Swap UK with France during the Falklands War.

[Archibald]

As for the Mirage IV reconnaissance flight, it was Operation Tobus in 1986. Hell of a freakkin' trip.

Opération Tobus

11 hours of flight including 30 minutes of supersonic, 10,000 km covered, 48 tonnes of fuel transferred in 12 RVTs, there were 4 C-135s in flight for this mission.

You know what ? France has a small advantage when making that variant of Black Buck. The Etendard IV standing on Foch deck off the Falklands have a (small, admittedly) aerial refueling capability... buddy-buddy ! Could be useful, even if for a Mirage IV, it is probably peanuts.

Dear Gosh... Black buck (Daim noir !) raid by Mirage IVs from French Guyana to Falklands and back, supported by C-135FR and... buddy-buddy Etendard IVs.

ROTFL.

Les caractéristiques & équipements du Mirage IV A (partie 3/5)

Les caractéristiques, équipements et livrées du Mirage IV A

spotaero-blogspot-com.translate.goog

In addition to the management of the heating of the fuselage, it is also necessary to manage the flights at high altitudes:

Thus, nearly 10 hours of liquid oxygen are loaded into the nose cone of the device. This is one of the device's endurance limitations (along with engine oil, among other things). The longest mission on mirage IV being the Tobus mission, on February 18, 1986. It was a question of going to photograph the results of the bombardment of the base of Ouadi doum in the north of Chad by the French Jaguars. This mission carried out by the Mirage IV A 31/BD consisted of a take-off from Djibouti, followed by a flight including 12 refuelings, the transfer of 48t of fuel provided by 4 C-135F, it lasted almost 11 hours!

 

[timmymagic]

You know what ? France has a small advantage when making that variant of Black Buck

Whats it going to drop when it gets there though? It won't lug 16 x 1,000lb externally that far...

 

[Archibald]

SNEB rocket pods ?

 

[timmymagic]

Carrier task force
10x Lynx ASW
8x Super Frelon commando
2x Alouette III plane guard

Of these 4 Lynx + 4 Super Frelon would operate from Jeanne d’Arc. 2 Super Frelon each aboard Foch and Jules Verne. The 6 remaining Lynx would be aboard the 3 ASW frigates.

Invasion Force
8x Puma transport
4x Gazelle HOT
10x Alouette III liaison/medevac
2x Lynx ASW aboard ASW frigate escort

The Pumas and Gazelles would be aboard the 2 LPDs (Ouragan + Orage). The Alouettes would be on the smaller logistical ships and LSTs (5 ships with dual hangars).

Additionally there would be 3x Alouette IIIs aboard the replenishment tankers and oilers for Vertrep duties.

Total 47 helicopters, of which 16 transport. Plus attrition replacements aboard Clemenceau. So… not as many as the RN deployed, but enough to provide a decent amount of troop lift, close air support and ASW.

The RN reckoned (and still do) that you needed a minimum of 10 Sea Kings to provide a 24/7 ASW screen around a Task Force. Lynx, whilst a perfectly nice little helicopter, is nowhere close to a Sea King in capability for ASW, neither in sensors, crew, weapons load or range/endurance, particularly the HAS.5 model which could easily claim to be the best ASW helo on earth.

That French ASW screen, when you take into account the helo's available, ships, weapons, equipment, experience and doctrine is to all intents and purposes as leaky as a colander...truth be told the Marine Nationale still has that issue, deploying CdG with a near non-existent ASW capability and with very limited numbers of ASW escorts.

I'd suggest that the difficulties the RN had in prosecuting the Santa Luis, the effort expended, limit it placed on operations and place it had in Royal Navy commanders thoughts would be magnified ten-fold with a French Task Force...

 

[timmymagic]

SNEB rocket pods ?

Thats not going to go particularly well for them with Roland and 35mm Oerlikon batteries at Stanley....hell I'd give the Tigercat there a pretty good chance of downing one doing a rocket attack...

 

[H_K]

The RN reckoned (and still do) that you needed a minimum of 10 Sea Kings to provide a 24/7 ASW screen around a Task Force. Lynx, whilst a perfectly nice little helicopter, is nowhere close to a Sea King in capability for ASW

That French ASW screen, when you take into account the helo's available, ships, weapons, equipment, experience and doctrine is to all intents and purposes as leaky as a colander

The French used VDS active towed sonar instead of helicopters. Different approach, but apparently effective enough for them to remove dunking sonar from their Super Frelons and repurpose their heavy ASW helicopters for other missions… so it can’t have been half bad.

I doubt that any sub captain would sniff at 6-7 escorts with VDS sonar (of which 5-6 with Malafon), 10 Lynx, and 6 Alizés dropping sonobuoys.

 

[Archibald]

I doubt that anyone would call 6-7 escorts with VDS sonar, 10 Lynx and 6 Alizés dropping sonobuoys to be “leaky as a colander”.

There is a clear "naysayer, no no" pattern by this forum member since he joined the discussion... if you listen to him, the French navy sounds like North korea's...

 

[timmymagic]

There is a clear "naysayer, no no" pattern by this forum member since he joined the discussion... if you listen to him, the French navy sounds like North korea's...

I'll be quite clear. The French could not do the Falklands, then or now. No amount of theorising would make it work with their military as it was structured then.

A better way of looking at it would be to think of what they would need adding to their forces to enable them to do it...

 

[Archibald]

There is a clear "naysayer, no no" pattern by this forum member since he joined the discussion... if you listen to him, the French navy sounds like North korea's...

I'll be quite clear. The French could not do the Falklands, then or now. No amount of theorising would make it work with their military as it was structured then.

A better way of looking at it would be to think of what they would need adding to their forces to enable them to do it...

Good. At least the mask has dropped.

Then why bother posting in this thread ? remember, it is the alternate history section...

 

[timmymagic]

Then why bother posting in this thread ? remember, it is the alternate history section..

Basing it around the French fleet as it existed then makes no sense because it just doesn't work. But if in an alternate history the Marine Nationale has more replenishment, asw and a whole lot of other things it could be worthwhile.

 

[H_K]

I'll be quite clear. The French could not do the Falklands, then or now. No amount of theorising would make it work with their military as it was structured then.

A better way of looking at it would be to think of what they would need adding to their forces to enable them to do it...

I agree the French certainly couldn’t have done it the way the Brits went about doing it.

No SSNs, no Vulcan bombers, no huge RFA and STUFT fleet… but that doesn’t mean that the same strategic outcome couldn’t be achieved with a different campaign, playing to the French areas of strength.

I haven’t gotten to the Invasion Force yet because that is the tricky part that I’m struggling with - ie. deploying and supporting a large amphib fleet with thousands of mouths to feed is an effort much larger than simply supporting a carrier task force. I think it would take a lot longer for the French to be ready to land a brigade size force.

For the carrier task force and subs, however, I believe that I’ve shown that it could be done and supported, albeit with little room to spare on the resupply side. There are some unknowns that might have helped, such as the ability to accelerate Var’s sea trials (which started historically over the summer 1982), the use of French STUFT ships etc.

Strategically the carrier task force and subs are enough to cut off the islands, perform a few targeted commando operations, and gain air superiority. The French probably would have made better use of air reconnaissance to ascertain Argentine force deployments and areas of weakness (whereas the RN was mostly blind due to the Fleet Air Arm lacking a reconnaissance capability and culture). The French might then have pivoted to more of a ground interdiction campaign leveraging the Super Etendard’s strengths as an attack aircraft (which the RN never tried, being almost exclusively focused on mostly ineffective airfield denial ops against Port Stanley Airport).

Maybe the invasion happens later, maybe it happens as historically but with more limited objectives, landing only 2 battalions initially. Or maybe the ground campaign progresses in more measured steps. That’s the part that is still up in the air IMHO.

 

[H_K]

As for the Mirage IV reconnaissance flight, it was Operation Tobus in 1986. Hell of a freakkin' trip.

Opération Tobus

11 hours of flight including 30 minutes of supersonic, 10,000 km covered, 48 tonnes of fuel transferred in 12 RVTs, there were 4 C-135s in flight for this mission.

Try as I might I can’t find a realistic mission for the Mirage IV… 11hrs appears to have been the limit in terms of human endurance, on-board oxygen and engine oil supplies. At 530kt optimal cruise that simply isn’t enough flight time to make it there and back.

… and the likely missions could easily have been flown from the carrier (reconnaissance, bombing the ground control radar or airfield etc).

Unless you’re dropping a bomb over Buenos Aires…(simulated?), as a final warning. Or firing an AS-30 missile into the presidential palace. Very unlikely and there’s still the problem of interception by Brazilian and Argentine Mirage IIIs.

 

[Archibald]

From now I'll let the matter into @H_K hands. Curious to see where he will go (making popcorn right now).

 

[Deleted member 2278]

Well if France can't do it with their historical equipment (which doesn't strike me as right but hey ho), they can always go shopping! Without as extensive overseas possessions as OTL, Fearless, Intrepid and some Round Tables may well be languishing in an inlet somewhere, victims of an Alt-Nott, looking for a home. Other suppliers are available of course. Also, must the auxiliaries in this scenario be French-flagged? Just because the historical Task Force was under one (give or take) flag doesn't mean it has to be here. Certainly Mali has shown a French willingness to ask for assistance from her allies. It is a possibility at any rate.

"In other news, RFAs Tidespring & Brambleleaf have sailed into the south Atlantic on Exercise Distant Dunk...."

 

[Lascaris]

Well if France can't do it with their historical equipment (which doesn't strike me as right but hey ho), they can always go shopping! Without as extensive overseas possessions as OTL, Fearless, Intrepid and some Round Tables may well be languishing in an inlet somewhere, victims of an Alt-Nott, looking for a home. Other suppliers are available of course. Also, must the auxiliaries in this scenario be French-flagged? Just because the historical Task Force was under one (give or take) flag doesn't mean it has to be here. Certainly Mali has shown a French willingness to ask for assistance from her allies. It is a possibility at any rate.

"In other news, RFAs Tidespring & Brambleleaf have sailed into the south Atlantic on Exercise Distant Dunk...."

Someone could just as easily argue that with the French track record post 1945 the Argentines don't dare move in the first place as French reaction is guaranteed.

 

[Deleted member 2278]

Well if France can't do it with their historical equipment (which doesn't strike me as right but hey ho), they can always go shopping! Without as extensive overseas possessions as OTL, Fearless, Intrepid and some Round Tables may well be languishing in an inlet somewhere, victims of an Alt-Nott, looking for a home. Other suppliers are available of course. Also, must the auxiliaries in this scenario be French-flagged? Just because the historical Task Force was under one (give or take) flag doesn't mean it has to be here. Certainly Mali has shown a French willingness to ask for assistance from her allies. It is a possibility at any rate.

"In other news, RFAs Tidespring & Brambleleaf have sailed into the south Atlantic on Exercise Distant Dunk...."

Someone could just as easily argue that with the French track record post 1945 the Argentines don't dare move in the first place as French reaction is guaranteed.

Oh, I agree. Indeed that thought was why I didn't intrude on this thread until quite late. Conventional wisdom has the Argentinians being emboldened by the decommissioning of Ark Royal. With Foch and Clemenceau very much in commission, the invasion never happens but then all we would have to discuss is the tumbleweeds.

 

[Archibald]

Well if France can't do it with their historical equipment (which doesn't strike me as right but hey ho), they can always go shopping! Without as extensive overseas possessions as OTL, Fearless, Intrepid and some Round Tables may well be languishing in an inlet somewhere, victims of an Alt-Nott, looking for a home. Other suppliers are available of course. Also, must the auxiliaries in this scenario be French-flagged? Just because the historical Task Force was under one (give or take) flag doesn't mean it has to be here. Certainly Mali has shown a French willingness to ask for assistance from her allies. It is a possibility at any rate.

"In other news, RFAs Tidespring & Brambleleaf have sailed into the south Atlantic on Exercise Distant Dunk...."

Someone could just as easily argue that with the French track record post 1945 the Argentines don't dare move in the first place as French reaction is guaranteed.

Yeah but we wouldn't have a thread then, and life would be boring.

But I thought the same, actually... the RN was deeply weakened by Nott, and it was only beginning: had the Argies waited until 1983 as per their original plan, they may have carried the day, if only narrowly
(Invincible going to Australia ? so early ? I often wonder, why build it in the first place and putting it in service then ?)

Mitterrand was certainly a moron for many things, but he (or his defense minister: Charles Hernu) did not weakened the Navy as did Nott.

 

[H_K]

From now I'll let the matter into @H_K hands. Curious to see where he will go (making popcorn right now).

Unfortunately I’m a little stuck. I have an outline for the Day 1 invasion force but that only puts ~2,000 boots on the ground… far less than what is needed for the long-haul.

Amphibious Task Force
2x LHDs (Ouragan + Orage) with ~400 troops each
4x LSTs (of 5 available) with ~300 troops each
1x hospital ship (BSS Rance)
1x AA destroyer (4th of 6 available)
1x ASW frigate with Crotale (4th of 6 available)
2x older ASW escorts with Malafon (3rd & 4th of 8 available)
2-3x avisos escorteurs (of 9 available) for naval gunfire support and with ~50 commandos each

Total 6 amphibs + 6-7 escorts, ~5,000 men (of which 2,000 troops).

All these ships have the oil and food supplies to reach the Falklands with minimal support, which can be provided by a fleet oiler sailing in company on its way to resupply the carrier task force.

Helicopters would include:
8x Pumas + 4x Gazelle HOT on the LHDs
6x Alouette III on the LSTs/hospital ship
2x Lynx on the ASW frigate

In addition, the Jeanne d’Arc commando carrier and 3-4 escorts would detach from the carrier task force to support the landings. This brings more Crotale, 100mm guns, and 6-8 Super Frelon helicopters for heavy lift.

This is a small force but on the plus side it would have good air defense and lots of 100mm guns. Artillery support ashore would also be better with 120mm mortars instead of 105mm field guns… easier to lug around. Helicopter lift would be similar to what the Brits had their 1st week (11 Sea King + 5 Wessex + 1 Chinook).

But… not enough troops and support for the long haul. Only way around this is with Mediterranean ferries, cargo ships, and civilian oilers… which is where things get more speculative. Subject of another post.

 

[Lascaris]

Yeah but we wouldn't have a thread then, and life would be boring.

But I thought the same, actually... the RN was deeply weakened by Nott, and it was only beginning: had the Argies waited until 1983 as per their original plan, they may have carried the day, if only narrowly
(Invincible going to Australia ? so early ? I often wonder, why build it in the first place and putting it in service then ?)

Mitterrand was certainly a moron for many things, but he (or his defense minister: Charles Hernu) did not weakened the Navy as did Nott.

The only thing I blame Francois is he did not press Papandreou to join Rafale when you people were looking and not finding partners in 1986-87...

 

[CV12Hornet]

@H_K The British task force only had capacity for 2600 troops on their amphibious ships. The British had to requisition two ocean liners and a number of car ferries to carry the majority of their troops.

 

[H_K]

@CV12Hornet Yes. This is turning out to be the critical gap for the French: how to transport the 2nd echelon and provide logistics beyond the initial landings, with a much smaller merchant fleet (and many of these merchants built for short Mediterranean routes).

For example, there were no more ocean liners still in French hands… all sold off to other countries in the 70s. So that leaves ferries, the biggest of which were about the size of SS Uganda, which was used by the Brits as a hospital ship.

 

[uk 75]

Jean Reno just slapped a brochure for this little shipping firm down on my table

CMA CGM - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

lots of big cargo ships. All you need is some ingenuity to carry troops.
I am enjoying the whiff of onion soup and Gaulois Bleu on this thread.
Not to mention the BD/graphic novel.

 

[uk 75]

No Gurkhas but there are these folks

French Foreign Legion - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

There is also a side splitting comedy film about the hapless French governor of the islands played by this chap

Louis de Funès - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

In his last role

 

[Archibald]

Shame the SS France was dumped in 1974.

SS France (1960) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

marine marchande - liste des navires

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

Perhaps, we can buy to the UK, 2 Victor K.1, if still in service at 1982 (I like the K.2 with her big tank in the wing), but that was part of their tanker fleet).

31 Victor Mk 1s were converted to tankers. One was struck of charge in 1966 and another was sold for scrap in 1970. The 29 that remained were taken out of service between September 1974 and February 1977.

5 out of 34 Victor Mk 2s had been written off by the end of 1974 and the plan was to convert the 29 surviving aircraft to tankers. But the Mason defence review of 1974-75 resulted in the number of conversions being reduced to 24. The other 5 aircraft were struck of charge between October 1975 and June 1976.

Therefore, if Argentina was going to buy some Victor tankers it would have to be in the middle 1970s and it would be better to buy the 5 Mk 2's that weren't converted into tankers.

Correction
The Victor tanker struck of charge in 1966 was actually an unconverted Mk 1 bomber because I was reading the wrong line. But another Victor tanker crashed in 1968 after colliding with a Canberra. Therefore, there were still 29 Victor Mk 1 tankers in service in the middle of 1974.

 

[alejandrogrossi]

||||||

Perhaps, we can buy to the UK, 2 Victor K.1, if still in service at 1982 (I like the K.2 with her big tank in the wing), but that was part of their tanker fleet).

31 Victor Mk 1s were converted to tankers. One was struck of charge in 1966 and another was sold for scrap in 1970. The 29 that remained were taken out of service between September 1974 and February 1977.

5 out of 34 Victor Mk 2s had been written off by the end of 1974 and the plan was to convert the 29 surviving aircraft to tankers. But the Mason defence review of 1974-75 resulted in the number of conversions being reduced to 24. The other 5 aircraft were struck of charge between October 1975 and June 1976.

Therefore, if Argentina was going to buy some Victor tankers it would have to be in the middle 1970s and it would be better to buy the 5 Mk 2's that weren't converted into tankers.

NOMISYRRUC
Thanks for you reply.
The date is perfect, becase past 1976, we can´t do it, becase the U.S. placed an embargo of spare parts in 1977 due to the Dirty War military dictatorship of Argentina from 1976 to 1983) backing the Humphrey-Kennedy amendment to the Foreign Assistance Act of 1976, the Carter administration placed an embargo on the sale of arms and spare parts to Argentina and on the training of its military personnel.
In septmber could be K1 or Octuber 1975 to June 1976, K2

 

[Hicks]

You guys seem to have fun. While looking for something else in the same period, I saw that the Frenchs could have other things available in the "pantry" so here is my attempt.

During this period, Ariane 1 was still in the test phase, so perhaps an "accident" can be organized to pass a message.

The MSBS S-2 and SSBS M-2 were also in a replacement process or already been, so they could therefore be available for use with a makeshift conventional warhead. Using Kourou Spaceport or Gymnote (S655) along the coast of French Guyana as launch sites.

Given the lower yield and risk of low precision, big fixed military installations will be prime targets.

 

[Archibald]

Now here is the kind of thinking I appreciate - thinking BIG.

Well I think the British vaguely toyed with Polaris options, including non-nuclear, during OTL Falklands crisis - or maybe I'm confusing fiction with reality.

How about firing a non nuclear M-20 missile at Argentina ? No need for Gymnote: France lacked SSN but not boomers, the Redoutable class had been in service since 1971.

A FOBS Ariane would be completely awesome, for sure. But Ariane bar some military sats was 100% civilian.

Can a boomer be used as a SSN ?

Note that the Chinese Long March 2 - 3 - 4 are very similar to Ariane 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - yet they are son of the DF-5 ICBM, which had an aborted FOBS variant with a third stage, called DF-6.
Both launchers burned storable propellants, perfect for ICBMs.

A standard Ariane could lift 5 metric tons to low Earth orbit, plenty enough for a bunch of M-20 or SSBS warheads.

(and yes, this thread has been a fun ride so far)

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

||||||

Perhaps, we can buy to the UK, 2 Victor K.1, if still in service at 1982 (I like the K.2 with her big tank in the wing), but that was part of their tanker fleet).

31 Victor Mk 1s were converted to tankers. One was struck of charge in 1966 and another was sold for scrap in 1970. The 29 that remained were taken out of service between September 1974 and February 1977.

5 out of 34 Victor Mk 2s had been written off by the end of 1974 and the plan was to convert the 29 surviving aircraft to tankers. But the Mason defence review of 1974-75 resulted in the number of conversions being reduced to 24. The other 5 aircraft were struck of charge between October 1975 and June 1976.

Therefore, if Argentina was going to buy some Victor tankers it would have to be in the middle 1970s and it would be better to buy the 5 Mk 2's that weren't converted into tankers.

NOMISYRRUC
Thanks for you reply.
The date is perfect, because past 1976, we can´t do it, because the U.S. placed an embargo of spare parts in 1977 due to the Dirty War military dictatorship of Argentina from 1976 to 1983) backing the Humphrey-Kennedy amendment to the Foreign Assistance Act of 1976, the Carter administration placed an embargo on the sale of arms and spare parts to Argentina and on the training of its military personnel.
In September could be K1 or October 1975 to June 1976, K2

Your welcome.

However, I think it would be better to buy some Boeing 707s or McDonnell Douglas DC-8s from the second-hand market and convert them into tankers.

 

[Archibald]

Still looking for an exhaustive list of civilian 707s conversion into tankers.

 

[alejandrogrossi]

Our Air Force have 2 B707 at the time of the war
TC-91 and TC-92
In 1975 was buy the first Boeing 707-387B (T-01), with engines and landing gear from cargo model. In 1977 was send to the USA were they put the cargo door and renamed TC-91.
En 1979 a second unit is added (1 B-707 372C) registration TC-92. I was buy to our national airline
One of them (TC-91) it was who discovered the British Fleet (TF-317) and intercepted by Sea Harrier





that is to say, that after the war, the FAA had the idea of converting a b707 into a tanker and equipping the mirage with a refueling probe, but it was canceled for budgetary reasons
As you said (Archibald and NOMISYRRUC) its better to buy more 2/3more B-707 (logistical issues) and convert 2 for tanker role

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

Still looking for an exhaustive list of civilian 707s conversion into tankers.

Aerolineas Argentinas bought 2 B.707-320B and 4 B.707-320C in the second half of the 1960s if that helps.

 

[lordroel]

View attachment 673613

Nice shot, better to take a picture than a missile.

 

[Archibald]

A pretty rare sight: Foch and Clemenceau sailing together.

 

[Archibald]

Early October 2000 the retiring Foch, on its way to Brazil, sailed past the brand new Charles de Gaulle, off Toulon. Still haven't found any picture of the three.
Between summer 1997 when Clemenceau retired, and the fall of 2000 when Foch went to Brazil, the three carriers must have been close from each others at Toulon harbor. I wonder if somebody ever got an aerial picture of the three, either from an aircraft or a satellite: would be pretty awesome.

 

[Archibald]

A couple more

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

I looked the British and French merchant marines up in the copy of Jane's Fighting Ships 1982-83 on the Internet Archive.

2,975 vessels of 25,419,427 tons, gross, UK​

1,199 vessels of 11,455,033 tons, gross, France​

While I was at it I looked up the Durance class. There were two available in 1982 and two more under construction. The two ships that were under construction were to replace the tankers La Charente and Isere. The Durance class had a full load displacement of 17,800 tons and the older tankers had full load displacements of 26,000 and 26,700 tons respectively.

These ships don't compare so badly to the 4 large replenishment tankers that the British Royal Fleet Auxiliary had, which were the 3 Ol class of 36,000 tons full load and the one remaining Tide class of 27,400 tons full load.

However, the French had no equivalents to the 5 Rover class of small replenishment tankers with a full load displacement of 11,522 tons. Neither did they have equivalents to the 4 large freighting tankers with "Leaf" names which had full load displacements of 40,200 (two ships), 26,480 and 25,790 tons respectively.

The British also had 5 replenishments ships carrying dry stores of the Fort, Ness and Regnet classes to which the French had no direct equivalents. Except the Durance class carried dry stores too.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

To summarise.

• The French don't have any SSNs, which is a major disadvantage.
• Each side has 2 aircraft carriers. The French ships are better on paper.
  • However, only one of them is an operational fixed-wing aircraft carrier because the other had been operating as a helicopter carrier since the 1970s.
  • It looks like they don't have enough spare Crusaders and Super Etendards to from a full-strength air group for it.
  • However, the Alizé can do AEW as well as ASW, which is an important capability that the British didn't have.
• The French have Jeanne d' Arc. The British have Tiger (because Blake went to the breakers in 1982) but Tiger was in reserve and couldn't be reactivated in time.
• On balance the quality of the two navies destroyers and frigates was about the same.
• The RN had 2 LPD and the RFA had 6 LSL while the MN had 2 LPD and 5 LST. So amphibious capabilities were about the same.
• The RAF had 4 squadrons of Nimrods. The MN had 4 squadrons of Atlantiques. I think the British have the edge there.
• The RAF has 2 squadrons and a training flight with about 20 Victor tankers. The AA had 11 KC-135Fs. As far as I know the KC-135s can carry more fuel and has a longer range which might make up or the smaller number of aircraft.
• The RAF has Vulcans while the AA has Mirage IVs.
• France might not have the logistical capability to get there.
  • The RN had more tankers and replenishments ships than the MN, which were backed up my a Merchant Marine that was twice the size of France's.
  • France also has the disadvantage that its nearest forward bases are further away from the Falklands than Ascension Island. That is Abidjan in the Ivory Coast is 1,163 miles further way and Dakar in Senegal is 1,579 miles further away.

 

[Archibald]

To summarise.

• The French don't have any SSNs, which is a major disadvantage.
• Each side has 2 aircraft carriers. The French ships are better on paper.
  • However, only one of them is an operational fixed-wing aircraft carrier because the other had been operating as a helicopter carrier since the 1970s.
  • It looks like they don't have enough spare Crusaders and Super Etendards aircraft to from a full-strength air group for it.
  • However, the Alizé can do AEW as well as ASW, which is an important capability that the British didn't have.
• The French have Jeanne d' Arc. The British have Tiger (because Blake went to the breakers in 1982) but Tiger was in reserve and couldn't be reactivated in time.
• On balance the quality of the two navies destroyers and frigates was about the same.
• The RN had 2 LPD and the RFA had 2 LSL while the MN had 2 LPD and 5 LST. So amphibious capabilities were about the same.
• The RAF had 4 squadrons of Nimrods. The MN had 4 squadrons of Atlantiques. I think the British have the edge there.
• The RAF has 2 squadrons and a training flight with about 20 Victor tankers. The AA had 11 KC-135Fs. As far as I know the KC-135s can carry more fuel and has a longer range which might make up or the smaller number of aircraft.
• The RAF has Vulcans while the AA has Mirage IVs.
• France might not have the logistical capability to get there.
  • The RN had more tankers and replenishments ships than the MN, which were backed up my a Merchant Marine that was twice the size of France's.

• • France also has the disadvantage that its nearest forward bases are further away from the Falklands than Ascension Island. That is Abidjan in the Ivory Coast is 1,163 miles further way and Dakar in Senegal is 1,579 miles further away.

I readily agree with all the above as a very honest-to-God assessment of the debate so far.

Except for the last point. FRENCH GUYANA - that's the key. You forgot that one. Earlier in the thread I used an on-line flying distance calculator to check, and it is the exact same distance from the Falklands as Ascencion island. Only 51 km further, actually.

Distance Cayenne, GUF > Port-Stanley - Air line, driving route, midpoint

Shows the distance in kilometres between Cayenne, GUF and Port-Stanley and displays the route on an interactive map. Worldwide distance calculator with air line, route planner, travel duration and flight distances.

www.distance.to

6,319 km

Distance Ascension-Island, Ascension, SHN > Port-Stanley - Air line, driving route, midpoint

Shows the distance in kilometres between Ascension-Island, Ascension, SHN and Port-Stanley and displays the route on an interactive map. Worldwide distance calculator with air line, route planner, travel duration and flight distances.

www.distance.to

6,268 km

Pretty funny when you think about it.

For the record, the longuest Jaguar and Mirage IV flights ever were +/- 11 hours at 800 km per hour cruise speed: that's 8800 km best case. So no way the Armée de l'air be part of the fight. They were the one and only twin jet combat aircraft left; the one-engine Mirages were limited by their lone engine oil consumption, among other things; Atar or M53 made no change to that issue.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

this wouldn't work for the Aéronavale. Proof: I remember a brief mention of "turning S.E into makeshift fighters as a stopgap after the Crusaders" during the "F-18 affair" (1989 - 1999) and it was seemingly dismissed as "ridiculous".
But Super Etendard was always considered "attack first, attack only". The Magic AAMs under the wings were for self-defense only.

I don’t know where this info comes from but it’s untrue. The Super Etendards were always intended to fly medium altitude CAP below the Crusaders, flying in “I1” configuration (2x Magic AAMs + 2x 600L drop tanks).

Have you any idea how it compared to a 1982 standard Sea Harrier when operating as a fighter?

My copy of John Jordan's An Illustrated Guide to Naval Aviation and Aircraft Carriers, Salamander, 1984 says.

• Super Etendard
  • two 30mm cannon and up to 4,630lb of stores on five pylons
  • combat radius 350 nautical miles
  • From @H_K's post it carried two Magic AAMs and two drop tanks when operating as a fighter.
• Sea Harrier
  • two 30mm cannon and up to 8,000lb on five pylons
  • combat radius 400nm (fighter) and 280nm (strike)
  • During the Falklands the Sea Harriers carried two Sidewinder AAMs and two drop tanks when operating as a fighter.

The RN modified their Sea Harriers to carry 4 Sidewinders after the Falklands War. Could the French have modified their Super Etendards to carry more Magics?