Falklands Naval War Discussion

Perhaps a more specific title would be helpful. The current title implies an open discussion about all aspects of the Falklands war, but this as you state is not the case, so perhaps it should be renamed “Effects of ASuW Missiles In The Falkland Islands Conflict” or similar.

The title was clear enough, the Falklands had nothing to do with the Japanese etc. and a possible global Nuclear War which you were “discussing” and I did say keep it civil!
Any further postings can go on “An open Falklands discussion! “
This one is now locked.

Chaps,

I’ve already allowed the SUE thread to spill over into a Falklands thread, I’m not about to allow this thread to spill over! If you want to discuss Nuclear weapons then start a new thread in the “Missiles and Muntions” forum!

Perhaps a more specific title would be helpful. The current title implies an open discussion about all aspects of the Falklands war, but this as you state is not the case, so perhaps it should be renamed “Effects of ASuW Missiles In The Falkland Islands Conflict” or similar.

Chaps,

I’ve already allowed the SUE thread to spill over into a Falklands thread, I’m not about to allow this thread to spill over! If you want to discuss Nuclear weapons then start a new thread in the “Missiles and Muntions” forum!

Back to Falklands Naval War Discussion

Gentleman

If you all agree i would propose to go back to the origin of this Forum which is
:Falklands Naval War Discussion –

Two topics are open :
One related to HMS Shefield / Exorcet
One related to Radar and Roland Locations during the conflict ( proposed by Mr Jonesy )

To my Argie Friends , what ever information we may have gather , what ever was told to us , what ever was talked about with an Argie war veteran is only half of the story , we have been warmly recieved in this Forum to learn about the other half –

None of us has the total truth about a war event , the truth is burried alongside the Heroes on both sides of this conflict –

What ever information , knowledge or story related to an event in discussion will be brought in as what it is ” Half of the Story ” and then will try to match it up with what the other half knows about it –

Thank You – Enrique –

Hi there,

I am still struggling to learn how to manage a British company based in Spain and thus I have no time to answer point by point but I DO think that imagination is going too far for my limited intellect.

The sole though of CONSIDERING the possibility to use nuclear weapons from my point of view is absolutely INSANE, LUDICROUS and way off the target,,, in a time when there were more than 20,000 nuclear weapons “per side” just thinking of escalating a small conflict into a nuclear stage is SO crazy that I sincerily think that we are experiencing wet dreams…….

I think that just the treat would have created a situation potentially disastrous to the whole humankind and why not to the world……. remember that the EEUU were governed then by a guy who was a few years ahead of a massive case of Alzheimer……

Also, isn´t it incredible even CONSIDERING the possibility of using nukes? And also a country that even THINKS about the possibility of using nuclear weapons against a country that not posses them……. I sincerely think that should trigger a resolution of the UN to DISARM that country….

Let us remember that the stupid action of the “junta” although crazy as a hatter, was a limited operation, with no casualties whatsoever on the British side and that is a clear sign that what they wanted was a situation that would open a space for negotiating….. remember please how the considered by you invasion, for Argentina was a “recovery”……

And speaking about ridiculous scenarios……… let me remind you how the “invasion” of Egipt after the Suez canal crisis ended………. the Soviets said. get out or we launch……:dev2:

We can imagine all scenarios…….. but….. putting Troops in Isla Soledad, ( West Falkland) would have made nothing more than getting targets closer to the mainland and thus……….. much better in range…..

Can you imagine how all the Latin American countries would have reacted? We are talking about hemispheric possibility of open war…….. all British assets in ANY friend country of Argentina would have been captured and all the British nationals abroad would have been instantly threaten…..

Let us awake and talk of POSSIBLE scenarios if we wish, but. nuclear weapons?

And you guys know what? The British government recognized that they did not have time to remove the said weapons from all of his assets in the theatre.. who was more insane? The “invader” or the people that consider even the use of nukes? And carried them with them with the excuse that they didn´t have time to “remove them”…….

I sincerely would like that we can channel this conversation to POSSIBLE scenarios………. otherwise Argentina could have decided, after a nukes attack the possibility of “terminating” the lives of ALL islanders……… let us get thinking straight.

Sorry but I finish here today as I am so mentally tired that I can´t even spell correctly in English….

Juan.

The problem with that thesis is that Argentina is not a Soviet client state. Egypt had control over one of the most strategically important areas of the world, hence it was very much in the Soviet’s interests to intervene (also in hopes of fermenting a pro-Soviet attitude in other Arab capitals). In the case of Argentina on the other hand, the Soviets have no real interest, and other than annoying one of its NATO enemies, the Soviets had no real interest in backing Argentina.

The fact remains that if you invade the territory of a nuclear-armed country, you cannot then write the rules as to what weapons or tactics are allowed.

The discussion of the nuclear option is actually historically relevant – there was discussion at high levels about the use of nuclear weapons in the event of failure. This makes the discussion of what options were on the table entirely proper.

As for your nonsense about Britain being in the wrong for not having had time to remove the nuclear depth charges from its warships, this is completely flawed. The warships involved carried limited numbers of such weapons, as they were, at the time, considered to be the most effective way of dealing with Soviet deep diving nuclear submarines. The nuclear depth bomb is not intended for use on land at all, it is an ASW weapon. The fact that it was not removed was partly because it wasn’t any real concern. The only reason why it became a concern was the prospect of a ship so-equipped being sunk, hence taking more than 2% of the entire stockpile (the total number in UK service amounted to a mere 49!) to the bottom. Also, since these depth charges were on frigates, unless you are expecting Britain to fly a bombing mission in a Westland Lynx, at 150mph, then you are taking this to extremes.

The UK had the right to use whatever weapons it felt necessary, subject to the usual laws. Yet you seem to think that Britain was morally worse than Argentina, because Argentina only invaded British territory; yet Britain considered the possibility of a limited nuclear strike on a symbolic military target in the event of Argentina having sunk at least one of the British carriers. This would only have been in the event of Argentina having likely killed several hundred or more British sailors and airmen. Yes, I am sure the Argentine Junta were the more moral party here…. :rolleyes:

Hi there,

I am still struggling to learn how to manage a British company based in Spain and thus I have no time to answer point by point but I DO think that imagination is going too far for my limited intellect.

The sole though of CONSIDERING the possibility to use nuclear weapons from my point of view is absolutely INSANE, LUDICROUS and way off the target,,, in a time when there were more than 20,000 nuclear weapons “per side” just thinking of escalating a small conflict into a nuclear stage is SO crazy that I sincerily think that we are experiencing wet dreams…….

I think that just the treat would have created a situation potentially disastrous to the whole humankind and why not to the world……. remember that the EEUU were governed then by a guy who was a few years ahead of a massive case of Alzheimer……

Also, isn´t it incredible even CONSIDERING the possibility of using nukes? And also a country that even THINKS about the possibility of using nuclear weapons against a country that not posses them……. I sincerely think that should trigger a resolution of the UN to DISARM that country….

Let us remember that the stupid action of the “junta” although crazy as a hatter, was a limited operation, with no casualties whatsoever on the British side and that is a clear sign that what they wanted was a situation that would open a space for negotiating….. remember please how the considered by you invasion, for Argentina was a “recovery”……

And speaking about ridiculous scenarios……… let me remind you how the “invasion” of Egipt after the Suez canal crisis ended………. the Soviets said. get out or we launch……:dev2:

We can imagine all scenarios…….. but….. putting Troops in Isla Soledad, ( West Falkland) would have made nothing more than getting targets closer to the mainland and thus……….. much better in range…..

Can you imagine how all the Latin American countries would have reacted? We are talking about hemispheric possibility of open war…….. all British assets in ANY friend country of Argentina would have been captured and all the British nationals abroad would have been instantly threaten…..

Let us awake and talk of POSSIBLE scenarios if we wish, but. nuclear weapons?

And you guys know what? The British government recognized that they did not have time to remove the said weapons from all of his assets in the theatre.. who was more insane? The “invader” or the people that consider even the use of nukes? And carried them with them with the excuse that they didn´t have time to “remove them”…….

I sincerely would like that we can channel this conversation to POSSIBLE scenarios………. otherwise Argentina could have decided, after a nukes attack the possibility of “terminating” the lives of ALL islanders……… let us get thinking straight.

Sorry but I finish here today as I am so mentally tired that I can´t even spell correctly in English….

Juan.

Firstly there are NOT 20,000 nuclear weapons per side, Argentina was NOT in the Warsaw Pact so Soviet nuclear weapons don’t come into it and the Soviets would never have come to the aid of Argentina at the risk of a war with NATO. The US is involved in the conflict, but as regards nuclear weapons is neutral. The only nuclear weapons involved are British.

As for using nuclear weapons being unacceptable, you are confusing two quite different scenario’s. Firstly, the nuking of whole cities of innocent people would be unacceptable, but that applies equally to any weapon not because they are nukes but because targetting civilians is against treaties on conduct of war. The use of nuclear weapons against military facilities is however acceptable if the provokation is great enough. As for the United Nations “disarming” the UK, you do realise they are pretty much powerless since they lack any forces of their own? Perhaps you think they will send some Japanese peacekeepers to tackle the UK and take its stockpile of nukes? I see the US made an illegal war against Iraq, I didn’t see the UN do anything about it though! Same with a certain wave of mass killings in Africa recently. Remember also that Argentina attacked the UK, and so knew that this could always be a risk.

Finally, regarding other latin countries helping Argentina, they are more than welcome to help, but that will only invite other European countries with overseas territories to help the UK (Denmark, the Netherlands, France ect). The extra forces will help the UK hugely, yet the other Latin countries would contribute little to Argentina’s fight since Argentina was the strongest country in South America militarily anyway. Remember also that the UK had chile helping in many ways whereas Argentina had no allies in Europe (e.g Spain informed the UK about the plan to attack the UK in Gibraltar). This war can be “scaled up” as much as you like, but the higher it scales the more it benefits the UK, the only way Argentina could win is to keep the war short, low scale and with the least losses to the UK side as possible. The Argentinians did try to keep the war small and with minimal losses in the hope the UK might just write off the territory, but as soon as the UK chose to fight back it was impossible for Argentina to ever win condering how much more forces and defence industry the UK could bring to bear upon Argentina if the war went on for long enough.

Panzon Ref # 49

Thanks Panzon , with al the respect we will try to replay what has happened in each war action –
We may come to know that certain things have not happen the way we were told it happen , well it’s better to know the truth than to live writing the wrong story over and over again – And in more than one case you will have to keep for yourself the conclusions that you may come to –

Un Gran abrazo Enrique
A Big Hug Enrique

Yes Enrique, you are right…….:(:(

I lost it due to the facility in which NUKES were mentioned……. like possibilities among choices, a why not?

I can´t believe this, NUCLEAR WEAPONS? TRIDENT MISSILES?

And the URSS? “The enemy of my enemy is my friend”……

Wake up!! All of us !

Let´s talk about the battle, exchange data, but talk about scenarios with NUKES involved?

I cannot believe that civilized people even may consider its use.

I really do not want to talk anything having to do with nukes…..they are disgusting weapons which in at least once, were in the verge of being exchanged……..

And in two opportunities, WERE used against CITIES !!! Which is still a shame on the Occidental “race”……. they were not used against “white men”…. but they were acceptable on a different one…..

Did not Hiroshima and Nagasaki showed anything?

Cheers to all and I am happy as tomorrow I´ll have the day off. in between siestas, I´ll try to participate in the forum.

Regards,

Juan.

Panzon Ref # 38

Panzon , no veo la necesidad de irnos a escenarios hipoteticos –

Pamzon , I don’t see the need of talking about possible scenarios

I don’t see any good in switching to other channels with possible scenarios –
We are not here to discuss a what if scenario-
We are all here trying to understand what happened , how it happened from the military point of view and see if we match up with information or stories told about the conflict –
In due respect for those who did not come back from both sides we may try to see how each battle developed , how this aircraft was shot down , how that ship was hit and so forth but never we should try to judge those that from both sides have given their lives for our Countries –

Thank you , Regards
Enrique –

Hi there,

I am still struggling to learn how to manage a British company based in Spain and thus I have no time to answer point by point but I DO think that imagination is going too far for my limited intellect.

The sole though of CONSIDERING the possibility to use nuclear weapons from my point of view is absolutely INSANE, LUDICROUS and way off the target,,, in a time when there were more than 20,000 nuclear weapons “per side” just thinking of escalating a small conflict into a nuclear stage is SO crazy that I sincerily think that we are experiencing wet dreams…….

I think that just the treat would have created a situation potentially disastrous to the whole humankind and why not to the world……. remember that the EEUU were governed then by a guy who was a few years ahead of a massive case of Alzheimer……

Also, isn´t it incredible even CONSIDERING the possibility of using nukes? And also a country that even THINKS about the possibility of using nuclear weapons against a country that not posses them……. I sincerely think that should trigger a resolution of the UN to DISARM that country….

Let us remember that the stupid action of the “junta” although crazy as a hatter, was a limited operation, with no casualties whatsoever on the British side and that is a clear sign that what they wanted was a situation that would open a space for negotiating….. remember please how the considered by you invasion, for Argentina was a “recovery”……

And speaking about ridiculous scenarios……… let me remind you how the “invasion” of Egipt after the Suez canal crisis ended………. the Soviets said. get out or we launch……:dev2:

We can imagine all scenarios…….. but….. putting Troops in Isla Soledad, ( West Falkland) would have made nothing more than getting targets closer to the mainland and thus……….. much better in range…..

Can you imagine how all the Latin American countries would have reacted? We are talking about hemispheric possibility of open war…….. all British assets in ANY friend country of Argentina would have been captured and all the British nationals abroad would have been instantly threaten…..

Let us awake and talk of POSSIBLE scenarios if we wish, but. nuclear weapons?

And you guys know what? The British government recognized that they did not have time to remove the said weapons from all of his assets in the theatre.. who was more insane? The “invader” or the people that consider even the use of nukes? And carried them with them with the excuse that they didn´t have time to “remove them”…….

I sincerely would like that we can channel this conversation to POSSIBLE scenarios………. otherwise Argentina could have decided, after a nukes attack the possibility of “terminating” the lives of ALL islanders……… let us get thinking straight.

Sorry but I finish here today as I am so mentally tired that I can´t even spell correctly in English….

Juan.

Still very little time to make a more comprehensive post I’m afraid, but, briefly – there was a contingency plan should the war go into a protracted phase beyond the ability of the task force to stay on station at maximum strength.

That was the development of a lodgement on W.Falklands. The Argentine presence on West Falklands was minimal and it was considered feasible, just, to set up an austere base similar, but larger, to that established at San Carlos there.

The theory being that RAF GR3’s in strength plus FRS1’s transferred ashore from the departing carriers, with radar/SAM support offshore from the fleet, and Rapier, concentrated on open ground with clear arcs, could be enough to form a bridgehead that the Argentine forces would have a very hard time assaulting. The lodgement, over a period of time, being enhanced with hard-runway capability to allow the RAF to bring in Hercs, Phantom and Tornado.

Logistics would’ve been the hard part of the plan but the winter weather would have hampered everyone equally in the air and the SSN presence wouldve meant a very limited Argentine seaborne challenge to UK transport ships transitting to the islands.

As usual, Jonesy sums it up nicely, and entirely correctly. It was entirely possible to put extensive forces on West Falkland, and these would be rapidly reinforced by air. The UK flew Hercules cargo aircraft down there when needed, with some air to air refuelling, and I suspect could have flown some Shorts Belfasts down as well. The Herc and Belfast fleet would then pour troops and equipment onto West Falkland. Initially, the runway on West Falkland would have allowed Harrier and Sea Harrier ops. Once fully laid, the runway would also allow for Hawks (they were already weapons capable, but in ’83 some were given AIM-9 capability, this could happen as an emergency measure in ’82). It wouldn’t take much more to allow Tornado GR-1 and Phantom ops, and of course, the Buccaneer. Ground forces would have more helicopters brought in – Sea Kings, Pumas, Lynx, Gazelles and Scouts. Airlift also allows heavy guns like the M107 175mm gun, which could fire 34km, allowing San Carlos to be within range from West Falkland.

If the UK gets Phantoms and Tornados onto the island, then targetting the Argentine mainland also becomes a possibility. The UK could, for instance, withdraw the naval task force, having dropped off as much equipment as possible onto West Falkland. The force stays just long enough to allow Harriers and other aircraft to be shuttled in. This should allow, intially, around 40 Harriers and Sea Harriers, and hopefully some rapidly modified Hawk armed trainers (good enough for day fighter and CAS ops). A force of, ideally, 40 Harrier FRS.1/GR-3s and 40 Hawk T.1As would be enough to hold off the Argentines initially. The other important thing would be to move in a longer range SAM system, to supplement the Rapier. The Bloodhound would be a possibility, especially since they were nearing removal from Germany.

The combination of the land based force, plus the submarines prowling offshore – likely including numbers of the Oberon class diesel electric subs. These were slow to arrive, but once on station, would be good enough to help keep the Argentines from resupplying by sea. The UK could set up a support base on South Georgia – e.g. park four or five Sea Harriers there, to guard a small fleet of fleet oilers (to resupply the submarines). Once the remainder of the UK fleet gets back to the UK, and Op Corporate II would begin, say, four months later. What has to be born in mind is the fact that the extra time means we are into September or October, which means, hopefully, better weather. During all this time, it is entirely likely that the Argentines would have lost, due to the land based force. The land force should be able to stop the Argentines from aerial resupply, and the subs stop resupply by ship. The land based forces would use close support and helicopter transport, allowing forces to deploy and redeploy as much as possible.

The problem with the US siding with the UK and actively attacking South America is that it could push them into the hands of the Soviets = disaster. Also, had the Argentine’s put decent troops on the island and fought it they could have done reasonably well with 10,000 of them vs 4000 British.

As soon as a reasonable detachment of British soldiers was on the island the things got easier for the Brits and more difficult for the Argis. No matter how the Argis use their aircraft, they were unable to establish something like a control of the seas. There successes largely based on the facts that British ships were trapped to certain areas. If ship cruised freely – given the lack of reconnaissance assets – it would be very difficult to target ships. And don’t forget that despite the obvious success in targeting ships, the Argis have suffered between 5 to 20% loss rate.

I further think it is unlikely that the Argis could do large scale offensive operations in the difficult terrain, again given the lack of suitable reconnaissance and the quality of the troops. The troops the British landed were first class elite soldiers.

In the end I think even a stalemate would have seen a British success as the Argis would have had more problems landing sufficient supplies and retain good morale within the troops.
The whole Falklands campaign was intended to get through without British military involvement. I think in the minute the British decided to do more than a symbolic retaliation action the case was basically lost for the Argis.

Always sad that so many people needed to give their lives for a war that was strategically as significant as the American landing on Granada.

P.S.: If I write Argis or Brits it is for pure convenience, not offending.

Still very little time to make a more comprehensive post I’m afraid, but, briefly – there was a contingency plan should the war go into a protracted phase beyond the ability of the task force to stay on station at maximum strength.

That was the development of a lodgement on W.Falklands. The Argentine presence on West Falklands was minimal and it was considered feasible, just, to set up an austere base similar, but larger, to that established at San Carlos there.

The theory being that RAF GR3’s in strength plus FRS1’s transferred ashore from the departing carriers, with radar/SAM support offshore from the fleet, and Rapier, concentrated on open ground with clear arcs, could be enough to form a bridgehead that the Argentine forces would have a very hard time assaulting. The lodgement, over a period of time, being enhanced with hard-runway capability to allow the RAF to bring in Hercs, Phantom and Tornado.

Logistics would’ve been the hard part of the plan but the winter weather would have hampered everyone equally in the air and the SSN presence wouldve meant a very limited Argentine seaborne challenge to UK transport ships transitting to the islands.

Part of the problem for the use of nuclear weapons, should Corporate face more problems, is actually choosing what to target. There is zero chance that Britain would go and nuke Buenos Aires, full stop! However, a limited yield weapon (these were perfectly available at the time), used on a purely military target, would be a possibility. A WE177 dropped on, say, one of the southern airbases used for Argentine air-strikes, would be a possibility. It is, of course, a weapon of last resort though. A much more likely escalation (if a carrier has been severely damaged or sunk, that’s escalated it a long long way already) would be a conventional bombing raid on the airbases. A Vulcan could fly over and drop cluster bombs on an Argentine airbase. This is unlikely to cause much in the way of collateral damage, since the cluster bombs would be dropped over the base, hence not spread very far. A cluster-bombing of, say, two airbases, would be possible, potentially without a Black Buck style raid. One possibility would be a more rapid conversion of VC-10 or Tristar type aircraft, allowing a Vulcan to be ‘towed’ more of the way.

A cluster bomb attack on a Southern airbase would be very risky as the Argentinian airbases would have no difficulty ion sending interceptors. Also, were the Vulcan to get through, the damage would be minimal in that the runway could be quikly repaired and be back up and running and it’s doubtful if the Vulvan could actually target the aircraft on the ground very effectively so losses are unlikely to be high for them. Any attacks on airbases need to be with highly accurate weapons, nukes or special forces… we only have the later two, the 3rd being a favourite.

Actually, this isn’t entirely true, the Polaris could have been fired with just Chevaline (the decoys) and a single warhead, without any real difficulty. Also, I believe the warheads were adjustable (though in the pre-set sense) yield, so could be set for a much lower yield. Of course, Polaris may be the safest choice, but it is also more difficult to replace – the US may object to replenishing the UK’s Polaris stocks if it considers the strike unnecessary.

I’ve only ever heard of the semi selectable yield feature being available on the D5 warheads, not Polaris ones. If you’ve got a source for that, would be interesting to see.

There were limitations in place for Argentinia and Britain about how far this post-colonial non-sense conflict could go. Nuclear options were definitely not included, similarly out was the escalation of war beyond the area of the Falklands.

Worst case scenario would have seen the USN providing air cover for the British, in which case the fleet would have been safe. The air cover provided by a single CVBG equipped with F-14A and E-3B is sufficient to seal of the islands. I don’t think Us involvement would have come with lots of enthusiasm, on the other hand a smoking conflict destabilizing the entire region (which still was considered the US backyard) was not acceptable.

As soon as British forces were landed on the Falklands there isn’t much the Argentinians could do about it.

The problem with the US siding with the UK and actively attacking South America is that it could push them into the hands of the Soviets = disaster. Also, had the Argentine’s put decent troops on the island and fought it they could have done reasonably well with 10,000 of them vs 4000 British.

If the first landing operation failed the Argentinians wouldn’t be in any better position since they are only likely to have destroyed amphibious forces and not most of the escorts, carriers and SSN’s! Of course they would have wiped out a few thousands of the UK’s best forces, but that could just provoke the UK rather than make the UK give up. Since the Argentinians could not get ships to the islands, they could not extend the runway or bring in minelaying ships. There were no Exocets available for Argentina to buy, so time wouldn’t help here. As for the Soviets supplying aircraft, if it was going to happen it would have happened before the war started. The Argentinian navy couldn’t go out because of the SSN’s, no amount of time would help them since they are unlikely to be able to hunt and destroy them. If the war dragged on it might have spread, most likely to any Argentinian air bases supplying the islands and the transport aircraft with the aim of starving the Argentine forces out.

The Argentines would never have received Soviet aircraft – partly because it would be supremely difficult for them to actually get there (the threat of interception especially); and largely because of the result. If the USSR backed Argentina militarily, then the US would immediately have joined on the British side. Soviet backing effectively guarantees the US backing Britain.

Regarding nukes, they pose several main issues. Firstly would be that once the British government makes a threat to use them, it must follow up on that threat with action if the demands aren’t met or the UK will look weak in the eyes of the Soviets (a disaster for the UK and NATO)!

However, the nukes would only be a last resort. If the Argentinians obtained a decent stock of anti-shipping missiles somehow and sank many, or all, of the landing ships or aircraft carriers then some might see it as justified though I personally can’t see how it would help us capture the islands (though we’d certainly be the winner)! If our amphibious forces are destroyed, we cannot “capture” the islands and nukes would be unable to perform the role of ground troops, the only way they would be effective would be to threaten their use, but this threat would be easy to call the UK’s bluff on, then if the UK doesn’t carry out the threat it will look even weaker! The UK is also quite limited in what it can threaten, ideally it could threaten to hit large troop concerntrations in revenge and could hit “empty space” as a warning shot, but these concerntrations would be quickly dispersed leaving the UK targetless and letting the Argentinians call the UK’s bluff again making the UK look weak! Finally though, the UK could do the dirtiest trick, go around threatening Argentina’s cities populations with nuclear strikes with the intention of causing a mass panic and creating a huge domestic crisis for the Argentine government!

Part of the problem for the use of nuclear weapons, should Corporate face more problems, is actually choosing what to target. There is zero chance that Britain would go and nuke Buenos Aires, full stop! However, a limited yield weapon (these were perfectly available at the time), used on a purely military target, would be a possibility. A WE177 dropped on, say, one of the southern airbases used for Argentine air-strikes, would be a possibility. It is, of course, a weapon of last resort though. A much more likely escalation (if a carrier has been severely damaged or sunk, that’s escalated it a long long way already) would be a conventional bombing raid on the airbases. A Vulcan could fly over and drop cluster bombs on an Argentine airbase. This is unlikely to cause much in the way of collateral damage, since the cluster bombs would be dropped over the base, hence not spread very far. A cluster-bombing of, say, two airbases, would be possible, potentially without a Black Buck style raid. One possibility would be a more rapid conversion of VC-10 or Tristar type aircraft, allowing a Vulcan to be ‘towed’ more of the way.

If they UK did choose to use nuclear weapons it would also have to choose which delivery system to use, which poses a few issues itself. The Polaris SSBN’s can make a strike that can’t be intercepted, but they are also very vital to oppose the Soviets so might be judged too valuable to use in such a minor strike and they would be excessively powerful for the strike needed (the minimum force would be 3 x 200kt warheads)! The alternative would be using WE.177 air dropped bombs from Vulcan bombers, but only a single target could be hit per “black buck” operation and each would be a huge operation. They might well be shot down if going over the mainland in which case the Argentinians could gain access to a nuclear weapon which could used as a threat (though the UK would likely call their bluff!) or worse be dropped on the fleet though any first detonation by Argentina against the UK would be a very bad move and would just be inviting the UK to make a second strike using Polaris.

Actually, this isn’t entirely true, the Polaris could have been fired with just Chevaline (the decoys) and a single warhead, without any real difficulty. Also, I believe the warheads were adjustable (though in the pre-set sense) yield, so could be set for a much lower yield. Of course, Polaris may be the safest choice, but it is also more difficult to replace – the US may object to replenishing the UK’s Polaris stocks if it considers the strike unnecessary.

Similarly, as I say above, it isn’t really necessary to make it a full Black Buck – remember, a single WE177 is not very heavy, hence the herculean efforts needed for the Black Buck missions is not necessary. Remember, the 21 x 1000lb bombs weighed a heck of a lot, obviously, and meant less fuel could be carried. In contrast, the Shrike missile raids needed a lot less support; also, as I mention above, it is highly likely that the UK would have pressed the VC-10 into tanker use much faster, and would therefore have had an easier time of it.

The other thing to consider is that if Argentina hit Invincible (in a sense, it was considered a lot better than hitting the more capable Hermes), then the UK might threaten to use nuclear weapons, and end up with the US intervening on their side to avoid this. The RN had looked at bringing Bulwark back into service, and a Operation Corporate II would have taken around six months, during which a lot would happen. The UK would get a lot of other systems into service (a lot of crash programs only missed use by a few months, notably the Sea King AEW). It would potentially involve Hermes, Bulwark and Illustrious, plus a couple more container ships, fitted with defensive systems (with the luxury of a couple of months to fit them this time!). All the ships would have had Phalanx, and overall, the force would be a lot more potent. You’re probably looking at around 50 Harriers/Sea Harriers, as many as perhaps ten Sea King AEWs, better equipped ships, and new tankers for the bombing raids.

I very much doubt Thatcher would fall, she would instead try to put the UK on a war footing – there is no chance whatsoever that the UK would simply give up after losing a carrier. Instead, there would be a heck of a lot more resolve to hit the Argentines back! During the gap between Corporate I and Corporate II, the UK would keep its subs down there, sinking shipping, and have the bombers keep hitting targets, and subs landing special forces, to carry out commando-style raids. Basically, it would not be six months of genuine gap, but rather six months of waiting for the UK to resume full intensity ops!

There were limitations in place for Argentinia and Britain about how far this post-colonial non-sense conflict could go. Nuclear options were definitely not included, similarly out was the escalation of war beyond the area of the Falklands.

Worst case scenario would have seen the USN providing air cover for the British, in which case the fleet would have been safe. The air cover provided by a single CVBG equipped with F-14A and E-3B is sufficient to seal of the islands. I don’t think Us involvement would have come with lots of enthusiasm, on the other hand a smoking conflict destabilizing the entire region (which still was considered the US backyard) was not acceptable.

As soon as British forces were landed on the Falklands there isn’t much the Argentinians could do about it.

In a british withdraw scenario Thatcher would fall (as the argie dictatorship did). If not, it takes at least six months to a full year to set up Corporate 2. Of course Argentina would have plenty of time for her fleet to be ready (SSKs included), get some new fighters (maybe from URSS), extend Port Stanley runway, deploy mines and, what matters the most, to get 30 or 50 AM-39 exocets. A real nightmare scenario for the RN.
I can easily imagine the war extending to non Falkland places.
Do you think nukes would be an option in that scenario?

If the first landing operation failed the Argentinians wouldn’t be in any better position since they are only likely to have destroyed amphibious forces and not most of the escorts, carriers and SSN’s! Of course they would have wiped out a few thousands of the UK’s best forces, but that could just provoke the UK rather than make the UK give up. Since the Argentinians could not get ships to the islands, they could not extend the runway or bring in minelaying ships. There were no Exocets available for Argentina to buy, so time wouldn’t help here. As for the Soviets supplying aircraft, if it was going to happen it would have happened before the war started. The Argentinian navy couldn’t go out because of the SSN’s, no amount of time would help them since they are unlikely to be able to hunt and destroy them. If the war dragged on it might have spread, most likely to any Argentinian air bases supplying the islands and the transport aircraft with the aim of starving the Argentine forces out.

Regarding nukes, they pose several main issues. Firstly would be that once the British government makes a threat to use them, it must follow up on that threat with action if the demands aren’t met or the UK will look weak in the eyes of the Soviets (a disaster for the UK and NATO)!

However, the nukes would only be a last resort. If the Argentinians obtained a decent stock of anti-shipping missiles somehow and sank many, or all, of the landing ships or aircraft carriers then some might see it as justified though I personally can’t see how it would help us capture the islands (though we’d certainly be the winner)! If our amphibious forces are destroyed, we cannot “capture” the islands and nukes would be unable to perform the role of ground troops, the only way they would be effective would be to threaten their use, but this threat would be easy to call the UK’s bluff on, then if the UK doesn’t carry out the threat it will look even weaker! The UK is also quite limited in what it can threaten, ideally it could threaten to hit large troop concerntrations in revenge and could hit “empty space” as a warning shot, but these concerntrations would be quickly dispersed leaving the UK targetless and letting the Argentinians call the UK’s bluff again making the UK look weak! Finally though, the UK could do the dirtiest trick, go around threatening Argentina’s cities populations with nuclear strikes with the intention of causing a mass panic and creating a huge domestic crisis for the Argentine government!

If they UK did choose to use nuclear weapons it would also have to choose which delivery system to use, which poses a few issues itself. The Polaris SSBN’s can make a strike that can’t be intercepted, but they are also very vital to oppose the Soviets so might be judged too valuable to use in such a minor strike and they would be excessively powerful for the strike needed (the minimum force would be 3 x 200kt warheads)! The alternative would be using WE.177 air dropped bombs from Vulcan bombers, but only a single target could be hit per “black buck” operation and each would be a huge operation. They might well be shot down if going over the mainland in which case the Argentinians could gain access to a nuclear weapon which could used as a threat (though the UK would likely call their bluff!) or worse be dropped on the fleet though any first detonation by Argentina against the UK would be a very bad move and would just be inviting the UK to make a second strike using Polaris.

As for the carriers in the falklands, if one of the carriers had been lost, the task force may have been withdrawn, however it probably would have been back several months later with bulwark and illustrious as well as more Type 42 destroyers fitted with the brand now and more capable 1022, rather then the 1960’s era type 965 radar.
And resupply of the Islands would have to be via aircraft as the UK Nuclear submarines would make any attempt to resupply by sea, suicide.

In a british withdraw scenario Thatcher would fall (as the argie dictatorship did). If not, it takes at least six months to a full year to set up Corporate 2. Of course Argentina would have plenty of time for her fleet to be ready (SSKs included), get some new fighters (maybe from URSS), extend Port Stanley runway, deploy mines and, what matters the most, to get 30 or 50 AM-39 exocets. A real nightmare scenario for the RN.
I can easily imagine the war extending to non Falkland places.
Do you think nukes would be an option in that scenario?

I think it´s very hard for a light carrier to survive in a real hostile environment. There are multiple threats, like long range or sub launched missiles, saturation attack from different angles…
No doubt F-35 will help, specially with AEW support but the sub menace will remain as a major concern.

In most cases (The Cavour being the exception, and maybe the Japanese CVH) most of the new generation flat tops are simply not intended to go into such an environment.