Originally Posted by
Xmit
Agree regarding the number of Sea Harriers but, if there were no submarine threat, more deck space would have been available and I'm pretty sure that we could have deployed more RAF GR3s. These would have significantly enhanced our ability to support the ground campaign.
The Sea Kings were indeed invaluable in numerous roles, but the overwhelming bulk of the SK Mk5's task was ASW....to counter a small, relatively inexpensive, relatively unsophisticated, but nonetheless lethal, threat.
Not disagreeing with you - but should we focus on the relative lack of sophistication of the Argentine submarines and their cheapness compared to SSNs, or the consequences of a couple of torpedoes going into something like
Canberra or one of the LPDs - in terms of capability loss, loss of life, and public/political impact? It would have put paid to the operation.
You fight as you are.
The submarine was invented as an asymmetric weapon.