Completely ignoring the rqnge and tanking issue ( more than competantly handled by Swerve :)) are people seriously considering sticking sone poor sod in afighter, expecting him to fly about 8000Ks conduct several A2A refuelings, then conduct a runway denial mission and repeat the inbound leg to go home.

A 1600KM round trip at a cruise speed of 500Kts thats a 20 hour round trip.

Q1) Can the Mirage run for 20 hours straight is there sufficient engine oïl or even MTBO/MTBF. (I believe the Rafale flight duration is limited by oïl consumption, but i accept this may be old news or wrong.

Q2 In this stressfull enviroment how are you intending to keep the pilot effective eg Hydrated and fed, 20 hours remember he will need water at least, which brings us to the other problem the limited facilities to expel waste water.
Q3 keeping him awake on the flight back.
Assuming he makes it home and lands safely i doubt the poor sod could walk, having driven 14 hours straight with only limited quick fuel stops at the end I was seriously fatigued with cramped extreemly stiff legs. I can only imagine the joys of 20 straight hours in a confined space.

Q4 Was the Mirages Navigation system up to the task.

I dont know if the Mk ‘ was dual control which may help fatigue.
And just as an afterthought SAR, this is a combat aircraft of an era where they reguarly fall out of the sky. The pilot will be wanting SAR cover, this will be difficult to achieve.

Regards

This is the trouble with simplistic ‘What if?’s. They usually neglect what else would have to change. Imperial Russia with overseas colonies? Major change to dynamics of world geo-politics, with considerable implications. The USSR keeps them after the revolution? Well, the greatest value of the Falklands for many years was as a coaling station for the RN, then as an intermediate station for undersea cables. Would the USSR have hung on to them after the western interventions post-WW1 (if there was a WW1, of course, with so much else having changed)? No chance!

And so on . . .

I agree with the above which is why I preferred to look at these threads as could different countries organised as they were in 1982 have conducted a similar operation. That at least (to me anyway0 appears to have some merit.

@Kilo another site has a discussion of just that scenario.

SU would have placed a few missile boats and some legacy armor around the islands. That alone would be a game changer.

Even Project 205 would be extremely dangerous operating from Falklands coasts for any incoming ship, let alone one new Project 1241, and dealing with not so old by that time T-55s, or relatively new T-60 series, would be a challenge for enemy infantry.

The scenario was retaking the Islands, well defended Islands wont be attacked. Armour is not an option in the Falklands if its got wheels its road bound if its got tracks, barring a few examples its road bound.

Tomcat as others answered Cubas not in a much better position Geographically than the UK regarding the falklands.

I rethought it with an SU ascension, but given the space available and logistic s of getting fuel and bombs there even then options would be limited. However given the range of the Soviet bomber Force a squadron or 2 (at a pinch with limited other assets inc tankers co located ) The option would have been there to hit the mainland directly. Disrupting the airbases could reduce Argentine Air attacks.

None of this alters the main problem though
The Soviet Surface fleet was not used to operating at sea for extended periods.
Its my understanding that the fleet wasn’t designed for this either.
Limited fleet support assets
Limited Amphibious Capabilities – – The SU had a fair few LSTs but I don’t recall any LPD etc . LSTs would have been very vulnerable off loading.

The Fleet in General apart from a few heavy hitters was smaller missile craft, these would have struggled down south to be useful, assuming they could get there. (this is my recollection and I cant find a composition of the fleet to confirm this).

SSNs – Could the soviet SSN force operate effectively down south – could they stock enough food etc,?

The Soviet fleet was designed around the North Atlantic (insert other theatre for each fleet) to an extent that the Royal Navy wasn’t (almost but not quiet).

regards

Edit Sidar rather than a Sov Pwn Argie post could you suggest how they would operate effectively at those ranges.

Faster probably isn’t possible either if only because of fleet transit time, would be no better and possibly worse for the SU as their bases are arguably further away

1) Concur with Fedaykin regarding Sidewinder.

2) Regarding topic Assuming the Soviet navy in this scenario is the soviet navy of 1982, I don’t think they could have done it at faster, I’m not sure if they could have done it at all.

The soviet navy lacked the support assets to project power and would have struggled to operate in the south Atlantic (would they have had the legs to get there).

Assuming a large build up of support assets (tankers stuft etc) then it would have been a long attrition battle with the FAA. there’s no reason to suppose the Red Banner fleet would have faired any better than the RN in 82 and every reason to suspect heavy casualties due to the lack of air power.

Regards

Those are all valid points, however, we are discussing hypotheticals, that much is given. By saying it won’t happen in real life defeats the purpose of these forums. This here is merely exchanging ideas of intellects with proper conducts, other than that it’s a big waste of time. It matters not who wins an argument when it comes to hypotheticals. It’s the exchange of counterpoints of substance and learning that makes it worthwhile.

I understand and agree, however there comes a point where hypotheticals become absolute flights of fancy and as such there is no value in discussion because there is no sensible response.

for example If Argentina builds a deathstar they could take the islands, well great but there is no realistic debate.

I don’t aim this at you or anyone its often how Vs threads go.

My joining the debate with you was regarding depopulating the Islands, we appear to have completely different ideas of how the world would react, now I am normally Mr cynical but I hope on this I am right and you are just being cynical.
By the way I doubt most the world would actually do anything more than condemn the action, If I conveyed the idea it would spark a world wide military response that was sloppy writing.

Regards

Really? After the past decades and you still believe that? I’m not as optimistic as you are….and that’s an understatement. How fast did those dried up AND followed up by actions in past events. You guys can’t be serious about such Anglo-centric views. That’s how advanced nation loose wars…US has plenty of examples. The question is, do you really believe if events unfolds in favor of the Argentines, and I’m not saying militarily, the British leadership wouldn’t change course? This is the problem with liberal democracies….again I’m not judging and saying right or wrong. Please move beyond that.

I wouldn’t say it was an Anglo Centric opinion, Deporting all those Islanders will be met with accusations of ethnic cleansing, hell even if people scream its not the case because nobodys being harmed. No country will want to be associated with supporting that in any way shape or form particularly western Europe.

I make no claims that the UKs position will never change, but your suggestion of deporting the locals is probably guaranteed to get a task force sent (and possibly not a UK only one at that).

Swerve, I don’t think that matters at all in today’s world…and I would argue even back in the 80s. Legitimacy? Then why do the Argentinians get plenty of support all over the world on this? Simple….location. Ask anyone around the world who knows about the Falklands yet not pro-British (there are a lot of them, I would say majority of the world’s countries and population) and they’ll say those imperialistic British occupying Argentinian lands thousands of miles away. Anything else, history or not, is irrelevant. Who cares if the transplants are effective or not at the near term…in this scenario they are there now and there’s nothing you can do about it. Why being selective? Any country will have a large number of nationalistic people who will do anything for the country and they are regular joes with day jobs and skills. Don’t equate nationalism with the poor and unskilled. Remember the 9-11 hijackers…first instinct was they must be lowly educated and poor….how wrong were we. Blockade? You’ve just now fell into the trap of the whole plan by alienated even more people around the world…how dare you go thousands of miles away and try to starve a bunch of “locals” who have the right to be there. They’re not even terrorists…hint hint, Gaza Strip. You start to see what kind of world we live in and how complicated it is? The Argentines don’t even need to have a plan to fully support them because that was the plan all along, the British will start a blockade. Can Journalists go in and see the plight of the locals? Can Red Cross go into such a place?

Except that the blockade is a response to naked aggression and more to the point you have just ethnically cleansed the Islands (okay deported not killed but deported on racial grounds). your right that lots of countries aren’t interested and that many countries (typically latin) pay at least lip service to Argentinas position, however I suspect support and sympathy will dry up very quickly once the words Ethnic cleansing are uttered.