapsulated sub-TLAM pack, streams an antenna buoy and patiently sits on the bottom waiting for an activation signal. That the operational concept

if that is the question then it removes one of my concerns (security of the container platform not only from standard air strikes but also blatant or covert boarding actions)

It also has a certain reciprocal elegance (the Castles were informally marked as mobile hazards to shipping due to their questionable ability to range more than x km from the safe sheltered waters around the FI this would instead be a stationary and unmarked threat)

I do think that the comms issues and environmental threats might make it a non starter

No reason that one could not sink a couple of container ships as artificial reefs (for environmental Eco benefits you know) and let slip footage of some containers bolted to their decks and unusual buoys and trailing antenna just to sow suspicion, rather like an SSN submerging with dark rumours about it heading down South when tensions rise

Parking a few containers discreetly (e.g. inside some new ‘farm buildings’) around the place, covering likely invasion approaches, wouldn’t be offensive. Targeting data could come from tactical UAVs, leaving the Typhoons free to deal with any threat from the air.

As Jonesy points out a container base NSM solution would be very interesting, the major issue would be providing targeting data.

I suppose you could use Typhoon for that but then you might as well integrate NSM on the jet and not bother with the container. Adding NSM to Typhoon would give a global rather than a Falklands unique solution. Not that it would happen aside from the cost it would interfere with Spear 3. Also putting any offensive antiship missiles on the Falklands would rather undermine the whole defensive posture we are trying to forward on the Islands.

I’ve seen a similar kind of concept being advertised for the Klub..a container that could be stationary or be carried on a railway bogey and look like any other cargo container. Would be very hard to neutralise something like that without very very specific intelligence and a platform nearby to act as a shooter to take it down.

From the context I think I know the answer to this, but will just check as otherwise I will not be asking the question posed. Did you mean ‘sync’ and got attacked by the dreaded auto correct?

Al

No I think the concept was a submersible ‘sled’ style underwater platform. Tow into position behind an SSN into suitably shallow water, plenty of shoal waters around the islands, slip the tow and the sled, complete with encapsulated sub-TLAM pack, streams an antenna buoy and patiently sits on the bottom waiting for an activation signal. That the operational concept Stan?.

Oddly enough I was studying a concept for this kind of thing, on a larger scale sled, for a small number of SLBM’s as an alternate to Successor SSBN a few years back. The idea being to drop 2- or 4-shot sleds with accoustic modems and relay buoys, mixed with a few decoy sleds, at a dozen or more underwater locations around UK coastal waters and move them at regular intervals. Put them in or near the oilfields and you could even use commercial oilfield servicing platforms to site, service and relocate them in a sneaky-beaky manner. In the end I suspected that the costs of developing the sled, the comms infrastructure, maintaining surveillance and security of the launchers and the associated support infrastructure would likely be not far different from just building the bloody submarines and the submarine would be a hell of a lot more flexible. I’d imagine the same sort of thing would apply to the TLAM sled concept.

The NSM-in-an-ISO container looks like it could be quite the solution though. A couple of ‘forgotten’ containers left lying around in the FIPASS hinterland could be quite useful for either keeping unwanted shipping away or for putting down precision fire inland following a landing.

sink a container type launcher with 6/8 tomahawks with a data connection to ops room in Falklands.

There a 3 possible launch modes: torpedo tube, russian-style inclined tube (Kursk styl) and VL tube
VL variant a: 1x ICBM sized diameter tube with multiple all up rounds.
VL variant b: several smaller diameter single cell launchers)
I’m leaning towards VL variant A.

Just a quick question – probably stupid.

There is a real lack of Attack Submarines at the moment and in the future. Always having one around the falklands could be tricky in the future.

The idea that a submarine is down there with Tomahawks is a deterrent.

I wondered if there was a way to sink a container type launcher with 6/8 tomahawks with a data connection to ops room in Falklands. The Argentines wouldnt know its location but with 6/8 tomahawks ready to go it could provide an additional deterent, also one that couldnt be hit in a surprise attack?

Again its probably a silly idea but just wondered.

The data connections bit would be a critical issue, if not weakness (need to input targeting and command info without reveiling presence or position).

Of course, there has to be a container option!

Many systems could be mounted inside a 20 ft intermodal container (with the exception of Tomahawk, that might need a 30ft) but why bother.
•Easier to protect the contents from the weather
•Easy to handle
•Can be moved by most trucks and cranes
•Can be fired from any ship or truck or even convenient patch of ground
•The contents can be concealed from prying eyes
•Systems can be shared between land and sea launch platforms

There are several advantages for very little disadvantage. They don’t have to be fired from frigates either. Any ship with a bit of flat deck can become a launch platform, imagine that.
Using a container and flat deck arrangement also offers potential for replenishment at sea, a heave compensated crane and moderate sea state is all that is needed.

20ft Container with NSM

Operational range
NSM 185+ km
JSM 290+ km

JASM-ER, which is the basis for the 900-1000km Long Range Anti-Ship Missile, is about 1 meter longer than NSM and shorter than Tomahawk: a dual role (land and ship attack) LRASM would make another good candidate.
http://www.distancefromto.net/distance-from/Argentina/to/Falkland+Islands+Malvinas

I wondered if there was a way to sink a container type launcher with 6/8 tomahawks with a data connection to ops room in Falklands.

From the context I think I know the answer to this, but will just check as otherwise I will not be asking the question posed. Did you mean ‘sync’ and got attacked by the dreaded auto correct?

Al