Indeed 😉

The problem is that the C-3 is unlikely to be a particularly capable surface combattant. In fact, it is likely to be something more like a better equipped/armed OPV(H); i.e. a patrol ship, with space to carry some MCM gear as needed.

I think the RN really needs to have at least twenty-four T-45/C-1/C-2s, plus at least eight to twelve C-3s. The former allow the carriers and amphibs to be escorted, while maintaining both the Fleet Ready Escort and a forward deployed force. The C-3s are good for bulking out the fleet, but only to a certain degree; you need a good number of them for the fleet MCM role, and some more for other duties.

On the issue of the CAAM missile system (the replacement for Sea Wolf and Rapier), my hope is that it ends up pretty capable. If it ends up being at least in the class of VL-Mica, i.e. 20km+, then I would be reasonably comfortable with it. Anything much less, and I would be more concerned; if it is going to be the main defensive missile for at least some ships, and Army units, then it needs to be capable. If it is capable of being quad-packed, and has a 20-40km range, then I would certainly look at not buying A-15 at all.

The T-45 has a 48-cell VLS, so it could, for instance, carry 40 Aster 30, plus eight quad-packed CAAM (32 total). The C-1 and C-2 should ideally be able to carry a 32-cell VLS. The C-1s would carry 24 A-30 plus 32 CAAM; while the C-2 would pack more CAAM (since it lacks A-30), say, 64 CAAM, plus sixteen Tomahawk or Scalp Naval. This would result in the RN having what amount to two different main classes, i.e. the Type 45 and the C-1/2 base-hull; the latter having two sub-versions.

C3 doesn’t need to be capable, it just needs to be good enough to do anti-smuggling and presence patrols, saving the better ships for other roles where their capabilities are actually useful. I’ll make another thread for C3.

I doubt Lampyridae was really that stealthy, significant but not perhaps as much as many people imply, seems to me like its 30% fact and 70% legend. Similarly with things like TSR.2 and the Avro Arrow, some people have a real passion for them combined with the fact that they never got a chance to be in service and for people to find reasons to hate them, tends to make them be painted an image as being better than they would have been had they actually entered service.

Yes, that probably the most provocative thing you’ll read all year, meanwhile I’ll probably be spending the next year sifting through all the hate PM’s 😉

Regarding Mr Fedaykin request Ref # 4 (Bombs) i suggest to wait for Mr Willy Cobra chief Technitian on Dagger during conflict and pilot of M3 Miragge – He has been posting something related to this matter on the Sue/Exprcet forum , we are going to ask him to report to this forum and let him explain his experience on this matter –

There are other topics on Thread Sue/Super Etendard that will need to move into this one :

1) One was related to Triple A positions by the Airport requested by Mr Jonesy
and it was reply already-
2) One related to Roland positions and Radar positions during conflict also requested by Mr Jonesy , in part reply . I think he may want to go into more details ( I suggest inviting Mr Jonesy into this thread ) so we can continue –
3) One topic also talked about is the first Vulcan incursion on may 01 , we had some doubts about if it was in reach of triple A – It may be still open for further details –

Thank you –
Regards Enrique –

Why dont you just PM “jonesy” and ask him this stuff? 😮

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.

The tail could be modified with additional shaping to send radar in a different direction, might have aerodynamic issues, but would look far less stupid.

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.

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.