Carrier attack on airbases 1982

[H_K]

@Rule of cool I admit I wasn’t really thinking of the historical RN for this scenario. The Sea Harriers just didn’t have the legs - approx 200nm radius Lo - Lo - Hi.

https://www.aahs-online.org/images/Navy_SAC/AV-8A.pdf

This scenario really calls for buddy refueling (Harrier / A-4 Skyhawk / or Super Etendard) or long-range strike aircraft like the Buccaneer. The minimum radius would be approx 300nm to enable a launch from south of the Falklands.

With excellent intelligence it might be possible to narrow down the strike to 1 single base like Rio Grande (which housed the biggest threat - Super Etendards) but I think more realistically a minimum of 2 bases would have to be hit simultaneously (ie. Rio Grande and Rio Gallegos), their runways disabled, and to allow follow-on strikes to destroy aircraft and hangars. With the option to move north on Day 2 to strike Santa Cruz and San Julian (if Day 1 was very successful).

So buddy refueling and anti-runway weapons and training would be the minimum capabilities needed for success. I would also want some defensive systems to reduce losses against radar guided AAA.

 

[Rule of cool]

This is a problem with alternative history scenarios, everyone has their own pet project ideas. However the actual TF was mentioned so I thought I'd flesh it out for interest sake.

To be honest I think the scenario where Britain gets CVA01 is one where Britain get all sorts of things right starting with the 57 DWP, resulting in a strong industry able to deliver products on time and budget. In such a scenario I don't think its unreasonable that RN Buccaneers get something like the Pave Spike that the RAF Buccaneers got in 1979. This, as well as other things such as AS30 and Martel, would make the RN carriers in this scenario far more lethal than the Ark Royal became in real life.

 

[uk 75]

In the optimum UK where the CVA01 gets built on time and is joined as planned by two sisterships it was also planned to equip her with VG fighter attackers like the one posted in another thread.
These were supposed to come into service in the 1970s replacing Sea Vixens and Buccaneers.
The main armament of these aircraft would have been WE177 nukes and various types of Martel style ASMs.
The same design was intended to replace Lightning in the RAF and supplement the TSR2 force.
The Falklands would have received an airbase at about the same time capable of receiving RAF and BOAC VC10s.

 

[_Del_]

The hardened shelters are an interesting challenge, though they were only slightly hardened so may not need an LGB.

No doors. Just put a couple 1000 pounders in the middle there and let the overpressure do the work. A single 2000 lb would be even better. You don't have to break the shelter, just jumble everything inside.

There will be plenty of things (planes, trucks, fuel tanks, etc) sitting out in the open. You could completely ignore the hardened targets and runways (which will probably be quickly repaired anyway) and still make a mess of things with bombs, cluster munitions, rockets, and cannonfire.


*edit: whether escalating with such an attack or exposing your limited naval air capability and ships is worth it in such an attack is an entirely separate discussion worth it's own debate. But could they make a mess of things at an airfield? Sure. Unless it is connected to a landing or such on the islands, I'm not sure what the point would be other than making the Argentinans shuffle things around and concentrate more future effort on more patrol presence and aircraft dispersal.

 

[Rule of cool]

I'd think an optimal British government is one that doesn't plan to replace an aircraft fleet with a 20 year+ service life in 8-10 years. Additionally an optimal British government is one that doesn't undertake the expense of developing state of the art aircraft to meet a requirement to equip 3 or 4 sqns. From the mid-late 60s any tactical aircraft starting development needs to have a production run of about 300 units, otherwise its not worth doing in Britain.

That means with the Buccaneer S2s and Phantoms in RN service from the mid-late 60s they must remain in service until the mid 80s. Similarly Lightning F2s need to last until the late 70s and F6s the early-mid 80s.

 

[Scott Kenny]

9 GR3 left UK in early May to fly to Ascension. 1 diverted to Madeira and returned to UK. 8 reached Ascension where 2 were retained for air defence until sent south a month later. Others were sent out at the end of May.

Ah, gotcha, thanks!

To fire rockets precisely, your aircrafts would be forced to go into even 20-mm autocannons envelope.

CRV7s have a good 4km range. Modern US Hydras aren't as fast, but have an even longer range.

A dash west to attack one or more mainland airbases with the real life Task Force is a very high risk but also high reward tactic.

On 1 May all 12 aircraft from Hermes launched at one, 3 to attack Goose Green and 9 to attack Port Stanley airfield. Of those 9, 4 tossed bombs in, some air burst, to keep the attackers heads down and do what damage they could, while the other 5 actually flew over the airfield directly attacking what they could see.

Assuming Invincible takes care of TF defence, at least 1 SHar for post strike recce, 4 for escort that leaves 10 SHar and 6 GR3 for any actual attack. Like Port Stanley some (6?) would be used as toss bombers leaving 4 SHar and 6 GR3 for direct attack. I'd think that's enough to attack a single airbase, but nothing fancy like cratering runways and penetrating HAS. Still, with even Rio Gallegos and Rio Grande having 8 HAS each that leaves plenty of soft targets and aircraft in the open.

The HAS aren't as tough as they sound, the ArgAF didn't put hardened closures across the fronts. Or even a soft closure.

A 1000lb bomb at the entrance would probably destroy everything inside. I know there's a fuzing option to have the bomb detonate after a skip, so skip the bomb off the concrete in front and boom. Contents of HAS demolished, though the HAS itself is probably undamaged.

I'd think an optimal British government is one that doesn't plan to replace an aircraft fleet with a 20 year+ service life in 8-10 years. Additionally an optimal British government is one that doesn't undertake the expense of developing state of the art aircraft to meet a requirement to equip 3 or 4 sqns. From the mid-late 60s any tactical aircraft starting development needs to have a production run of about 300 units, otherwise its not worth doing in Britain.

That means with the Buccaneer S2s and Phantoms in RN service from the mid-late 60s they must remain in service until the mid 80s. Similarly Lightning F2s need to last until the late 70s and F6s the early-mid 80s.

But everyone thought that aircraft had a 10yr life in the 1950s and 1960s!

A 6000hr airframe life over 10 years means 600hrs flying per year. Assuming 2hr long flights, that's planes in the air 300 days a year, not quite 6 days a week if you only fly once a day.

 

[TomS]

Assuming, of course, British would not obtain something better than free-falling bombs. Like laser-guided bombs or even good ol' Walleye electro-optic.

Paveway did, eventually, arrive down south for the British Harriers during the conflict. But there were no aircraft capable of designating for them, so all targeting was done by ground-based designators. It was somewhat hit-or-miss, as the saying goes.

The RAF was still hobbled by this issue as late as Desert Storm, when the Tornado force had to rely on Buccaneers with Pave Spike pods to lase for them, lacking any organic laser capability of their own. The lasing process with Pave Spike was pretty demanding, so it took a dedicated crewmember (no autotracking yet).

The only way to add it to the Harriers in the Falklands would have been to mod some T.4s with Pave Spike and suitable displays/controls in the back seat.

 

[Yellow Palace]

But everyone thought that aircraft had a 10yr life in the 1950s and 1960s!

Of course they did - in 1950, jets and swept wings were still a pretty neat idea that hadn't fully caught on. By 1960, if it wasn't doing Mach 2 with radar and missiles, it wasn't worth building. At that rate, whatever was around in 1980 might as well be out of Buck Rogers!

 

[Rule of cool]

But everyone thought that aircraft had a 10yr life in the 1950s and 1960s!

A 6000hr airframe life over 10 years means 600hrs flying per year. Assuming 2hr long flights, that's planes in the air 300 days a year, not quite 6 days a week if you only fly once a day.

The RAAF retired their Mirages with an average of 4000 hours on them, in an entire fleet life of 24 years. That's closer to 200 hours per year for a ~20 year individual airframe.

Yes, it was true that in the late 50s 10-12 years was assumed, after all its not as if its worth doing a midlife upgrade on a Hunter or Canberra. The govt and service Chiefs took a while to appreciate that the Lightning was about as fast as planes would go. Further and connected, given the importance of the avionics and the constant evolution of weapons from 1960 onwards regularly updating these newer aircraft became an attractive option.

Ideally Britain would come to this realisation at the early end of the spectrum rather than at the late end, and make plans accordingly.

 

[H_K]

This whole conversation makes me wish we could wargame this in a flight simulator… test out different package sizes, ordnance loadouts, weapons delivery profiles, radar coverage and warning time, jamming, AAA effectiveness etc!

Haven’t done that since the good old days of EF2000’s campaign engine on PC… but the AI was lousy and of course there were no carriers!

 

[Dilandu]

The only way to add it to the Harriers in the Falklands would have been to mod some T.4s with Pave Spike and suitable displays/controls in the back seat.

What about Walleye? It did not requre designators.

 

[Rule of cool]

What about Walleye? It did not requre designators.

I think it did require dedicated controls and a TV in the cockpit to show it what to lock on to.

 

[TomS]

What about Walleye? It did not requre designators.

But it did require a datalink pod. Again, no autotrack -- the pilot would have to fly it into the target. Might as well wish for Martel, which filled the same niche and at least was British.

 

[Archibald]

This whole conversation makes me wish we could wargame this in a flight simulator… test out different package sizes, ordnance loadouts, weapons delivery profiles, radar coverage and warning time, jamming, AAA effectiveness etc!

Haven’t done that since the good old days of EF2000’s campaign engine on PC… but the AI was lousy and of course there were no carriers!

I liked Novalogic F-22 back in the day (20 years ago). I did all kind of extremely stupid things with that game, such as flying into a B-61 mushroom cloud (hint: it did not ended well).

 

[Hood]

Chris Gibson and Mariano Sciaroni have written a few articles in Aviation Historian during 2023 on the real plans the RAF made to use Vulcans or Buccaneers to attack mainland and Argentina's air defence plans. They probably offer the most realistic overview from looking at the archival sources.
Both sides underestimated the other to some extent.

What anti-air defenses Argentinean airfields have?

BAM Tandil had 1x ELTA EL/M2106 tactical radar and 9x Bofors 40mm L/60
BAM Mariano Moreno had 1x ELTA EL/M2106 tactical radar, 8x 20mm TCM-20
BAM Merlo had 1x BPS-1000 & 1x BPS-89 search radar, 1x Thomson-CSF LP 23M civil search radar (at nearby Ezeia airport), 8x 12.7mm Browning
BAM Mar del Plata had 1x AN/TPS-44 search radar, 1x Skyguard linked to 2x 35mm Oerlikon GDF, also had 2x 12.7mm Browning
Radar Station Viedma had 1x AN/TPS-44 & 1x Cotal LB/LV search radars, no AA defences
BAM Trelew/BAN Almirante Zar had 1x ELTAEL/M2106 tactical radar linked to 6x 20mm Rheinmetall Rh-202, plus 12.7mm Browning and ?x naval 40mm Bofors L/60
BAM Comordo Rivadavia had 1x AN/TPS-43 search radar, 6x 20mm Rheinmetall Rh-202, plus 12.7mm Browning, 1x Euromissile Roland
BAM San Julian had 1x AN/TPS-44 search radar, 1x ELTA EL/M2106 tactical radar linked to 9x 20mm Rheinmetall Rh-202, 1x Skyguard linked to 4x 35mm Oerlikon GDF
BAM Santa Cruz had 1x AN/TPS-44 search radar (from 17 May), 1x ELTAEL/M2106 tactical radar, 8x 20mm TCM-20, 4x 12.7mm Browning, 5x 30mm Hispano-Suiza HS-831
BAM Rio Gallegos had 1x AN/TPS-43 search radar, 1x ELTA EL/M2106 tactical radar linked to 9x 20mm Rheinmetall Rh-202, 1x Skyguard linked to 4x 35mm Oerlikon GDF, 7x 12.7mm Browning
BAM Rio Grande had 1x AN/TPS-43 search radar, 1x ELTA EL/M2106 tactical radar linked to 9x 20mm Rheinmetall Rh-202, 4x 30mm Hispano-Suiza HS-831, 15x naval twin-gun 40mm Bofors L/60

The fighter forces were (on 1 May):
BAM Comordo Rivadavia had 4 Mirage III, AAM stock was 5x R.530
BAM San Julian had 10 Dagger and 9 A-4C, AAM stock was 49x Shafir-2
BAM Rio Gallegos had 4 Mirage III and 22 A-4B, AAM stock was 24x R.550 Magic & 7x R.530
BAM Rio Grande had 7 Mirage III, AAM stock was 18x Shafir-2

So in summary, good radar coverage, only one SAM but plenty of light AAA, some of it radar-directed and some of it open-sights gunnery. The fighter force is adequate with reasonable stocks of IR-homing AAMs but few R.530s, the Mirages at Comordo Rivadavia seem woefully armed for defensive duties.

 

[Dilandu]

So in summary, good radar coverage, only one SAM but plenty of light AAA, some of it radar-directed and some of it open-sights gunnery. The fighter force is adequate with reasonable stocks of IR-homing AAMs but few R.530s, the Mirages at Comordo Rivadavia seem woefully armed for defensive duties.

Thank you for the data! So it seems Argentinean air defenses were... adequate to inflict significant casualties in case of carrier raid (albeit probably not to protect the bases from serious damage).

 

[Rule of cool]

The fighter forces were (on 1 May):
BAM Comordo Rivadavia had 4 Mirage III, AAM stock was 5x R.530
BAM San Julian had 10 Dagger and 9 A-4C, AAM stock was 49x Shafir-2
BAM Rio Gallegos had 4 Mirage III and 22 A-4B, AAM stock was 24x R.550 Magic & 7x R.530
BAM Rio Grande had 7 Mirage III, AAM stock was 18x Shafir-2

This seems to have too many Mirage III and not enough Daggers, unless the 2 seater Mirage III are being counted. H_K has a map earlier in this thread that has 9 Daggers at Rio Grande, which would fit with the 18 Shafrirs located there.

the Mirages at Comordo Rivadavia seem woefully armed for defensive duties.

I seem to recall reading that not all of Argenitna's Mirage III were delivered with Sidewinder/Magic capability fitted.

 

[H_K]

seems Argentinean air defenses were... adequate to inflict significant casualties in case of carrier raid (albeit probably not to protect the bases from serious damage).

Based on Israeli experience during the Six Day War most of that manually directed AAA would be ineffective against fast jets flying at 500+ knots and coming in from multiple directions (even for repeat passes).

Only the radar directed 35mm guns are a real threat but UK experience showed they could be spoofed by chaff (self protection jammers being even more effective - their absence was a problem for Sea Harriers but other aircraft types would have ECM).

I’d be surprised if these defenses could inflict more than 5-10% losses.

 

[Scott Kenny]

Based on Israeli experience during the Six Day War most of that manually directed AAA would be ineffective against fast jets flying at 500+ knots and coming in from multiple directions (even for repeat passes).

Only the radar directed 35mm guns are a real threat but UK experience showed they could be spoofed by chaff (self protection jammers being even more effective - their absence was a problem for Sea Harriers but other aircraft types would have ECM).

I’d be surprised if these defenses could inflict more than 5-10% losses.

10% losses is still 1-2 planes per raid, and the Harriers are at the long end of a supply line so hard to get new planes quickly. You'd probably need to send a whole additional squadron of SHAR and GR3s down to make the attacks work.

 

[H_K]

10% losses is still 1-2 planes per raid, and the Harriers are at the long end of a supply line so hard to get new planes quickly. You'd probably need to send a whole additional squadron of SHAR and GR3s down to make the attacks work.

Once again the goal is to take out a numerically superior enemy air force on the ground on day 1, effectively ending the war as a contest.

I think the exchange ratio the Israelis achieved doing this was well over 20:1. There were losses but the lopsided end result and strategic win made it worth it.

The reason I keep coming back to this scenario is a carrier force typically faces a similar tactical conundrum as the Israelis did - outnumbered but with the ability to achieve an element of surprise by flying in low over the sea and with the advantage of being able to concentrate forces and dictate the terms of engagement.

 

[Scott Kenny]

Once again the goal is to take out a numerically superior enemy air force on the ground on day 1, effectively ending the war as a contest.

I think the exchange ratio the Israelis achieved doing this was well over 20:1. There were losses but the lopsided end result and strategic win made it worth it.

The reason I keep coming back to this scenario is a carrier force typically faces a similar tactical conundrum as the Israelis did - outnumbered but with the ability to achieve an element of surprise by flying in low over the sea and with the advantage of being able to concentrate forces and dictate the terms of engagement.

And the carriers can only do one raid a day. This will lose 3-6 aircraft over the course of the mission, leaving the 3rd and 4th bases hit with very limited strike packages that may not be able to destroy the base or the planes. 25 planes for raid 1. Raid 2 is 23. Raid 3 is 21. Raid 4 is 19. Or rather, 22-20-18-16 since you must have 2x fighter escorts on all raids and 1x recon.

Okay. So we need 6 SHARs for CAP for the whole combined carrier group.

That leaves 19 SHARs and 6 GR3s for our strike package.

I'm going to be brave and assign a single SHAR for the post-strike recon pass. Still going to assign 2 SHAR as escorts with max Sidewinders. This leaves 16x SHAR and 6 GR3s for the strike proper.

I'm still stuck on how to break the runway. 1000lb delay fused bombs would be very hard to use, it really would be better to load probably half the SHARs with ~6x Durandals each. Then the other half of the SHARs play skip bombing into the hardened shelters from the open sides, and the GR3s lay BL755s down on the parking ramps.

Do we absolutely have to break the runways if we concentrate on destroying all aircraft at the base?

Because with Harriers and SHARs not being practiced with Durandals, I don't see how we can get enough 1000lb bombs into the runway to destroy it. Got 16x SHAR and 6x GR3 available, they each carry 2x 1000lb dumb bombs.

Need to break both the runway and the parallel taxiway to make it impossible for planes to operate from that base, while dive-bombing (into what's going to look like every manned gun in the world and even a Roland system).

So that's 2 to 4 breaks per base, and you need two hits per 75ft diameter target to break (one plane load). With every plane going after the runway, that gives 5 attacks on each target as worst case scenario.

Were either SHAR or GR3 practiced enough in dive bombing to be confident of hitting those targets in less than 5 tries?

 

[batigol]

This seems to have too many Mirage III and not enough Daggers, unless the 2 seater Mirage III are being counted. H_K has a map earlier in this thread that has 9 Daggers at Rio Grande, which would fit with the 18 Shafrirs located there.



I seem to recall reading that not all of Argenitna's Mirage III were delivered with Sidewinder/Magic capability fitted.

1.) There are pictures showing two-seat Daggers armed with Shafrirs and sitting in camouflaged dispersal areas along local roads near airfields, so at least those could be expected to do point defense.

2.) Correct. None of the FAA Mirages had Sidewinder capability and only the second batch was wired for Magic.

 

[starviking]

In the optimum UK where the CVA01 gets built on time and is joined as planned by two sisterships it was also planned to equip her with VG fighter attackers like the one posted in another thread.
…
The Falklands would have received an airbase at about the same time capable of receiving RAF and BOAC VC10s.

Somehow I can’t see the Falklands getting a proper airbase until after a major conflict with Argentina. The only exception being a strongly-pursued oil development programme.

 

[starviking]

The RAAF retired their Mirages with an average of 4000 hours on them, in an entire fleet life of 24 years. That's closer to 200 hours per year for a ~20 year individual airframe.

Yes, it was true that in the late 50s 10-12 years was assumed, after all its not as if its worth doing a midlife upgrade on a Hunter or Canberra. The govt and service Chiefs took a while to appreciate that the Lightning was about as fast as planes would go. Further and connected, given the importance of the avionics and the constant evolution of weapons from 1960 onwards regularly updating these newer aircraft became an attractive option.

Ideally Britain would come to this realisation at the early end of the spectrum rather than at the late end, and make plans accordingly.

Just looking at the early marks of the Lightning, it looks like a pretty slim and sleek plane.

There’s no technical analysis behind this thought - but could earlier marks retrofitted with a better engine be adequate dogfighters?

With wingtip or side sidewinders, guns or rocket packs in the chin, a few bombs on the wing, it could be an early F-16. Obviously not as capable though.

Would definitely be dropping fuel tanks on every mission, unless the engines were very frugal.

If the engine was powerful enough, one engine could be sacrificed for fuel - but I think that that’s a modification too far.

 

[uk 75]

I think in a world where the UK is prosperous enough to build and operate CVA class ships it would have taken more interest in its remaining dependent territories. An airport on the Falklands was mooted before 1982 (in cooperation with Argentina). If it had been built in the 1970s as intended RAF VC10s etc and BOAC/BUA charters would have used it.
Combat aircraft deployments as with Gibraltar would have been regular but not permanent

 

[Rule of cool]

And the carriers can only do one raid a day.

I'd think any mainland attack, either with the real Harrier TF, or an alternative CVA TF would be a one hit wonder rather than a campaign, there would be no loitering around for round 2 the next day. With carriers ~200mn from the coast Argentine Navy ships could sortie to try exocet attacks, not to mention every aircraft in Argentina looking for these carriers.

 

[uk 75]

I am afraid Lightning is a dead end. The F3/F6 is bought for the fighter role because it was the only UK product available.
Even when 150 P1154 were planned the RAF expected to order Phantoms to replace Lightnings once TSR2 and 1154 were in service.

 

[Rule of cool]

Even when 150 P1154 were planned the RAF expected to order Phantoms to replace Lightnings once TSR2 and 1154 were in service.

I've not heard that before, that window much be vanishingly small between the RN Phantom order and P1154 cancellation, maybe 7 months?

 

[uk 75]

I've not heard that before, that window much be vanishingly small between the RN Phantom order and P1154 cancellation, maybe 7 months?

See discussion here.

https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/raf-with-tsr2-etc-but-what-fighters.10445/

 

[Yellow Palace]

An airport on the Falklands was mooted before 1982 (in cooperation with Argentina). If it had been built in the 1970s as intended RAF VC10s etc and BOAC/BUA charters would have used it.

Worth bearing in mind that in this scenario, if the Falklands are lost, it'll be Argentine aircraft operating from a long concrete runway. We may have just found the airfield that needs to be attacked with Buccaneers and Phantoms!

 

[uk 75]

Sorry I am going to get political here.
The Falklands War may have been a military success for the armed forces in 1982 but it was a political blunder of the first order.
Any government which fails to either deter an Argentine invasion or create circumstances where relations do not deteriorate to the point where it happens should resign and go down in history as worse than the Chamberlain government in the 30s.
Discussion of this scenario which has nothing to do with unbuilt secret projects is borderline jingoism. It belongs on a wargame or alt military history site.

 

[Scott Kenny]

Sorry I am going to get political here.
The Falklands War may have been a military success for the armed forces in 1982 but it was a political blunder of the first order.
Any government which fails to either deter an Argentine invasion or create circumstances where relations do not deteriorate to the point where it happens should resign and go down in history as worse than the Chamberlain government in the 30s.
Discussion of this scenario which has nothing to do with unbuilt secret projects is borderline jingoism. It belongs on a wargame or alt military history site.

Except that IIRC it was the non-elected folks over in Foreign Affairs that were ignoring what the Argentines were saying, something along the lines of "nobody could possibly be dumb enough to invade British Territory!"

 

[Arjen]

Except that IIRC it was the non-elected folks over in Foreign Affairs that were ignoring what the Argentines were saying, something along the lines of "nobody could possibly be dumb enough to invade British Territory!"

That doesn't get the politicians off the hook.
Lord Carrington resigned as Foreign Secretary three days after Argentinian soldiers invaded the Falkland Islands.

 

[Scott Kenny]

Lord Carrington resigned as Foreign Secretary three days after Argentinian soldiers invaded the Falkland Islands.

As well he should have, because his office is the one that screwed up.

That doesn't get the politicians off the hook.

Why should an elected official that had no input to the decisions resign?

 

[Hood]

Based on Israeli experience during the Six Day War most of that manually directed AAA would be ineffective against fast jets flying at 500+ knots and coming in from multiple directions (even for repeat passes).

The article specifically highlights the 30mm Hispano-Suiza HS-831 as being useless against jet aircraft, probably the rates of traverse and elevation were too slow?
Even so, that is a lot of lead flying around - but yes, probably not sufficient concentration of AAA to really lay down enough dakka to hose down the attackers by chance hits.

In 1991 the RAF pilots had enough time to train and prepare to wise and figure out that medium-level was safer to stay above the masses of AAA and hope that the SEAD supresses the SAMs enough to keep them safe.
In 1982 its immediate deployment and thrust into action - no real time to evaluate tactics, it may well be that low-level is flown because that is all the pilots are trained for. BL.755 has to be used at low level as it has not radar altimeter fuze to activate at the correct altitude by itself when released in a dive. So that means running the gauntlet of AAA even though there is negligible SAM defence. The whole defensive set up cries out for medium-altitude diving attacks but if there aren't the weapons or pilot training or tactical nous to make the shift in time it could be costly.

Plus ideally you need good intel on what assets are where - no point bombing airfields that don't have juicy targets on them. The RAF certainly did have Elint data but not sure how accurately they knew which aircraft were based at which airfields on any given date and of course intel on where the AAA are located to allow for optimum attack profiles to be flown. All the juicy targets are in the south, so that narrows the field down - though it does mean the northern airfields could be used for defensive patrols. The Argentine AF had planned an interception line with Mirages over the sea. Plus they were running a 5 minute QRA.

 

[Hood]

I would say that politically all this is unlikely - but as Chris Gibson discovered, such attacks were planned as contengenices.

I don't think that a protracted anti-airfield campaign is likely with the historical forces of 1982 given that the Sea Harriers and Harriers were more than tied up with operations over the Falklands and husbanding losses was a prime concern. There just isn't enough airpower available to do it.

In a scenario where Ark Royal is still in commission with Phantoms and Buccaneers or a fantasy world of CVA-01 & CVA-02 with 'Toms and Buccs' or more exotic aircraft what-ifs (P.1154s etc.), then there is some play in this line of what-if.
Of course in a world where the RN has Tomahawk in 1982 aboard an SSN - that is another weapon option. Less sexy but effective - assuming terrain data is available for TERCOM.

 

[Scott Kenny]

I don't think that a protracted anti-airfield campaign is likely with the historical forces of 1982 given that the Sea Harriers and Harriers were more than tied up with operations over the Falklands and husbanding losses was a prime concern. There just isn't enough airpower available to do it.

If the very first thing the RN did on arriving in the area was to hit all the Argentine airfields, then go provide cover/CAS over the islands, I think it'd work with some luck. (Needing luck to cut the runways)

 

[Arjen]

As well he should have, because his office is the one that screwed up.


Why should an elected official that had no input to the decisions resign?

In many foreign policy matters, PM Thatcher was heavily involved. With hindsight, the Falklands issue should have been one of them too. The UK MoD had its own intelligence channels, yet shortly before the invasion, it was announced HMS Endurance was to be withdrawn from Antarctic patrol. The British Nationality Act of 1981 replaced Falkland Islanders' full UK citizenship with more limited UK citizenship.

An accumulation of decisions that, among other factors, encouraged the Argentinian military to invade.

The Foreign Office wasn't the sole culprit.

 

[Yellow Palace]

As well he should have, because his office is the one that screwed up.
[...]
Why should an elected official that had no input to the decisions resign?

You do realise that Lord Carrington was the politician here? Unelected, sure, but so is the current Foreign Secretary. Interestingly enough, Lord Carrington had previously been Secretary of State for Defence under Ted Heath, and First Lord of the Admiralty under Harold Macmillan. Interestingly enough, he was apparently in favour of CVA-01 over the RAF's island strategy!

The issue with the Falkland Islands was that the UK government was giving signals (as Arjen notes) that the Falklands weren't seen as valued by the UK. Which, to be fair, they probably weren't. The Foreign Office engaging in negotiations with the Argentine government about transferring sovereignty of the islands to Argentina (or, if one is Argentine, recognising Argentine sovereignty of the Malvinas) then leasing them back for a period of 99 years would certainly have supported that view. The view at the time was that the Falklands needed economic diversification, and that necessarily meant cooperation with Argentina. The airfield at Port Stanley was actually initially built by Argentina; the fuel supply was provided by the Argentine state petroleum company; and the flights were operated by the commercial arm of the Argentine air force!

An invasion certainly ought to have been seen as a risk. Argentina had done enough sabre-rattling in the area in the 1970s to warrant it. But at the same time, there was cooperation, and further negotiations about the future of the islands seemed to be on the cards. One can forgive the Foreign Office for not having the Falklands at the top of their watchlist, though they should have been on that list.

 

[Scott Kenny]

You do realise that Lord Carrington was the politician here? Unelected, sure, but so is the current Foreign Secretary. Interestingly enough, Lord Carrington had previously been Secretary of State for Defence under Ted Heath, and First Lord of the Admiralty under Harold Macmillan. Interestingly enough, he was apparently in favour of CVA-01 over the RAF's island strategy!

Right, and as the head of the Foreign Ministry he needed to take the fall for his office screwing up.

The issue with the Falkland Islands was that the UK government was giving signals (as Arjen notes) that the Falklands weren't seen as valued by the UK. Which, to be fair, they probably weren't. The Foreign Office engaging in negotiations with the Argentine government about transferring sovereignty of the islands to Argentina (or, if one is Argentine, recognising Argentine sovereignty of the Malvinas) then leasing them back for a period of 99 years would certainly have supported that view. The view at the time was that the Falklands needed economic diversification, and that necessarily meant cooperation with Argentina. The airfield at Port Stanley was actually initially built by Argentina; the fuel supply was provided by the Argentine state petroleum company; and the flights were operated by the commercial arm of the Argentine air force!

An invasion certainly ought to have been seen as a risk. Argentina had done enough sabre-rattling in the area in the 1970s to warrant it. But at the same time, there was cooperation, and further negotiations about the future of the islands seemed to be on the cards. One can forgive the Foreign Office for not having the Falklands at the top of their watchlist, though they should have been on that list.

And to my eyes, the Falklands weren't even on the Foreign Ministry's list.

But again, should Maggie Thatcher have resigned and called for new parliament elections because of this?