Originally Posted by
orca
Don’t know, don’t work for either. In 1982 the Argentinians lost a capital ship and that didn’t seem to change their strategy. Are we saying that losing ships changes strategy but losing aircraft and airfields doesn’t?
Neither airfield you refer to was 'lost'. Bastion barely missed a beat IIRC, not sure about Shayrat but a lesson of 1991 was that it was almost impossible to close large airfields for any significant length of time.
Aircraft losses having strategic impact? Depends. Loss of a Voyager-load of troops to enemy action was reckoned to be a campaign-ending risk in Afghanistan, partly reflecting the low stakes for the UK by the end. Loss of a squadron of fighters on the ground? Depends how many you have to replace them. Loss of 50% or more of a fleet in one action, which is the order of magnitude we'd be talking if a QEC went down with 36 Lightnings aboard, would certainly hurt but I still think the bigger impact would be the boat itself. There is just too much emotional investment and symbolism in it for its loss to be anything short of catastrophic for the nation.
The Argentines tied their remaining ships up, were roundly defeated and went on to depose their leadership in a state of national humiliation so I wouldn't say the events following the sinking of the Belgrano were great evidence of resilience to a symbolic loss!