PDA

View Full Version : Hoisted by my own Entendard


eryops
4th Feb 2018, 20:00
alert5 reports that a sale for super entendards is under contract.

argentina-has-signed-contract-with-france-for-5-super-etendards/ (http://alert5.com/2018/01/31/argentina-has-signed-contract-with-france-for-5-super-etendards/)

Should we be concerned?

charliegolf
5th Feb 2018, 09:11
alert5 reports that a sale for super entendards is under contract.

Should we be concerned?

We have almost no ships to sink these days, so er, no!

CG

cattletruck
5th Feb 2018, 09:16
We have almost no ships to sink these days, so er, no!
:D

Win-win as the new blood RN executive would say...

ExXB
5th Feb 2018, 09:18
You've got one (and a half) new aircraft carrier(s), without any planes to fly from them and no battle group to protect them. What could go wrong ...

Trossie
5th Feb 2018, 10:07
I remember a few years ago the Argies complaining bitterly when the RN sent a brand new ship, that has fantastic multiple anti-aircraft capabilities (I'm sure that someone can name it and detail the capability), to the Falkland Islands as they claimed that this was 'provocative'. (Defence is 'provocative'?) So 5 more potentially threatening aircraft simply means 5 more potential targets!

VP959
5th Feb 2018, 10:32
Worth remembering that the Argentinian intelligence on the capability of the Sea Harrier last time was pretty woeful. They over-estimated it's capability a bit, and warned their own pilots to break off if engaged by a Sea Harrier and get the hell out of it. I remember reading a paper after the conflict, where views from both sides were expressed, and some of the Argentinian pilots were a bit unhappy about the order to avoid engagement with the Sea Harriers.

I suspect they were right to be angry, and that our pretty low losses (not a single Sea Harrier was lost to air-to-air combat) were, in part, due to the orders these pilots had been given. That's not to say that the performance of the Sea Harrier was in any way deficient, it came down to a flawed assessment by the Argentinians of it's true air-to-air capability when operating under those conditions.

DON T
5th Feb 2018, 10:38
According to this article they are for air defence during the G20 meeting to be held in Argentina in 2018.

Argentina finishes deal to buy Super Etendards | Jane's 360 (http://www.janes.com/article/75538/argentina-finishes-deal-to-buy-super-etendards)

krismiler
5th Feb 2018, 10:43
An obsolete type that wouldn't be out of place alongside the Cold War era Su24 bombers they bought from Russia a few years ago.

If you have second rate equipment you need to operate it compenently and in large numbers, the Argentines can do neither. Their navy is more of a danger to its own sailors than any enemy, have they found the missing submarine yet ?

The Starstreak missiles and other defences on the islands and in the surrounding waters would soon deal with any attack.

DaveReidUK
5th Feb 2018, 10:43
alert5 reports that a sale for super entendards is under contract.

By the way, it's Super Étendard (French for battle flag), not Entendard.

N707ZS
5th Feb 2018, 11:47
I see we are planning on the disposal of the two landing ships Bulwark and its sister. With these gone and the disposal of the helicopter ship we would have no means to re take any island.

Blacksheep
5th Feb 2018, 12:08
If you have second rate equipment you need to operate it compenently and in large numbers, the Argentines can do neither.Don't ever underestimate your enemy. They didn't do too badly with their A4 Skyhawks in the last little scrap.

B Fraser
5th Feb 2018, 12:14
The Skyhawks were having a few problems in that their bombs were failing to go off. The BBC broadcast footage of the attack runs which the Argies then studied and quickly realised that the release height was too low for the bombs to arm. Once they changed tactics, the bombs worked as advertised and we lost the Galahad, etc.

Mechta
5th Feb 2018, 12:15
By the way, it's Super Étendard (French for battle flag)...

Shouldn't they be painted white? :E

hiflymk3
5th Feb 2018, 12:40
An obsolete type that wouldn't be out of place alongside the Cold War era Su24 bombers they bought from Russia a few years ago.

Wasn't it a British cold war bomber that put a few holes in the ground on the Falklands. Not forgetting the Victors that kept it topped up. :D

Trossie
5th Feb 2018, 13:29
And apparently had the air defence fighters moved to protect the capital, hence reducing cover further south.

They can buy fancy jets, but do they have the money to operate them or will they end up like the Grippens in that other country just across the South Atlantic that seem to be gathering more dust than actually being operational?

Andy_S
5th Feb 2018, 13:36
More to the point, do they really have the appetite for another crack at the Falklands?

Obviously there will be a bit of sabre rattling from time to time, but the current president seems to be a sensible bloke who is more interested in running the economy soundly than re-opening old wounds.

krismiler
5th Feb 2018, 13:40
That's where the competently operated part comes in. Had the Argentines not messed up so much they would have won.

If the invasion had been postponed by nine months the cutbacks in the Royal Navy would have left Britain without the means to retake the islands and the Argentines would have received all the arms they had ordered, so no contest.

Had they used better quality troops instead of national service men, they may have stood a chance.

Engaging the Harriers, even with substantial losses would have left the fleet without air cover and unable to continue.

Admiral Sandy Woodward said that if they could have held on for another two weeks they would probably have won.

G-CPTN
5th Feb 2018, 13:42
So next time they will win?

Trossie
5th Feb 2018, 14:01
If the invasion had been postponed by nine months ...That was impossible. The invasion timing had nothing to do with military logic. It was timed entirely due to the desperate internal woes that the military dictators were facing at home.

Trossie
5th Feb 2018, 14:02
So next time they will win?They won't try a 'next time'!

krismiler
5th Feb 2018, 14:27
The scenario is totally different now. Britain would probably be unable to retake the islands if they were invaded, however Argentina would be unable to mount a successful invasion in the first place.

RatherBeFlying
5th Feb 2018, 17:28
The carriers would have been gone had the Argies chosen to bide their time. Without air cover, the chances of a successful landing, except for some special forces, would have been vastly reduced.

The Argie air arms did very well with what they had. Another Exocet or two might have made all the difference:uhoh:

Mind you, the lack of fixed wing AEW gave the Exocets the opening they needed.

We should also note that the Argie radar operators got a nightly Herc in and out of Stanley. They were also quick enough to shut down when anti radar missiles were sent their way.

pr00ne
5th Feb 2018, 20:08
RatherBeFlying,

No they wouldn't!

the plan was to sell Invincible once Ark Royal was on line alongside Illustrious, so we would have had two newer carriers, the plan was to operate two, as we were doing with Hermes and Illustrious.

krismiler
5th Feb 2018, 23:20
The Argentines mistakenly went for the warships, had they got the landing ships “Fearless” and “Intrepid” instead of the frigates, that would have been the end for the British.

The sinking of the cargo ship “Atlantic Conveyor” was the heaviest loss inflicted as it had most of the helicopters on board. The entire plan was planned on troops being landed at San Carlos and ferried forward by helicopter. The only reason the British could continue after this was because of the quality of the paratroopers and Royal Marine Commandos who walked across the islands carrying all their equipment.

An attacking force should outnumber a defending force by 3:1, in the Falklands this was reversed. The US Navy’s assessment was that it would be impossible for the UK to retake the islands but it was still done.

TEEEJ
6th Feb 2018, 00:51
An obsolete type that wouldn't be out of place alongside the Cold War era Su24 bombers they bought from Russia a few years ago.



They didn't get any Su-24s. That was just a ridiculous fabricated story. The Argentines did admit that they had considered Chinese fighter-bombers.

Rossi pointed out that the Russian Su-24 were never under consideration for purchase since they are “absolutely inaccessible in terms of value”.

However Rossi did confirm that there are other four fighter aircraft models under 'analysis' for their possible purchase: the F1 from Spain; Kfir Block 60 from Israel and the FC-1/JF-17 from China. To these must be added an informal proposal from France which still has to be delivered officially.

Argentina denies purchase of Russian aircraft but admits the Chinese option ? MercoPress (http://en.mercopress.com/2015/03/27/argentina-denies-purchase-of-russian-aircraft-but-admits-the-chinese-option)

West Coast
6th Feb 2018, 02:06
The US Navy’s assessment was that it would be impossible for the UK to retake the islands but it was still done.

Can you provide proof of such? The link below indicates the USN had its concerns, but no indication that it was impossible.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/apr/01/us-feared-falklands-war-documents

krismiler
6th Feb 2018, 03:28
Okay, admitted bombers fell through at the last minute but the deal was close. Had the Americans been the ones retaking the Falklands they would have used two carrier battle groups and 100 000 troops, they would not have attempted it with a force the size Britain used.

The US offered an aircraft carrier to the Royal Navy in the event that one of theirs was put out of action. This shows the close relationship that existed at the time but probably wouldn't happen today given the increasing importance of Latin America to the US.

Back in 1982 intelligence and communications were very basic and it was some time before the invasion was actually confirmed. These days it would be impossible for Argentina to prepare an invasion without Britain finding out and quickly reinforcing the islands.

ShotOne
6th Feb 2018, 10:54
"...bombers fell through at the last minute.." I.e. At the point they actually have to be paid for! There have been lots of stories of Argentinian equipment purchases which went nowhere. But in the real world theres no money even for basic maintenance of existing equipment, such as their type 42 which keeled over at its moorings.

Trossie
6th Feb 2018, 11:15
1982 and 2018 are very, very different eras. To attempt to make direct comparisons between the two is a total folly.

As krismiler has pointed out, the modern communications/intelligence situation is very different and any repeat of those mistakes before the invasion are highly unlikely.

Also 1982 was in the middle of the Cold War where unpleasant regimes to the very strategically important south of South America (on both the east and west coasts) were tolerated or even supported as they were anti-communist. No matter what importance Latin America has to the US, those sort of thugs would not get anywhere near the same sort of support now. Argentina was only able to build up such big military forces as a result of the support that they received due to the Cold War (and it is not only the West that was giving this support, many, many countries around that time had huge military forces, out of proportion to any real need, supplied by the Soviets and the Chinese). Argentina could not do so now. If Argentina was somehow able to land any force on the Falklands, the Royal Navy would be able to ensure a total air* and sea blockade against any resupply and arrange a negotiated withdrawal of those invading forces while the Argentine economy collapses yet again.

* Nobody has given details of that new RN ship that I mentioned earlier that the Argies saw as being so 'provocative'.

krismiler
6th Feb 2018, 11:30
The bombers were supposed to be traded for beef and wheat so cash shouldn't have been a problem.

The Type 42 which keeled over is the same type the British used during the war in 1982.The UK military has advanced generations since then where as Argentina's is very little different. The ARA retired it's aircraft carrier and no longer has any amphibious landing capabilitiy, the ammunition in the ship's has past its use by date.

With a type 45 destroyer patrolling the surface, a nuclear submarine down below and fighter cover above any invasion attempt would be suicidal.

Trossie
6th Feb 2018, 11:45
... ... ...
* Nobody has given details of that new RN ship that I mentioned earlier that the Argies saw as being so 'provocative'.

... type 45 destroyer ...That's the one!

eryops
6th Feb 2018, 14:59
Always great fun re-fighting old wars. At the time I was newly a civilian though still a reserve, I thought it was a very tall order to retake the islands.
It seemed to me that the Exocet was a very over rated missile, it could easily be spoofed by chaff, and if memory serves out of six fired only one hit its intended target.

I Know Étendard is spelled incorrectly Dave - that was the joke.
Seemed very witty to me at the time, probably shouldn't have accepted that second pint of sherry but the Vicar was very persuasive. Bless him.

TEEEJ
6th Feb 2018, 18:50
Okay, admitted bombers fell through at the last minute but the deal was close.

You do realize that it was a made up story?

https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/549006/Falkland-Islands-defence-review-after-military-deal-between-Russia-and-Argentina

Widely discussed on PPRuNe at the time. The story was also generated on 28th December which is the Spanish speaking world evquivalent to April Fools Day.

https://www.pprune.org/8803938-post41.html

Aircraft types that have been touted in relation to Argentina include the Korean Aerospace Industries (KAI) FA-50 Fighting Eagle, the Israel Aerospace Industries (IAI) Kfir, the Dassault Mirage F1, the Alenia M-346FT, the Aero L-159 ALCA, the CAC FC-1 / PAC JF-17 Thunder, the Saab Gripen, and the Sukhoi Su-24 'Fencer' (although this is now widely believed to have been a hoax).

Argentina may field interim fighter as it seeks Mirage replacement | Jane's 360 (http://www.janes.com/article/69046/argentina-may-field-interim-fighter-as-it-seeks-mirage-replacement)

Even the Argentinge Defence Minister dismissed the story of the Su-24s.

Argentina 'never had in consideration' the possibility of purchasing fighter aircraft from Russia, such as the Sukhoi Su-24, to replace the aging French Mirages to be decommissioned by the end of the year, said Defense minister Agustín Rossi.

Argentina denies purchase of Russian aircraft but admits the Chinese option ? MercoPress (http://en.mercopress.com/2015/03/27/argentina-denies-purchase-of-russian-aircraft-but-admits-the-chinese-option)

charliegolf
6th Feb 2018, 18:52
Weren't Sheffield, Glamorgan and the Conveyor hit by Exocets?

CG

eryops
6th Feb 2018, 19:07
Weren't Sheffield, Glamorgan and the Conveyor hit by Exocets?

CG

Glamorgan was hit by a shore battery incidentally killing several friends and and people I new from 737 Sqd. I still have the newspaper cutting.
The air launched exocets were poor in performance. Sheffield was the only hit on an intended target assisted by a degree of ineptitude on the part of the ships command, Conveyor was hit when the missile lost its original target acquisition, and found an alternative.

krismiler
7th Feb 2018, 00:37
The Skyhawks were having a few problems in that their bombs were failing to go off. The BBC broadcast footage of the attack runs which the Argies then studied and quickly realised that the release height was too low for the bombs to arm. Once they changed tactics, the bombs worked as advertised and we lost the Galahad, etc.

Actually it was a BBC reporter, Brian Hanrahan who broadcast that the fuses weren’t arming and the bombs were failing to explode. The phrase from WW2 “Loose lips, sink ships.” comes to mind. I bet he was popular once the Argentines corrected the mistake.

Task Force Commander, Sandy Woodward stated that “If all the bombs had gone off in all the ships that were hit, we would have been defeated.”

HMS Sheffield had switched off its air defences at the time it was hit amongst other errors.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/oct/15/revealed-full-story-behind-sinking-of-falklands-warship-hms-sheffield

RatherBeFlying
7th Feb 2018, 03:48
For some reason, the Galahad was allowed to remain in the landing area well into daylight - and got targeted:(