EdLawThey had refuelling capabilities last time. A couple of KC-130s (the same ones, IIRC, 25 years older & probably less airworthy) means very small packages, with very little fuel over & above what they need for a single bomb run & off home. They’d be outnumbered & outgunned by the Harriers. Trying to fight it out would achieve the same as it did before: fight & lose, or fight & ditch on the way home.
Their C-130s aren’t in too bad a condition, and they could certainly keep enough airworthy if the need arose. The KC-130s could carry enough fuel to get a good enough number of Skyhawks into the area, with full fuel levels. It shouldn’t be underestimated how much damage the few Skyhawks could do, especially since they’ll not be dropping a few dumb bombs this time.
As for outgunned and outnumbered, as I mentioned before, they have slightly better missiles, and a modern radar, versus the Harriers with no radar, and older missiles. In terms of outnumbered, I am not quite so sure, especially since there will only be around 40 or so GR-9s, facing 35 or so A-4ARs, along with the remaining Daggers. This does not really make for a major quantitative advantage to UK forces.
The advantages Argentinean aircraft have over the GR9 would largelt be negated by the distance, as they were in 1982. They were then, as they would be now, operating on the edge of possibility, even with some (a smaller number than last time) superior aircraft. The P-3s & King Airs – so what? They had surveillance aircraft then. And if they got too close, they were shot down. Why would that not happen again?
The difference is that this time, they have more modern surveillance assets, with the ability to track the UK task force a lot more easily. I really doubt they would be shot down as long as they keep their distance, and the newer avionics on them means that they don’t need to get as close.
I appreciate the improvements in Argentinean capabilities, but they’re very piecemeal, and in other areas they’re weaker. And how many of their combat aircraft would be lost in the invasion, against fighters with true BVR missiles, & radars which outrange them immensely? Frankly, I’d back the flight of F3s down there against Argentinas entire current air force (provided they have enough AAMs), given the numbers that could actually be brought to bear at any one time.
If Argentina actually had any intention of capturing the Falklands, I’d expect them to invest in the ability to do CAP over the Falklands, with good fighters & BVR missiles : either long range fighters (e.g. the previously mentioned Sukhois), or considerably more tankers – and whichever (or both), something with real BVR abilities.
Also spend money on the navy (I wouldn’t fancy their chances of a coup de main from civilian freighters nowadays), & more training for all services.
But if Argentina did that, we’d notice. And then what? How long to sort out radar for Harriers? Asraam integration should be possible quickly, also datalinks. Etc., etc.
I hope you are right, and I suspect you are – I believe in much the same things, but I am not quite as confident as you are. In particular, your point about rapid integration of better missiles, which is equally true of Argentine forces, and unfortunately, if they have their heads screwed on right, they will get Israeli missiles ASAP. Basically, if the islands fall, then I doubt the UK’s air assets will enjoy as clear an advantage as you seem to indicate. In particular, quantitatively, I don’t think Britain will have all that much of an advantage….
EdLawNobody is disputing that radar-equipped real fighters would be preferable to GR9s, so there’s no point arguing about that.
Errr – remember 1982? No BVR missiles. What was the air to air exchange rate? How many to zero?
The Argentineans back then had fighters with radars, & we had no AEW. And one disadvantage of theirs hasn’t changed: no fuel to hang around & fight. The bayonet-to-bayonet analogy doesn’t apply. The Harriers would have the be able to choose when, or whether, to engage (remember, AEW!), & would be virtually guaranteed first shot.
BTW, why would the Argentineans “almost certainly” buy some Israeli missiles?
The problem is that since 1982, their radars have improved (A-4s with APG-66s, and Daggers with EL/M-2001s), and their missiles have improved (since otherwise they’d have reached the end of their shelf lives many years ago!). They have better surveillance, with P-3s and King Airs, and thus aren’t exactly going to be flying in blind. As for Harriers having the ability to choose when or whether to engage, this is not strictly true, since they would have to try to intercept any incoming Argentine aircraft.
In terms of buying more modern Israeli missiles, it is not a complete certainty, but it would be very likely, especially if they have any sense. At the very least, they do have the AIM-9M (as part of the A-4AR deal), which is still a pretty darned good missile.
This is particularly worrying since the Harriers don’t actually have AMRAAM. This means that both the radarless Harriers and radar-equipped A-4AR Skyhawks would be using pretty much the same missile. The worst bit is that the Harriers don’t even use the -M variant, they use the older -L version. This means that as well as not having a radar, they also don’t have any advantage in missiles. Okay, the ASRAAM has some functionality due to the common interface, but that’s far from the same as being properly integrated.
I do not, however, neglect the advantage the UK has in terms of having AEW aircraft, which is a significant capability. This is why I do still think the Harriers could hold their own, but as for the Harriers having a qualitative advantage, I’m not so sure. Also, it has to be remembered that the Argentine Skyhawks do have refuelling facilities this time (on the KC-130s), and the more efficient J52 engines, versus the old J65s the old ones had.
EdLawThe problem I have with this is that it assumes we should be willing to go in pretty darned close. Also, the Argentines would almost certainly buy some Python 4 or 5 missiles, which would make such engagements very dangerous! The simple fact is that they have fighters with radars, with good enough performance to worry anyone, and with the potential for upgrades (on the quiet potentially) to give them an edge. If, on the other hand, the Harriers are given at least some BVR capability, then we can avoid close in confrontations, and shoot them down before they get close enough to make it an even fight! Do you shoot the enemy with your rifle, or get into a bayonet-to-bayonet fight?
EdLawIt’s sad that this is happening now, especially with the Airbucket A-400M program facing fresh delays. Perhaps this might galvanise some nations (UK in particular) to place some fresh orders, especially with the current exchange rate, making C-17s relatively ‘cheap’… If the going rate, based on the latest order by the USAF, is around $250m, then it would make them something like £125m, which would make an order for another few pretty attractive.
EdLawThe Upholders wouldnt even have been as useful to a Falklands operation as the Onyx was!. The original Oberon class boats where actually intended for ocean-ranging and long deployments…even so it took weeks to get Onyx down into theatre and that was predominantly via surface transit running diesels.
Contrasting that the Upholder design was built to sprint out to the GIUK gap and then trawl back and forward for a week or two at a couple of knots over steerage, spotting for anything interesting coming through SOSUS, then a quick sprint back to port. Its fuel bunkerage was never really anywhere near that of the O’s therefore and we only have to look at the tragedy that befell the last boat on transit to Canada to understand that the U’s were NOT built for surface transit.
So, we have a situation where there is insufficient infrastructure locally to support a permanent detached deployment to theatre of a single SSK, let alone two, and the transit time to get a pair of them down south from home waters would, hopefully, be far longer than the duration of the action we would want, and be expecting, to fight!.
SSN’s are very much the way forward here and you would want, and need, as many as possible dispatched to theatre for TLAN and sea denial operations.
I was really meaning building the facilities to support the Upholders too though – there aren’t facilities now, because there’s no need at the moment. If the UK wanted to deploy its Upholders, then the facilities could have been built.
In effect, the subs would be sitting down there, sneaking in and out, probably carrying a couple of Tomahawks (ideally) and sub-Harpoons. The aim would be for them to sink any Argentine invasion force, and probably mine Argentine harbours in an emergency.
Sealord: I think its a great pity they were retired, it might have helped the UK keep its sub building capabilities current, rather than lapse as has happened. The Astutes were delayed by the fact that the UK sub-builders skills had gone rusty. If the UK were aiming for, say, twelve nuclear boats (8 Astute, 4 Trafalgar, awaiting replacement), eight to twelve conventional boats, and four ballistic missile subs, then things would be a lot healthier. The conventional subs could be deployed in a number of forward areas, e.g. the Falklands, the Indian Ocean, etc… A pity the UK didn’t group in with Australia, and build something very much like the Aussie Collins class!
EdLawThe problem with that radar is the range, 30km or so isn’t much, where a proper military spec radar should get at least three times that. One alternative option might, and I repeat, might be to fit the Sea King ASaC 7s with the ability to guide AMRAAMs, using their excellent Searchwater radar. In this case, the Harriers would be given a virtual radar, using the air picture from the ASaC 7, and launching AMRAAMs on command from it. This would not be ideal, but for BVR work, it might work. For short range, obviously the ASRAAM is the weapon of choice, it just has to be hoped that the Harriers are going to be fitted for it, and a helmet mounted sight.
As for Argentine preparations, the problem is that they need to do a lot of individually small things, and a few pretty big ones. First off, if they plan on doing anything, a nice Russian arms package would be the first step. If they got some S-300s, Tor-M1s, shoulder launched missiles, a few Migs or Sukhois, and a few Kilos, then we begin to worry! Obviously these purchases would be seen, but the problem is that there’s not much Britain can do if they just start buying Russian kit… All this would be horrendously expensive for them of course, and set off alarm bells, which might see Britain reinforcing its permanent Falklands garrison. In some senses, it is a pity that Britain got rid of its Upholder class subs – a pair of them could have been stationed down there, and provide a conventional ‘deterrent’ force!
EdLawI agree with Sealord, the willingness of the UK government to go to war over the islands should not be underestimated. No UK government would remain in power after losing the islands, and losing the islands would therefore be political suicide.
As has been the consistent response to this thread, the UK is not in too bad a position, especially since the war would be unlikely to go down the same way. Argentina’s aircraft, especially the A-4s, may be better equipped, but they wouldn’t get to fly around and over the British ships like they did in ’82. Overall, Argentine capabilities have progressed a fair bit, but British capabilities have advanced more, and any future conflict would be very painful for Argentina.
One question that remains to be answered – is the rumoured radar pod for the Harriers a reality (i.e. some testing done, and ready in an emergency), or not. AFM carried the story, and some speculation, but nothing terribly conclusive. I would think it would be an excellent capability boost for the Harriers, and address the problems of lacking Sea Harriers for the next few years, even if its only a stopgap.
EdLawOne problem is the lack of a standoff munitions dispenser – the UK has Storm Shadow, but not anything like Apache as far as I know. The ability of the RN’s Tomahawks to destroy runways with their unitary warheads is limited – you might put one crater in it, but thats it. I would like to see the UK getting a Storm Shadow derivative, like the Apache, which is of course closely related to the Scalp, which the Storm Shadow is based on! It shouldn’t be rocket science therefore to do a dispenser version of the Storm Shadow, boosting the UK’s anti-runway capability. A Nimrod carrying four Apache missiles (or similar) would be able to neutralise the Argentine runways pretty effectively. A couple of preliminary Nimrod raids would be able to pretty much ruin the Argentine airbases, and allow the Tomahawk carrying subs to hit point targets, such as command and control facilities.
As for the question of whether NATO is worthwhile, it is certainly clear that some nations are more willing to pull their weight than others, but I would not point blame at the Eastern European nations… Also, if Russia continues its rise to infamy, with the endless sabre rattling, then NATO might become more and more relevant. If some nations want to move away from NATO, then so be it, but they shouldn’t just sit there pretending to support it, and then spend all their time undermining it. Also, just as an aside, the willingness of certain countries to actually do their bit in Afghanistan is not a case of fighting the ‘neocon’s war’ at all, but rather a recognition of the need to actually stabilise one of the most war-torn nations in the world. It is in everyone’s interest to stablise Afghanistan, not only to stop it being used as a base of operations by terrorists, but also to try and fight the illicit drugs pouring out. Things are not going brilliantly, but considering what there was before we went in, things are a heck of a lot better!
EdLawOne of the biggest obstacles to any Argentine invasion would of course be the aftermath! After the fighting is over, and the islands are almost certainly back in UK hands, there would be sanctions placed on them, which would hurt their economy a lot!
In terms of stopping Argentine resupply though, do not forget that they maintained aerial resupply throughout the ’82 conflict, even after the taskforce arrived. Putting SSNs on station may make shipping supplies untenable, but you can still fly in supplies. Worse still, if Mount Pleasant airbase is still intact, then they would be able to commandeer civilian aircraft, and start flying in supplies on 737s, 767s etc… This would allow for a pretty rapid influx of supplies, which would need to be stopped as quickly as possible.
Of course the same is true in reverse, if the Argentines are too slow off the mark, then the UK could bring in supplies quite quickly. Even just using a handful of C-17s, a dozen C-130s, and a dozen chartered widebody airliners, Britain would be able to fly in a few thousand troops, lots of artillery, and air defence assets. The sad thing is that the UK hasn’t actually invested in proper air defence assets, i.e. an integrated SAM system.
EdLawThis has been done before methinks!
The first things for Britain to do would be to do a stock-take, i.e. look at what we have, and what we can get at short notice. You need to get as many ships and aircraft mustered as possible, as quickly as possible. If HMS Invincible can be made available, then that would be great. Ideally, Britain could take Invincible, Illustrious, Ark Royal and Ocean, giving a reasonable number of flat-tops. Add in a load of ships taken up from trade, especially RoRo vessels, and you have a good enough force to take the troops down there.
The next thing is to send the nuclear subs down there as soon as possible, to keep an eye on things, and sink anything that moves. Following this, send Nimrods down, carrying either Harpoons (with GPS targetting for land attack) or Storm Shadows. Make sure that the Argentines cannot use Mount Pleasant airfield, but not damage it too heavily, so it can be used later…
Next step is to try and get as many Harriers available as possible, and try and get some Sea Harriers back – and probably try to fit a radar pod to the Harrier GR-7/9s. It was suggested in AFM that the RAF had already trialled exactly such a pod, and that the project was ‘shelved’ for the moment, pending an operation requirement. If this is true, then it would be a very useful capability, giving the Harriers a very useful capability boost. If you get a Harrier with a radar pod, and the helmet mounted sight, and ASRAAM and AMRAAM, then you have a pretty decent little fighter. If each of Invincible, Illustrious and Ark Royal can carry twelve Harriers, then you have a pretty decent capability – add in Ocean carrying another twelve, and it gets a lot better.
The main thing once forces arrive near the Falklands is obviously to neutralize the air threat. This is best done with stand-off missiles, launched from Nimrods or similar. Then, Harriers would fly over the Falkland islands, using laser guided bombs, hitting any Argentine anti-aircraft sites, and ground artillery. Once these are neutralised, ground forces can land, with Apaches ranging over the terrain, locating machinegun nests and observation posts, and killing them. More importantly for the ground troops, as many Chinooks, Pumas, Merlins and Sea Kings as possible would be brought down. These would allow entire units to be flown around the islands, ideally allowing for units to be sent in without bringing the ships dangerously close. This would allow the fleet to stay in relative safety, while allowing many areas to be seized.
As with 1982, the main troops in demand would be Marines, Paras, Ghurkas and other light units, along with a few light tank units. If the troops can seize Mount Pleasant airbase, it would allow C-130s and C-17s to pour in equipment and personnel.
Basically, despite the Sea Harrier’s demise, things are perhaps not as bleak as they might seem, especially if the UK can get a radar pod ready for the Harriers. The ability of the aircraft to hit ground targets has come on leaps and bounds. Vulcans are gone, but now Nimrods can do much the same thing. Hermes may be gone, but now there’s Illustrious, Ark and Ocean, and hopefully Invincible. Fearless and Intrepid may be gone, but now we have Albion, Bulwark, and the Bay class ships. The point is that some capabilities have gone, but many new capabilities have come in, and when the new carriers arrive, things will hopefully go far beyond anything dreamed of in ’82!
EdLawThis may sound like a stupid question, but I wonder why the Type 984 radar wasn’t chosen for the Type 82s, given its apparent performance. Working alongside the usual Type 965s, it could have yielded an excellent capability, and with the potential for a universal fitting (i.e. on all the new ships and carriers). Might it have simplified things?
EdLawIt does beg the important question of aircraft protection on the ground though. If the aircraft were properly stored in revetments, or preferably hardened shelters, then they should not have been this vulnerable. Its not rocket science to built a proper shelter, and is well worth it, especially if it doesn’t need to be a NATO-type HAS (which are meant to defend against regular jet-delivered bombs). An earch covered shelter should be enough to defend against this kind of thing.
One option might actually be to use one of the aerostat radar systems, which could be operated from the airbases. The other thing would be to look seriously at getting a couple of dozen ZSU-23-4 Shilkas, which would make mincemeat out of a few light aircraft. Park a couple on each base, and you make this kind of thing a lot harder – but the most important thing of all is to know they are coming, and be able to act accordingly!
EdLawI agree to an extent Fed, but it might still be useful to have a few based in the UK, if only for general training duties. The main course would of course still be in the US, but it would make a lot of sense to have a practice landing field (i.e. runway painted up like a carrier deck, with all the equipment too) in the UK. This would obviously allow RN pilots to do routine training in the UK, rather than need to go off to the US all the time. Shifting training time down to representative, but cheaper aircraft is very attractive, and a dozen or so Goshawks might not be a bad option!
Any new UK carrier landing field could prove very attractive to France, as Swerve rightly says! I would assume the French will be buying another few Hawkeyes once PA2 comes into service, and the UK should be aiming for at least ten or so. This could be enough to justify a joint Hawkeye service centre, hopefully in the UK.
EdLawOne other thing to bear in mind is the use of high fidelity simulators nowadays, which does ease the carrier-qualification problem a fair bit. If you develop, say, a two week course, with simulator time, flights in a T-45 Goshawk (or preferably a re-UK-ised Goshawk Hawk derivative, based on the Hawk 128), and a few practice landings, then you solve a lot of problems. RAF pilots would be able to do this course, as an elective module in their currency training, and then enter the pool of available RAF pilots capable of being borrowed by the RN. I know that this hardly makes them experts, and they would definately need a lot more than just this one short course, but it would certainly help!
In the event of not going down the JSF route at all, then a Rafale purchase would work, as would Super Hornets, along with more Typhoons for the RAF. This does mean no stealthy fighter, which is obviously a major stumbling block, but it is not necessarily a non-starter.
If it were not for the major engineering issues, I would love to see a naval Typhoon, which would allow for a largely common fighter fleet. Unfortunately, this is not really practicable from what I have heard, which is a great pity. A few hundred Typhoons, and a hundred plus UCAVs would have made for a pretty good fleet!
EdLawI agree, the Hawkeye is the best option for capability, but I would say that the S-3 based option does have some benefits. The main ones are the multi-role capability, i.e. the ability to bolt on pods, and use it as whatever is needed; and the fact that it would likely use the (British) Searchwater radar, or a derivative of it. However, as you say, commonality of operations with the USN and MN are a great attraction, as is the support regime that comes with it. With the S-3, the UK would need to ‘adopt’ the S-3 program, and produce all the parts etc… Since the total order would be less than twenty (a dozen or so for AEW, plus a couple for COD hopefully, and a few spares), support would be a big issue.
Hmm, I wonder if Gulfstream ever proposed one of their bizjets as a carrier-capable aircraft? :diablo:
Sign In
