Falklands war air cover
Thread Starter
Falklands war air cover
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.
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.
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Bristol
Posts: 190
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 2,584
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: West Sussex
Posts: 1,771
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Warning
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 !
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 !
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Bristol
Posts: 190
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Speechless two
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
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
Chief Bottle Washer
trap One,
You may have missed the point about Gannets already being on board
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 
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.
You may have missed the point about Gannets already being on board
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 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.
Moderator
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: England
Posts: 2,519
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Cloud 9
Posts: 2,948
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
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.
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.
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Cloud 9
Posts: 2,948
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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
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 
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.
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Bristol
Posts: 190
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Reinforcement
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.
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.
To all, interesting no one has commented on the Kitty Hawk speculation.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Well, Lincolnshire
Age: 69
Posts: 1,101
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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%...1982/82.34.pdf
To my mind, still not proof.
Unlikely to be proven, but a Google search brings up this
http://www.coha.org/Press%20Release%...1982/82.34.pdf
To my mind, still not proof.
Last edited by taxydual; 24th Dec 2008 at 06:20. Reason: Punctuation
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Cloud 9
Posts: 2,948
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: London
Posts: 1,256
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Chessington, Surrey
Age: 76
Posts: 419
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Chessington, Surrey
Age: 76
Posts: 419
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Bristol
Posts: 190
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
4Greens
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.
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.
Last edited by trap one; 26th Dec 2008 at 17:03.