pjhydroThe comparison of building a carrier with public money compared to building a floating hotel with private money is hilarious. I love these pheonix articles, so sane, so balanced….:D
pjhydroArgentina had been embargoed by the U.K. and U.S. long before the Falklands war, cutting them off from technical support, upgrades and spare parts for aircraft and weapons sold to them earlier. There is no doubt that if the Argentina’s air forces had the latest bombs, missiles, radars and fire control systems (like those issued to frontline American, French and Israeli pilots) the British invasion fleet probably would have withdrawn from the Falklands after several days. They could barely withstand the pounding they received anyway, despite all of the dud bombs and missiles that hit British shipping.
It was in the sense that the British pilots had them and the Argentine pilots did not. Even your Prime Minister was able to recognize that technological advances in weapon systems was more significant than any difference in the airframe that fired them.
You are making one of the most common mistakes in assessing military matters, that technology alone counts. There is every doubt that had Argentina had “more modern weapons” they would have triumphed. You seem to be totally ignoring training as a decsive factor. Argentinian pilots were good and undoubtedly very brave, but their level of training was much lower than UK aircrew. They flew less hours, took part in fewer exercises and did not have the huge advantage of DACT that the UK had as a member of NATO. UK pilots had already “fought” mirages and Skyhawks, Argentinian Pilots had never fought Harriers. It has been said that had the pilots traded places and swapped aircraft and missiles the UK aircrew would still have come out on top. This is not to rubbish Argentinian pilots who were good, but they did not have anything like the experience levels of NATO trained aircrew.
On the ground your agrument breaks down somewhat as British troops found that when they over ran Argentinian positions their opponents had beter night sights, better boots and in some cases a heavier range of small arms. What counted was the level of professional training Vs in many respects better equipped conscripts.
The Argentine junta was not a threat to British national security, it was only a threat to Thatcher’s national pride.
In one sense you are correct, except that by extension the Falklands was British soveriegn territory and therefore national security had been breeched. While I am no fan of Maggie (understatement) I think you do her massive diservice stating that this was about her pride, 253 UK lives is a big spend for one womans ego. If the UK walked away from the Falklands in 1982 the the UKs diplomatic word would mean nothing. The UK would be seen to be a push over, easily challenged and unable to stand up to even the smallest bully boy. The Falklands was about so much more than Thatchers pride.
Hawker and British Aerospace were deeply frustrated by the poor export sales of Harrier throughout the history of production. They were so desperate for new customers that Harriers were offered to unsavory dictators in places like Red China, Iraq, Uganda, and Zimbabwe. All of them politely declined. McDonnell-Douglas got a similar response when they tried to attract more buyers for the AV-8.
So what? How many nations bought the Buccaneer or Lightning? How many bought the Vulcan? What about various US types like most of the century series (other than the 104)? These are all great aircraft, export sales are no measure of “greatness” they are often more a measure of cheapness, ease of operation, simplicity of systems. The Harrier in all its guises is a very complicated and labour intensive airframe, to be frank only high end air forces can operate it properly, look at Thailands experience and they have the simplest version.
pjhydroWell then prove it. Surely you must have carefully read a copy of the lease, circa 1982, so why not share it with us.
Its not leased at all and it is not a US base or US soil either. You are both wrong. To quote the Ascension Island Government….
http://www.ascension-island.gov.ac/faq
“The US Air Force presence on the island is regulated by the 1956 Bahamas Agreement, an international treaty between the governments of the United Kingdom and the United States of America. This allows the USAF to use agreed designated sites. These are not leased as is commonly, but mistakenly, thought. Nor are the sites US soil and everyone on the base is subject to Ascension Island’s laws and jurisdiction. The USAF built and maintain the runway at Wideawake airfield, and provide essential services such as air traffic control. The USAF and contractors employ 218 people, 162 of whom are on contract from St Helena.”
And just to clarify…
http://www.ascension-island.gov.ac/
“Ascension, like Britain’s other Overseas Territories and the Crown Territories, is not part of the United Kingdom. It has its own Constitution (shared with St Helena and Tristan da Cunha), is internally self-governing, makes its own laws and, as a separate fiscal jurisdiction, has tax raising powers, through the Governor. The United Kingdom is responsible for defence, international relations and internal security.“
The UK can use the base and the island whenever it wants. The USAF built and run facilities were ‘lent’ to the UK in 1982, but had the US said no to their use that would have not made much difference. Honestly people this stuff is not hard to look up.
pjhydroBecause they were simple ships. They were very straightforward designs. In 1982 the Royal Navy had loads of sailors who knew how to operate an LPH, flight deck operations would have been no problem, nor would the steam plant. But anyway, it’s a moot point, I’m quite sure that Bulwark would have been used as a replacement carrier if needed, and Illustrious was completed ahead of schedule as well, so Britain would have had another two carriers if necessary.
Do you know how long it takes a crew on a new type of vessel not to get lost between their bunks and their duty station? Its not about expereince with a “type”, this is not biggles, “if you can drive a centaur class light fleet carrier you can drive any carrier.” Iwo Jima would have taken months to get to grips with, at least a year to be truly proficient. Look how long crews used to take to work up in WW2, even on familiar ships.
Bulwarks motto was “Under thy wings I do trust” The ‘t’ had been dropped from the motto in the late 70s….There is a famous in house cartoon that illustrated the point in 1982, two sailors amazed that they are considering Bulwark and in the background HMS Victory is being towed out of dry dock.
pjhydroYou have still provided no evidence that the Argentines knew that an SSN had been despatched. However, I don’t think it’s vital, because, as you say, Britain made it quite clear that any aggression would be countered, something which shamefully did not happen in 1982. But the thing you are ignoring is that the Argentines would have known that any counter to their aggression would have included HMS Ark Royal, together with Hermes and Bulwark as CVS/LPHs. That’s deterrence, having the will and the means to resist aggression. You cannot seriously be arguing that because Ark Royal was in the Med the Argentines would have not been deterred by the mere fact of her existence?
Lets try a little logic argument. We join “a minister” and “the Admiral” in November 1977, who look strangely like John Bird and John Fortune….
“Ah Admiral come in, come in…about this little thing in the South Atlantic, the PM wants action.”
“Fantastic minister, well I have the fleet dispositions here and we can send a really strong message to nip this in the bud what.”
“Ah well you see we’ve had an idea. We want you to send a nuclear submarine…”
“Oh minister thats a first rate choice, really sounding the right note.”
“..yes but its to be a total secret.”
“But how will they know not to invade if they don’t know we’ve put something there to stop them?”
“Ah well you see we’ve thought of that…Ark Royal is in the Med.”
“Ah well thats perfect sir, yes we will sail her down south as the visible deterrent and maybe the Junta can ‘guess’ what else we have lurking….”
“no, no thats not quite the idea we had, we would like her to carry on sailing east through the med, mean while our secret submarine sails south.”
“So you want me to keep our aircraft carrier sailing away from the crisis when she is already 8,000 miles away and in order to deter an invasion a submarine is to sail in total secrecy???”
“Yes, you see aircraft carriers are the only meanigful deterrent and it doesn’t matter where they are the enemy understands that if you have one, pow! invasion over.”
“We have lots of other ships minister they all provide a certain amount of deterrence.”
“Yes but not like an aircraft carrier, I mean look at Vietnam.”
“The Americans sort of didn’t win Vietnam minister and they had several aircraft carriers right off shore.”
“Yes, yes well thats true but then they didn’t have Ark Royal!”
“We won’t soon minister…really i’m not sure if Argentina is going to consider her a thorn in their plans if she is sailing away from them, are you sure….”
“Yes, just send the submarine and a couple of frigates.”
“Maybe a little hint through back door channels that one of the worlds most powerful vessels might be in the south Atlantic minister, if we want to prevent a fight our opponents have to know a little of what they might be facing, making them think twice what?”
“No No, absolute secrecy, like she was never there…”
“Why even send her minister!!???”
“well now theres a thought…..”
(Apologies to the two johns.)
pjhydroI think a much simpler ship such as an Iwo Jima would have been well within the Royal Navy’s ability to operate. We know that the type could support Harrier operations, because the Americans proved it.
It wouldn’t have been the Harriers operating from it that were the issue. Driving a different ship is not like jumping from a Ford fiesta into a focus. It would take months, probably more than a year for a crew the size required for an iwo jima to be competent enough to enter a conflict. The harrier aircrew would take a couple of days to up and running, the sailors manning the grey suff under the flight deck would be your problem.
And anyway what makes you think the Iwo Jima class were simple ships?
pjhydroI am not seeing any proof that the Argentines knew of the SSN’s deployment. That might be what you think happened, it’s not the same as what actually did happen. And if you think that the fact that Britain had a large deck carrier actually at sea at the time had no effect on Argentine calculations, then you must think they were very stupid people indeed. I can’t help thinking that the knowledge that the RAF had a base in Scotland would not have been a major factor in deterring Argentine aggression.
Ok time for a long answer. I apologise to most, but sometimes only a long answer will do (hey liger!) SO here goes a rough guide to…..
….How does deterrence actually work?
There is the basic concept of armed deterrence, i.e. an armed nation deters aggression; in the case of ‘global’ nations like the UK then there is a certain global umbrella of deterrence that exists wherever you are in the world. If you do something that involves the UK in some way then you must consider the possibility of armed response from the UK. Ok, all well and good and in that simplistic sense you are correct, the existence of Ark Royal in 1977 would have contributed to the overall effort of deterrence aimed at Argentina.
But it is not that simple at all. The location and range of a given weapon system has to also be taken in to account. To take my facetious comment in my last reply, 1 (BR) Corps was of course part of Britain’s overall deterrent in 1977, but it was based in Germany and aimed at the Warsaw Pact. Any other nation around the globe could discount it from a calculation of British deterrence, unless their plan was to attack Germany.
In the case of Ark Royal it is of course different, a carrier is a movable feast, it can move its deterrent effect to different locations, but that is not the same as saying its deterrent effect applies every where. The speed and range of the ship and its task force, the range of its aircraft and the range of the weapons they carry all give you a picture of the deterrent ability of such a ship. Now while, as we established above, a ship like Ark Royal has a contribution to overall deterrence, where the ship is at present and how it is used would be major considerations of any potential opponent.
In 1977 Argentina would have known several facts which were public knowledge.
Immediately relevant at the time is that Ark Royal was on deployment in the Med (which was public knowledge). She was 8,000 miles away, more than two weeks before she could bring her aircraft to the fight. This could be considered a “window” in deterrence that can be exploited, why fear a weapon that cannot harm you immediately and may arrive too late if you can act fast enough? Knowledge, or at least a vague awareness of where a ship/unit/weapon is located is crucial for the success of deterrence. The Argentinians would have to have had some idea of Dreadnoughts deployment otherwise it would have been an utter waste deploying her – THAT IS THE POINT OF DETERRENCE – she was being sent to prevent, not to fight.(in fact her orders were not to fight if it came to it, the UK was calling their bluff).
The second piece of knowledge would be the role of Ark Royal in 1977. By this time it was limited to NATO waters and was seen as a key piece of the UK’s contribution to naval ops in and around the North Atlantic. It was unlikely ever to be ordered away from this area unless war had actually broken out.
Thirdly, she had never, even earlier in her career been deployed to the South Atlantic and that was essentially the case for all the carriers. The RN had never carried out carrier ops around the Falklands, thus had never demonstrated a deterrence.
The last factor in deterrence is will. Deterrence only works if it is backed up by the political will to threaten its use and then a past history of demonstrating the resolve to use it. The problem in 1982 was not a lack of conventional carriers, it was the utter lack of political and diplomatic will to implement any sort of aggressive deterrence as launched by Callahgan in 1977.
All of this puts pay to the lie that Ark Royal acted as a deterrent to Argentinian aggression. It just didn’t. A nuclear submarine called Dreadnought did.
pjhydroP1154
I don’t care about the boring old pragmatic worries over whether the airframe would actually have worked or whether a supersonic pegasus (B100) was possible or could carry enough water to actually operate at all or for a meaningful period of time; a supersonic harrier carrier capable and in the 1960s as well.
Plus it looked much prettier than any other STOVL design
That was my next choice! And despite the space and integration issues The CF299 would have looked great too.
pjhydroA simple repeat of 1977 would have saved us billions of pounds & hundreds of lives.
Here, here. Goes to demonstrate that its not the size of your battalions but the intention behind them.
pjhydroI think you’ll find that the Argentines didn’t know an SSN had been sent down south in 1977. These things aren’t advertised are they? Of course, the junta would have been aware that in 1977 we still had a large deck carrier. That’s one of the things about carriers, they deter aggression.
They knew, otherwise there would be no point using it as a deterrent. Various back door diplomatic channels would have given the message. Argentinian intelligence would have been “allowed” to confirm the rumours, or at least been unable to say they were wrong. Thats how these things work.
Yes carriers are a factor in the concept of armed deterrence, as are every single weapon system in the nations armoury, but the knowledge of her exsistence was not what stopped the Junta. If she had been ordered south I would agree with you, but she wasn’t (she was in the Med actually), Dreadnought, Alacrity, Pheobe, Resource and Olwen were and that was the force that deterred. If you say a ship that wasn’t involved or present is what deterred Argentina then you may as well argue that it was also a victory for 1 (BR) Corps stationed in Germany at the time, or the fighter wing at RAF Leuchars. Deterrence has it limits.
Lets face it the knowledge of 14 super carriers did not deter Iraqs invasion of Kuwait but when they were present in region they helped prevent the invasion continuing into Saudi.
As to the rest, the SSN numbers will decline, the surface fleet numbers will decline, there will be no fixed wing naval aviation, the RFA’s MARS project seems dead, but never mind, the French will always lend us “Charles de Gaulle” if needs be, so all’s well with the world. I have to admire your optimism, however deluded it may turn out to be.
Bloody hell, you must be cheery down the pub. You know none of these things and they are unlikely for all sorts of reasons, including public opinion, actual physical need and of course the needs of british industry to keep building stuff.
pjhydroI came to this thread solely to post that picture of the P1121, & you beat me to it. Curse you!
Great minds and fools….
But what an aircraft, I agree with Derek Wood who said it could have been the UK Phantom.
pjhydroHawker P1121
pjhydroTwo carriers and 24 SHARS are rather more formidable than nothing, which is what we will have for the next ten years at least.
At the expense of ASW helicopters which was the ships main role in the cold war. In peace they carried 5 SHARS, wartime surge would have been more like 9. They were there to guard the Sea Kings and scare the bears off. But we don’t have “nothing” now as I point out below.
As to the rest, you are dreaming if you think the Royal Navy will present a strong deterrent. Seven SSNs with perhaps 30 TLAMs between them? Six Type 45s? An amphibious force cut in half and without helicopters? The RFA dying slowly before our eyes? Dream on.
You sound like a manic depressive on this one, a Private Frazer if you will….we’re all doomed Captain Mannering DOOMED!!
How do you think deterrence works? We have 7 top line SSNs, just 1 of them would have prevented the Falklands, as HMS Dreadnought did in 1977 just five years before. The RN is one of a very small list of Navies that can shut down a sea route anywhere in the world. Just two Astutes could close the Med for instance. A single Astute can a deny a vast area of sea to a potential opponent WHILE simultaneously taking long range accurate shots at vital infrastructure AND also landing SF. There are only two navies in the world with that capability – the RN and the USN. Russia has it ad hoc, France has no land attack capability yet, China and India still limited to regional stuff. Huge deterrence ability packed into those 7 SSNs.
Six Type 45? Well to be facitious its 6 more Type 45s than anyone else has got… but there in lies a truth, how many navies have an equivilant vessel? How many navies have a countermeasure to it? Its been said that each type 45 is equivilant to 3 type 42s, but thats not half the story, a Type 45 can monitor every aircraft movement out of every airport in London, Paris and Amsterdam SIMULTANEOUSLY, quatum leap is too mild a word for a type 45. The Darings provide better AA coverage than the 42/SHAR1 mix and definately better than the 42/GR9 mix. The SHAR2 would have improved things a little but not by much frankly, especially with the Darings operating with ASAC7. We are not losing much in AD terms by chopping the GR9s.
yeah more T45 would have been nice, but come on, what a capability.
No helicopters? Which defence review did you read? The RN/RM are getting all the Merlins and the RAF are getting more Chinooks.
Half Amphibs? Losing one out of four Bays, putting one LPD in reserve but keeping it and keeping the LPH. Thats not half…I even used a calculator to check.
RFA dying? would you care to expand….?
pjhydroThe only role for SSKs I can see in the RN is as a training tool. Before you could operate as a high ranking officer on a nuke you used to have to do some time on one of the old Oberons. Might avoid so many bumps, scrapes and groundings…..
pjhydroI said, Thatcher was not beyond criticism, far from it. John Nott’s 1981 plans for the Navy were deplorable. Then again, even Nott would have left us with Illustrious and Ark Royal, plus a full force of Sea Harriers. I’d take that now, wouldn’t you? Do you think that the Royal Navy will be able to deter very much at all for the next ten years?
A full force of SHARS?? 10 regularly deployed and up to 18 on a typical surge on two ships, formidable…..
Will the RN deter much over the next ten years? Well much as oranges are not the only fruit Carriers mounting 25 year old light attack jets are not the only deterrent…there is the SSNs, which, as is their role, everyone forgets about but are actually the RNs most potent platform and have been since their introduction and with TLAM they have offered the Navy’s most powerful and longest range conventional attack capability for the last 12 years. Then there is the surface fleet, the Type 45 offering a level of air defence that arguably oustrips GR9s with sidewinders, there is the amphib force and the 7000 Royal Marines, there is the Strategic reach the RFA give the whole UK forces….
Sign In
