Falklands war air cover

[Dr Jekyll]

Just supposing the Royal Navy had fought the Falklands war a few years earlier or Ark Royal had remained in service a bit longer, so they would have used one conventional carrier with Phantoms and Buccaneers instead of 2 Harrier carriers.

Would they have been better off or worse off?

On the one hand the aircraft would have been in some ways more capable, and there would have been AEW aircraft available.

On the other RAF aircraft could not have provided reinforcements so easily and Ark Royal was well past it's best in terms of servicability.

[trap one]

Re the RAF not supplying replacements as easy.
The RAF already had a Squadron of FG1's and numerious Squadrons of Bucc's.Yes the Deck landing training would have been longer but Yeovilton had a full deck landing set up in operation that studes got to use before using the real deck.

The AEW Gannets would have been a problem as they were not AAR capable but then again they could have gone south on any flat space and be Chinooked over to the Ark.
Although with the Gannet aboard the requrement for the surface search Nimrod missions would have been less.

For what it's worth I would have advocated a mixture of both types. As the weather down south can stop conventional carriers from operating their normal types. However, the addition of the Shar which has when worked up a much less of a restriction placed on it by the weather.

The kicker for me though would be the Bucc, with the AAR capability the Bucc brings as a tanker thus extending the time on station of the CAP A/C be they F4 or SHAR.
Also it's Anti Shipping abilitity with Martel both ARM and TV would have overwelmed any Argentinian navy task force that put to sea.
The Bucc/F4's had dedicated FAC's that were on the Ark with them and thus would have been ashore and available.
Imagine the task that the Argentine air force/Navy would have had to do in protecting a surface group and attack the RN task group/Army-Marines ashore.

My ideal mix would have been Ark Royal, Hermes/Eagle (as Bucc/Gannet decks) and Illustrious with SHAR/Sea King.
Or as Many people have speculated if we'd lost a carrier, a Kitty Hawk CVA with F4, Bucc, E2 air wing the following year with a SHAR CVS or 2 as the 2nd/3rd Deck/s.

[Agaricus bisporus]

With AEW cover and Phantoms the Argentine air raids would have been suicidal, and the BBC would probably have lost us no ships at all. My guess is that if the Ark had been in service until 1982 the invasion would not have happened until 1983...and so on.

[Double Zero]

At the other extreme, I had the unfortunate experience recently to read a book - thankfully picked up secondhand - by an author one would have thought knew better, or at least has contacts who should have coughed politely; ( NB, not Tom Clancy who knows his stuff, but a pale imitator ).

The premise is the Falklands war set in the near future.

The only comment this chap gets right is that without Sea Harrier we're screwed.

Otherwise, he makes much of the fact that " The GR9 can't fly at night " which will come as a bit of a surprise to some !

Ark Royal is sunk quickly by a Kilo sub, and the U.S. step in with clandestine op's to avenge her & keep the status quo.

I wouldn't even have this book in the smallest room for emergencies !

[trap one]

My appologies if I failed to make my post clear. I was talking abot the ability of the UK PLC to reinforce an at sea R09 Ark Group.
Whilst the Bucc's/F4's would have been more plentiful if she were still active then the AAR trail to her would have been simple for them. The problem For the replacing of the AEW Gannet would have been a lack of AAR to get down south from the UK. Therefore either a series of hop's down Africa/S America and then a dash for the Ark to get within range of their last take off. Or a convienant deck to take the Gannets to her. Hence the Chinooking that I talked about.
However, the reason I posted what I did was to talk about the "RAF" reinforcing the R09 Ark if they had too. As you must remember by the last "Commission" the Air Group was filled with a lot of "Light Blue" rather than just the occassional "exchange".
So therefore even if she had been in a similar state in 82 and on her final Commission then the RAF would have had the Deck Landing Simulator at Yeovilton and plenty of FG1's/Bucc's to reinforce her Air Group with.

Hope that explains my thoughts.

Trap One

[Senior Pilot]

trap One,

You may have missed the point about Gannets already being on board :hmm: Each 1970's CVA had a 4 aircraft flight of Gannet AEW3 aircraft permanently embarked as part of the air wing (849D Flight for Ark, IIRC), along with 6 Sea King HAS1/3's and a ship's flight of two SAR Wessex. It wasn't just two squadrons, amazingly enough :rolleyes:

The Task Group would have included all the usual RFA's for liquid and solid RAS to support the carrier and escorts.

What AAR trail would be required in your supposition? The air group would have gone with the Ark, not sent along afterward.

[Halfwayback]

Trap one

I am uncertain why you would want to reinforce the Ark R09. She would, like any other ship bar one, have sailed south from Ascension with a full War Complement - irrespective of the colour of the pilots' uniform .

There would have been no requirement for 'reinforcement' and, even if there had been, where would you have stowed them?

HWB

[Phileas Fogg]

Trap One,

A 'series of hops' down S. America or Africa is not straightforward, just look at what happened when a Vulcan made 'a hop' in to, I think' Brazil.

Munitions of war, of which aircraft engaged on an active conflict of war etc. are, are not automatically welcomed in to airspaces of countries as they would be if not engaged in a conflict, special permissions have to applied for and these are more than often refused.

[racedo]

Question about the war for the historians.

Did the US warn the UK sufficiently in advance that something was happening or were US peeved that MT was degrading RN at same time as Ronnie Reagan was embarking on a 500 ship US Navy.

Given the history of US involvement in lots of South American countries in training most of their military and intel it just seemed strange that they could get the logistics all lined up to move all the equipment and men quickly without real advance notice.

Post war it meant greater investment in Air assets, cruise missiles in Western Europe but was US playing in ensuring UK got involved in something that the US would ensure they couldn't lose but just bloody enough to stop the military reduction.

2 benefits to the US were elimination of Labour Govt as a possibility (it was a chance pre war) and MT backed US to the hilt after it and invested in military.

Ok I expect to get shot down in flames if you pardon the pun for suggesting this but maybe someone else has better info.

[Phileas Fogg]

Put it this way,

I worked in Flight Planning & Route Bags at Lyneham circa 1977/8 as a young 19 y/o with a lack of airfield geographical knowledge.

All of a sudden, with a Labour government in power, Lyneham was dispatching numerous C130's to Ascension, we had to order the airfield plates in specially along with plates for, as I had been told was the alternate for Ascension, a place I had then never heard of called 'Port Stanley'!

When the Falklands happened, I was by then out of the military, in 1982Labour took a pop at Maggie and they were right, that invasion had been on the cards for so long but rather than listen she opted to cut costs by withdrawing the military presence from the area.

I hasten to add that only some 3 years ago I was in conversation with an Argentinian pilot who gave me advice never to trust any of their military pilots, when I questioned why he informed me that the invasion had been decided when their military leader, that geezer with white hair as I recall, had been drunk :)

[racedo]

I hasten to add that only some 3 years ago I was in conversation with an Argentinian pilot who gave me advice never to trust any of their military pilots, when I questioned why he informed me that the invasion had been decided when their military leader, that geezer with white hair as I recall, had been drunk http://static.pprune.org/images/smilies/smile.gif

Interested to know who his drinking buddies were at that time.

He wouldn't be the first dictator briefed by a foreign individual suggesting that someone had no strategic interest in a particular place, had no military support etc etc......10 years later some guy in Baghdad had the same idea.

Guess if you can massage the ego for a while they believe it and then put a suggestion forward.

[trap one]

SP
I was commenting on the ability of the RAF to reinforce an Air Group for the R09 Ark Royal. As all the group was as you said not just of the Fast Pointy Aircraft type but included Rotary and Gannets, I merely commented on the ability of the RAF to reinforce the Air Group.
Yes I know that the normal compliment for the Gannet Flts was 4 A/C but I suspect that the war numbers would have been higher by 2 A/C (Speculation on my part) However, the losses that were taken down south in 82 were a mixture of AAA, SAM, and "Normal" ie Weather/Bird strikes. So even with a full War time Air Group, I believe that there would have had to have been replacement airframes and crews in order to bring her back up to a full compliment.
So although the RAF had Bucc and FG1 squadrons already in service and qualified at the time for AD (FG1 only) and (Bucc) FBA/FBS/Anti shipping the only real need would have to get Deck Qualified. Then with an AAR trail from Ascension to the Task Force as some of the GR3's did.
There were however, fewer exchange on 849 and the RAF had none in service. So any RAF reinforcement of 849 would have had to come from the limited number of Nav's that had done the 849 exchange tour. I'm not sure if there was a Pilot exchange on 849.
The Gannets may have had an easier time than the Vulcan as the AEW was not "armed". Or a certain about of political influence could have been used. Such as the "alleged" delivery of some Canberra's to Chile in 82?

Speechless Two
Thank you, for your understanding. Was not however assuming, just using the losses that were taken and the subsequent reinforcement of the Task Forces Air Group by the Replacements not just on Atlantic Conveyor but by the AAR trailing of the GR3's down to the South Atlantic.

To all, interesting no one has commented on the Kitty Hawk speculation.

[Phileas Fogg]

When I was at Honington (RAF Bucc base) in 1979 the runway had 'paintings' on it to represent a carrier deck.

[racedo]

To all, interesting no one has commented on the Kitty Hawk speculation.

Maybe I'm reading it wrong but is this the idea that US would allow / transfer a carrier to UK ?

[taxydual]

My source, (ex-USN, alas no longer with us) always maintained that President Reagan ordered the USS America (Kitty Hawk Class) to sail from Newport News to ' the northern end of the South Atlantic' to a: Deter the Soviet Navy from taking 'an interest' and b: To be handy 'just in case' the RN lost a carrier.

Unlikely to be proven, but a Google search brings up this

http://www.coha.org/Press%20Release%20Archives/1982/82.34.pdf

To my mind, still not proof.

[Phileas Fogg]

And, if it's not commonly known, the exocet missiles, during the conflict and the very missiles killing Brits, were being delivered to Argentina by a certain Luxembourg state cargo carrier, currently with a fleet of B747-400's, who carried the missiles from Chateroux to S. Africa and the missiles were then carried by an AOM Minerve DC8-62 from S. Africa to Argentina.

[4Greens]

The major cause of losses, both in the air and on the ground, was the lack of airborne early warning. The Gannet supplied this facility. If this had been present, extra backup from the UK may well not have been necessary.

[Kieron Kirk]

Re. Exocet missiles.
There has always been a puzzle about Exocet missiles. Did not the Royal Navy fit Exocets to "Leander" class frigates?
Was the air launched Exocet so different from the ship launched that its use by the Argentine Navy came as a complete surprise to the RN?

Ciarain.

[Kieron Kirk]

Taxydual.

The COHA press release does make for interesting reading but contained plenty of speculation rather than real facts.

The assertion that the Exocet attack on HMS Sheffield was probably launched from the Argentine Navy carrier does not survive scrutiny.

On 4th May TWO Super Etendards took off from Rio Grande. Each a/c carried one Exocet missile and two external fuel tanks. Both Exocets were launched following mid-air refuelling from a tanker Hercules. The other Exocet is believed to have fallen into the sea near to HMS Yarmouth.

Not proven is the right verdict.

Ciarain.

[trap one]

Have to disagree about the role that the AEW Gannet would have played in reducing the losses encountered by the aircraft actually in the Task Force in 82 or even Bucc/F4's.

The Low level runs that enabled the AAA/SAM to score kills and the weather/birdstrike losses of the British A/C would not have been reduced by the Gannets presence. The reduction in losses would have been to the surface combatants as HMS Sheffield would not have had to have been used as a WWII style "AD picket".
The Coventry/Antelope/Ardent losses I'm not sure about as the Gannet's suffered from very poor overland coverage, but with a Gannet Barrier and F4 CAP then the Raids may have been Broken up/Killed before they could engage.
The same could also be said of the LSL's Sir Tristram/Galahad as they were attacked from overland.
The Unknown loss of the 2 Shars which were sent to investigate a surface contact might have been prevented but even that is not 100% sure.
Yes if the Gannets had been with the Air Group then CAP placement and detection would have had been hundreds of percent better and I suspect oversea kills would have been higher, because of those two factors. But reduction in the A/C losses, not I'm convinced that the Gannets or even Nimrod AEW/AWACS would not have reduced the losses suffered to the AAA/SAM/Weather factors.

Also the Argentines are not stupid, if Gannets had been present then they would have been taken into account in the planning process, after all the Argentines Neptunes had exactly the same radar although with different mod states.

[Gen. Jack D Ripper]

"Did the Yanks get the same warning as us or were they kept in the dark?"

I think they got the same warning as us... none.

I heard that a US Navy Admiral was visiting some Argentine Military Barracks on the morning of the invasion & was first informed of the action by his host.

Apparently the Admiral left the Barracks almost immediately to go straight to the US Embassy in B.A., then left Argentina shortly afterwards.

Steam Catties or STOVL Carriers...? Who knows but building a 6000ft strip on both Tristan de Cunha & St. Helena may go someway to preserve the security of the Falkland Islands while paying for themselves at the same time.
:ok:

[twochai]

building a 6000ft strip on both Tristan de Cunha & St. Helena

I think that would be a very difficult proposition, given the steep terrain - no doubt TdC would make a case for the value of a runway in the economic development of the island, but the payback would be difficult to prove.

twochai

[racedo]

I think they got the same warning as us... none.

I heard that a US Navy Admiral was visiting some Argentine Military Barracks on the morning of the invasion & was first informed of the action by his host.


Given that the US via CIA / Military / Business and other contacts would have lots of contacts within Argentinian Govt and Military I'm not convinced that this was first warning.

Difficult to move a huge number of military people around with all the logistics that involves without it being picked up.

[Phileas Fogg]

Of course it wasn't the first warning, if I recall correctly a small number of Argies landed on South Georgia and raised the Argie flag some days in advance of the invasion of the main islands.

But UK had been getting warnings since, certainly, 1977/8 but the UK Conservative government, thereafter, had chosen to disregard these warnings so if anyone is to blame for not preventing the invasion then it is 'Maggie'!

[trap one]

The SS38 Exocet was fitted not just to some Leander's but also to Type 21/22 Frigates and County Class Destroyers. So although the RN knew the weapon, the defences were set up for Soviet/WP missiles of the time. The Type 22 Frigates which were anti Exocet capable, were just coming on line as was Sea Wolf which was in it's very early stages of development.

So that's why the high value units had a Type 22 Goal keeper asigned to it, unfortuneately there weren't enough Type 22's to protect all HVU's. Coventry had one with her when she was deployed as a Picket at the North end of Falkland Sound. But, she got between the six attacking A4's and Broadsword, this stopped Sea Wolf from engaging the A4's as it is a "self-defence" weapon.

I'm afraid it was a case of lessons lost again, the Type 42's got Phalanx after 82, but even that was not as good as 30mm Goalkeeper. The 20mm shredded the incoming Exocet but some its of fast moving shrapnel would still reach the Phalanx host. Goalkeeper got its kills further and so the shrapnel falled to travel far enough to reach the host. All lessons that had been learnt during WWII and forgotten.

[Kieron Kirk]

trap one

Thanks for that.
I gather that several Lynx were fitted with decoy/jamming equipment on RFA Fort Austin, becoming operational two weeks after the sinking of MV Atlantic Conveyor.

The Argentine Navy had 4 Super Etendards, plus one for spares, following the French embargo on further deliveries. 5 Exocets, of which 2 sank Sheffield and Atlantic Conveyor, the remaining 3 chaffed or decoyed away. It could have been a lot worse!

"All lessons that had been learnt during WWII and forgotten".

Ciarain.

[Phileas Fogg]

So what sank the Coventry?

A tube shaped object delivered from Chateroux in France C/O Cragolux no doubt!

[Kieron Kirk]

HMS Coventry capsized after being hit by three 1,000 pound bombs from Skyhawks of Grupo 5 off Pebble Island at 3.25pm on 25th May.
The bombs were probably of British manufacture.

Ciarain.

[Phileas Fogg]

But the Argies had significantly more than 5 exocets, the French may have put an embargo on further deliveries from France to Argentina hence they were being delivered, during the conflict, from France to S.Africa where they were loaded on to an AOM DC8 and flown from S.Africa to Argentina, this Minerve DC8 F-GDJM:

http://cdn-www.airliners.net/aviation-photos/small/3/3/9/0215933.jpg

I have been on that DC8, many times, and in the fuselage there was a specific electrical installation where, previously, a fan had been fitted to keep the exocets cool during their journey.

And just found this on the internet, the Argies had:

six destroyers and three frigates, all Exocet-armed

four operational Super Etendard strike fighters and their air-launched version of Exocet,

[Kieron Kirk]

Yes the Argentine Armed Forces had more than 5 Exocets. They only had 5 air launched versions. Surface launched Exocets were set up near Stanley.

The French technicians in Argentina gave little or no asistance to the Argentine Navy, in order to disrupt the preparations to make them operational.

The 5 air launched Exocets were shipped to Argentina (yes on a ship) within days of the invasion of the Falklands.

Ciarain.

[racedo]

HMS Glamorgan was hit with a land fired Exocet off Stanley in the last days of the conflict but apart from destroying its hanger it didn't explode.

[trap one]

AD picket ships are usually targeted and sunk when without dedicated CAP. 7.62 may hit something vital and down an AC. 20mm will hit harder but again it isn't a guarantee of a kill. 30mm Radar laid will knock AC out of the sky before they can drop their bombs if in the Low-level arena.
AEW is the best way of extending your Radar horizon.

There could be 1 way to check the concept of R09 vs what went, get someone to give all the routes flown by the attacking Argentine crews and program them into a sim, then fly the routes with the relevant defenders in the postions known. Adding an R09 Air Group into the sim, use "qualified people" who know the radar's on each aircraft to position the AEW, F4 CAP/Bucc AAR and the attackers, then fight the war again, on the sim.

[Gen. Jack D Ripper]

Philleas Fogg

The Americans got as little warning as we had.

The French ACTIVELY stalled on deliveries of AM39 (Air-Launched Exocets) to customer nations indicating overt support for Argentina (Peru for example) or those suspected of 'ordering on Argentina's behalf' & offering covert supply & support (a certain Middle Eastern regime, fortunately no longer with us for example).

Their supply of AM39's was woefully short & with no replacements on the horizon from the manufacturer or obtainable by proxy improvised solutions were sought. Hence the improvisation that elements of 2 PARA stumbled across on the streets in Port Stanley.
:ok:

[Phileas Fogg]

Jack,

I never suggested that the Americans had warning, the Brits had warning some 4 years previously when many C130's, with payloads, under a Labour government, were dispatched to Ascension with the facility to continue to Stanley.

Then before the invasion of the Falklands the Argies had landed on South Georgia, had a gunfight with the few marines present, then raised the Argie flag.

The Brits didn't need a 'tip off' from the Americans, they'd had enough tip offs themselves but there remained Maggie, counting the pennies in her budget, yes let us retire HMS Endurannce, pull the marines out of the area, and we'll save two shillings and sixpence.

It was an accident waiting to happen but didn't Maggie milk it for all it was worth, at every re-election campaign thereafter, her (jeopardising) saving of the Falklands kept her in power for years thereafter!

[Gen. Jack D Ripper]

Phileas

You almost sound conspiratorial. Mrs T did what she had to do at the time.

I wasn't aware there were any RM's on South Georgia at the time, just scientists.

The American's thought that any Argentine 'posturing' was going to be directed against the Chileans over disputed parts of the T de F.

HMG knew of the Argentines 'desires' towards the FI, hence the deployment to the area of 2 RN surface ships & a nuclear sub' in the mid-late 70's, but perceived it as 'Latino Bluster', especially since Argentina & UK PLC enjoyed cordial-good relations with a plethora of military trade deals immediately prior to April 1982.
:ok:

[Phileas Fogg]

Jack,

Yes she sent the task force to retake the Islands and I applauded her for it at the time but there is no getting away from the truth that the UK had previously announced the withdrawal of all UK military presence from the area and this was interpreted as a green traffic light to the Argies.

I'm not a conspirator but I'm not a liar either, UK knew that the Argies were seriously disputing the islands and until the invasion her government didn't give a sh1t about them in favour of saving a bit of money, UK had even announced the retirement of HMS Hermes which became the task force flagship, just how many green lights did Argentina need?

[Gen. Jack D Ripper]

Phileas

You're spot on with your assertions that a UK force in the South Atlantic was to be removed but I honestly think two of the real culprits were The Foreign Secretary & the Defence Secretary for taking their eye off the ball & leaving us with virtually NO intelligence gathering capabilities in South America. Mrs T could only act on what she was being told.

It makes you wonder what the state of play would be today if there had been no 'Operation Corporate'. The Labour Administration seems hell-bent on practically giving our assets away- our Gold reserves.. talking of sharing sovereignty of Gib' with Spain... our EU veto & rebate...

At least the security of the FI is in a better state than in 1982. The current protection there for the forseeable is a bit more than 2 platoons of SLR equipped RM's & some local reservists.

Rule Britannia!!
:ok:

[Phileas Fogg]

That period was quite interesting, for the start of the war I was out of work so watched much of TV, ineed next door neighbour's son was on the Coventry when that was hit (he was OK though), and then I started permanent night shifts working for a US operator in LGW.

News of what was going on used to filter through somewhere around 0200Z each night and each night the guys at HQ on US west coast would be on the phone asking for news. These Americans were genuinely interested in what was going on thus my nightshifts consisted mainly of relaying developments thru to these guys, they truly were backing the Brits.

[Gen. Jack D Ripper]

Agreed.

I had the good fortune to meet a group of retired US Navy Officers while on a fishing holiday on Chesapeake Bay. They were remarkably candid, open & supportive of the British stance. And the list of prepared assistance they discussed to offer was mind blowing. I think they were a bit peeved to only be asked for a variant of missile, kerosene & replace RN's STANFORLANT & the RAF's NATO commitments.

More fixed 'bases' in the SA would take the pressure off our overstretched, overburdened & undersupported forces though. A couple of 'mini-ASI's' wouldn't be a step backwards.
:ok:

[tyne]

For the sake of argument, what would Merlin's surface search capability bring to a party like the Falklands? Would it have been around, would it have ben any more use than just a sub hunter?

[Double Zero]

I'm a bit surprised some of this is even being discussed, as so much has been written / filmed about the Falklands War.

For a start, Racedo, you are completely right, we did have prior warning and alert status - a Sea Harrier pilot ( who did rather well as it happens ) told me and a roomful of us that he and his companions had for some time before things really got going, when ashore not to go far, say where they were going, and take a pager / stay in phone range.

The putting together of the Task Force in such a short time seems a bit on the miraculous side, and having the large no. of assets at Gibraltar on Exercise Springtrain seems lucky coincidence.

I can say though, that we at Dunsfold, where the Harrier - land & Sea - was made & test flown - did not have inkling at my pleb or even the medium staff level, but obviously upper management and pilots did - we arrived to find an empty Experimental Hangar and got a little speech, " the navy have been in for their planes over the weekend, they're assembling a task force which is sailing as I speak ".

There's a big difference between air & ship launched Exocets - they did indeed have 5, and a 'sting' operation was set up with UK + probably US agents covertly buying up any possible missiles on the 'black market' though them being there seems unlikely.

The French gave solid support, denying Exocet deliveries & support.

They also gave Harrier pilots Disimilar Air Combat Training against Mirages.

Re. The discussion on the Gannet, sure it may have been quite useful, but in what way would it have prevented 2 Sea Harriers colliding in cloud ?

There was indeed talk of a Kitty Hawk class being 'loaned' but it was thought too dodgy politically, I forget who decided that, uK or US, probably pretty mutual.

As for the main theme of this thread, " if only we'd had the old Ark & F-4 " well it would have been just one deck, one big target.

The Sidewinder AIM9L's were nice to have though, and as it was widely thought the Argentinians were receiving Russian satellite info', it seems a safe bet we were getting American intel.

While Sandy Woodward's book ' One Hundred Days ' is a good read and shows the overall - official- picture - it's also very well worth reading ' The Secret War for the Falklands ' by Nigel West, and the recent ' Vulcan 607' covering the Black Buck missions.

The 'history' section on the Harrier website has some info' too.

Two things have always bothered me;

A, it's not widely publicised that the huge loss of life - 380 men - on Belgrano was largely because the idiot was tootling along with all the hatches open, in 'peacetime summer jolly' state,

B, if her 6" guns were such a threat, why weren't her exocet ( much longer range ) armed escorts taken out ?

Might be ambitous to take on 3 ships, especially as the Conqueror didn't trust the modern torpedos ( one escort did report a 'clang' and reckons she was hit by a dud ) but I'd have thought - from my comfy chair - it would at least be worth a try to give them the lot, as escape was relatively easy no matter what.

It has always seemed to me the Navy were taking out an iconic ship for the Argentinians, rather than a real tactical target; however as I say, the huge loss of life seems the fault of Captain/ Admiral whatever he called himself Bonzo; sadly from what few interviews I've seen, he comes over as a decent guy, though I can't make out if he was 'last to leave the ship'.