Swap UK with France during the Falklands War.

The 2 nuclear powered aircraft carriers must be the pair announced in 1980 to replace Clemenceau and Foch. The first ship to be named Bretagne was to be laid down at Brest in 1983 and replace Clemenceau in 1990. The second ship to be named Provence would replace Foch some years later. Except that isn't what happened.
The CdG decision was taken on September 23, 1980 by President Valery Giscard d'Estaing. PH75 was dead, long lived PA75 (even if 1975 was long gone !)
And then... nothing happened for nearly 6 years. Until February 1986 when official construction started. Took until January 1999 for CdG to sail, and 18 more months to enter service, so 20 years total.

At the beginning they got, indeed, old battleship "regional" names - Bretagne and Provence were old 10*340 mm superdreadnoughts of the 1920's, one blew up in MErs el kebir in 1940.

Then it was Richelieu, but in 1986 Chirac, now Miterrand PM, went for his mentor name: Charles de Gaulle.

PH75 early studies were to replace the Arromanches, gone to the breakers in 1974. Post 1964 and the two Clems IOC it had found a new life as a big and versatile LPH / ASW / training carrier. Early PH75 sketches had C67 frigates propulsion (found that in Google books) but soon it went nuclear for complete autonomy at sea. This made the design pretty unique, a weird mix of Moskva and Kirov (!) when you think about it. Throw Harriers into the lot and you have a Kiev, too, albeit 40% the tonnage.

It was to be a Swiss knife of a ship: hospital ship during natural crisis (Colbert and La Fayette had been send to Agadir, Marocco in 1960 when an earthquake killed 10000 people), ASW, LPH, commando carrier - the whole enchillada.

Note that Harriers landed on Jeanne d'Arc and Foch in 1971 and 1972. I often wonder if it was linked to a hypothetical PH75 drift toward a Kiev / Invincible / Asturias / Garibaldi, that is: Zumwalt Sea Control Ship influence (USS Guam did tested the idea with USMC AV-8A at the time).

Just think about it: if Super Etendard is screwed for Harriers, these aircraft can be, altogether, Clems attack wing AND PH75 fast wing air group on top of the choppers.
 
Last edited:
I don't remember this being asked before and haven't checked the thread to see if it has.

Does swapping France with the UK mean that the latter doesn't sell 2 Type 42 destroyers to Argentina and in their place the former sells 2 Masurca armed destroyers to Argentina instead?

Does it also mean that France doesn't sell Super Etendards, 3 A69 corvettes and Exocet missiles to Argentina? What do the British sell in their place. I was going to say Buccaneers and Martels in place of the Super Etendards and AM39 Exocets but I doubt that the Argentine aircraft carrier could cope with the Buccaneer.
NOMISRRUC
If the swap is UK with france
Why not the Our can not buy the Type 42 for the Navy.
Of course, we have not SUE or the A69, and Exocet.
See my post 41 / 64 and 71. There i do the changes in our aerial equipment, that demand this swap
 
PH75 early studies were to replace the Arromanches, gone to the breakers in 1974. Post 1964 and the two Clems IOC it had found a new life as a big and versatile LPH / ASW / training carrier. Early PH75 sketches had C67 frigates propulsion (found that in Google books) but soon it went nuclear for complete autonomy at sea. This made the design pretty unique, a weird mix of Moskva and Kirov (!) when you think about it. Throw Harriers into the lot and you have a Kiev, too, albeit 40% the tonnage.

It was to be a Swiss knife of a ship: hospital ship during natural crisis (Colbert and La Fayette had been send to Agadir, Marocco in 1960 when an earthquake killed 10000 people), ASW, LPH, commando carrier - the whole enchillada.
For what it's worth PH75 appears in seven editions of Jane's beginning in 1973-74 and ending in 1979-80.

Jane's 1973-74 only has the following paragraph that appears at the top of the Aircraft Carriers section and has already been quoted in Post 240.
It was announced on 22 Jan 1974 that a nuclear powered aircraft carrier of some 18,00 tons would be laid down in 1975 to be completed in 1980. It is suggested that this ship might carry Harriers as well as helicopters.
However, the other editions devote half-a-page or a whole page to the ship and the descriptions of it conform to your statement that it was a Swiss Army Knife of a Ship.

One helicopter carrier is included in 1971-75 New Construction Plan in all the editions of Jane's of the period that are on Internet Archive.
  • 1970-71 and 1971-72 aren't on Internet Archive.
  • 1972-73 to 1974-75 say One Helicopter Carrier
  • 1975-76 and 1976-77 say One Helicopter Carrier (PH75)
  • 1977-78 isn't on Internet Archive
  • 1978-79 and 1979-80 say One Helicopter Carrier (PH75) but add that it had been moved to the 1977-81 New Construction Plan as PA75.
It would be interesting to see whether the versions of the 1971-75 NCP in Jane's 1970-71 and 1971-72 also say One Helicopter Carrier and I suspect that they do. Internet Archive does have Jane's 1969-70 which I've looked at and it doesn't say anything about the 1971-75 NCP.

That's a long winded way of building up to this question. Do you know if Arromanches was retired prematurely? It's entry in Jane's 1973-74 doesn't say that it would be retired in 1974 and then Jane's 1974-75 says Arromanches was deleted in 1974.

It was the same story with De Grasse. It's in one edition of Jane's with no indication that it's about to be retired and gone in the next edition.

This makes me think that if PH75 was intended to replace Arromanches why wasn't she kept in service until 1980, which in the first half of the 1970s was the planned completion date of PH75 and was also the year when her construction was deferred for the second time.

What was the reason for her early retirement? My guess is that the ship was discovered to be worn out or more likely she was paid off for financial reasons. The Oil Crisis began the year before so she might have been one of the victims of a French equivalent to the British Mason Defence Review of 1974-75.

@Archibald do you know anything about the premature demise of Arromanches that I don't know?
 
I don't remember this being asked before and haven't checked the thread to see if it has.

Does swapping France with the UK mean that the latter doesn't sell 2 Type 42 destroyers to Argentina and in their place the former sells 2 Masurca armed destroyers to Argentina instead?

Does it also mean that France doesn't sell Super Etendards, 3 A69 corvettes and Exocet missiles to Argentina? What do the British sell in their place. I was going to say Buccaneers and Martels in place of the Super Etendards and AM39 Exocets but I doubt that the Argentine aircraft carrier could cope with the Buccaneer.
NOMISRRUC
If the swap is UK with france
Why not the Our can not buy the Type 42 for the Navy.
Of course, we have not SUE or the A69, and Exocet.
See my post 41 / 64 and 71. There i do the changes in our aerial equipment, that demand this swap
alejandrogrossi

I have some real life to do which prevents me from answering your questions and reading your posts.

However, I have elaborated on the post that you've quoted later in the thread. The information in those posts may or may not answer your questions. I'm not being sarcastic, I've not looked through them to check, because of the real life that I mentioned earlier.
 
Interesting thread. I've actually had to explain the Falklands War to Canadians by asking the question: 'Would Canada be justified in invading St.Pierre and Miquelon?' Now there's an interesting scenario...
 
Not much. Except that Arromanches retirement and PH75 / plan bleu decision were close in time: october and november 1973.
Arromanches was veeeery old and would not have lasted much longer. Not with the oil shock plus penny pinching Giscard. Seems they threw Arromanches under a bus as soon as PH75 was defined enough... but not fund or build.
By 1970-72 PH75 was mere paper studies so no surprise Jane has nothing (maybe we should ask Tarzan or Cheetah ?)

Maybe the helo carrier was Jeanne d'arc while Arromanches was counted as carrier ?
 
@Archibald a quick one before I do the real life.

Chesneau (writing in 1983) said that four PH75 were originally planned and later reduced to two on grounds of cost. It was still a "live project" which was currently designated PA83.

He also wrote that PA83 was to be complemented by a pair of 35,000 nuclear powered fleet carriers designated PA88, that were first mooted in 1979 and officially announced in September 1980.

So if he was correct the plan in 1983 was two 35,000 ton nuclear powered fixed-wing ships to replace Clemenceau & Foch and two nuclear powered helicopter carriers of about half that size.

I'll write a post with the full details after I've done the real life.
 
Good luck with real life. Today mine has became a whole load of hell and shit. Hopefully tomorrow will be better.

It is very possible the Arromanches PH75 replacement & Clems PA75 replacement separated requirements overlapped beyond september 23 1980 when Giscard went for the PA rather than the PH. Change in priorities... but Arromanches wasn't 100% replaced until the Mistral 30 years later. Just like Albion & Bulwark vs HMS Ocean.
 
Note that PA75 studies, 1980-1986 came in different sizes and capabilities - and some were angled with catapults PH75 variants.
The ships designs and requirement certainly overlapped along the years. A bit like the SCS VSS CVV studies the french considered many options before going for the larger ones.
 
And just in case you need a French Murdoch asshole and press mogul (unfortunately) for a GOTCHA headline - France closest analogy (anal - is kind of appropriate for that kind of mogul)
I can readily see that moron pulling a similar headline, something like "vlan dans ta gueule, Argentine".
Who would be the equivalents of Brian Hanrahan and Michael Nicholson who covered the war for BBCTV and ITN respectively?

Je ne suis pas autorisé à dire combien d'avions ont rejoint le raid, mais je les ai tous comptés et je les ai tous comptés.

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0cWCDHD4oFc
 
I don't remember this being asked before and haven't checked the thread to see if it has.

Does swapping France with the UK mean that the latter doesn't sell 2 Type 42 destroyers to Argentina and in their place the former sells 2 Masurca armed destroyers to Argentina instead?

Does it also mean that France doesn't sell Super Etendards, 3 A69 corvettes and Exocet missiles to Argentina? What do the British sell in their place. I was going to say Buccaneers and Martels in place of the Super Etendards and AM39 Exocets but I doubt that the Argentine aircraft carrier could cope with the Buccaneer.
NOMISRRUC
If the swap is UK with France
Why not the Our can not buy the Type 42 for the Navy.
Of course, we have not SUE or the A69, and Exocet.
See my post 41 / 64 and 71. There I do the changes in our aerial equipment, that demand this swap.
Should your second sentence be? Why can't Argentina buy the Type 42 for the Navy?
And the third sentence be? Of course we do not have SUE [Super Etendard] or the A69 and Exocet.

My thinking was that, as the thread is swap the UK with France as Argentina's opponent, should the British equipment that the Argentines had in the Falklands be substituted with French equipment as well? And vice versa, that is, should the French equipment that the Argentines used be substituted with British equipment?

That's:
  • The pair of Type 42 destroyers ordered in 1970 plus the second-hand Canberras (that I didn't remember until writing this reply) from Britain.
  • And the 3 A69 corvettes, 14 Super Etendards, Exocet missiles and the Mirage IIIs (you mentioned in Post 41 that I forgot about) from France.
I'm going to write separate posts about your Posts 41, 64 and 71.
 
I don't remember this being asked before and haven't checked the thread to see if it has.

Does swapping France with the UK mean that the latter doesn't sell 2 Type 42 destroyers to Argentina and in their place the former sells 2 Masurca armed destroyers to Argentina instead?

Does it also mean that France doesn't sell Super Etendards, 3 A69 corvettes and Exocet missiles to Argentina? What do the British sell in their place. I was going to say Buccaneers and Martels in place of the Super Etendards and AM39 Exocets but I doubt that the Argentine aircraft carrier could cope with the Buccaneer.
NOMISRRUC
If the swap is UK with France
Why not the Our can not buy the Type 42 for the Navy.
Of course, we have not SUE or the A69, and Exocet.
See my post 41 / 64 and 71. There I do the changes in our aerial equipment, that demand this swap
From Post 41.
So the only aircraft that can change is the M-III.
As the Sea Vixen FAW.2 was retired in 1972, maybe we can changes the Mirage.
So the time of the war, no Mirage III, 19 Sea Vixen FAW.2 (if we don´t lose any by accidents).
Argentina also bought a total of 14 Canberras. The first order for 12 bombers and 2 trainers was in May 1970 and the second order for 2 was in 1981. The only French substitutes that I can think of is the Sud Vatour. I think @Archibald will be able to say whether they'd be suitable and if any former AA aircraft were for sale.

I think Argentina wouldn't want to buy Sea Vixens even if they were for sale. However, if they had the FAA would be buying aircraft from the FAA! (Fuerza Aérea Argentina from the Fleet Air Arm.)

The closest British substitute to the Mirage III is the Lightning and this is easy peasy.

According to the Putnams English Electric Aircraft and their Predecessors by Stephen Ranson and Robert Fairclough [Pages 260 and 261] BAC undertook an extensive Lightning sales campaign in 1967 in many part of the world, but particularly in the Middle East and South America. It continued.
No orders were received, however, for a variety of reasons. French and American aircraft proved to be tough competitors and political and economic factors also weighed heavily against the Lightning and proved decisive in several sales competitions. By 1970, however, sales prospects were seen to be diminishing and around the end of the year, Lightning production facilities started to be reallocated to other work. Only one replacement Saudi F.53 remained to be completed, most of the work on this aircraft being done at Samlesbuy, as the assembly jigs had been removed from the Strand Road factory.
This aircraft was delivered in September 1972.

Therefore, it's perfectly feasible for the Argentine Government to buy 12 Lightnings in May 1970 and for BAC to deliver them in 1972.

They could also supply 56 Lightnings in place of the Mirage IIIs and Nasher/Daggers purchased 1977-80 and delivered from 1979. I think they'd all be refurbished second-hand aircraft which would be ex-RAF aircraft retired after they were replaced by the Phantom in the middle 1970s and the 14 ex-Kuwait aircraft withdrawn in 1977 and bought by what was now British Aerospace with the intention of refurbishing and selling them. British Aerospace also acquired 22 ex-Saudi Lightnings for the same purpose but that wasn't until 1986.

Although the RAF Lightning was a pure interceptor, the export version built for Kuwait and Saudi Arabian was a multi-role fighter, ground attack and reconnaissance machine. The 12 aircraft ordered in 1970 would be built to the export standard, the ex-RAF aircraft would be rebuilt to that standard and the ex-Kuwaiti aircraft were built to that standard in the first place.

That's a grand total of 68 Lightnings (12 new and 56 second-hand) instead of 19 new Mirage IIIs and 49 second-hand Nesher/Daggers.

The 56 aircraft delivered instead of the second Mirage order and the Nesher/Dagger might be modified to fire Sky Flash missiles instead of keeping their Red Tops.
 
Last edited:
I don't remember this being asked before and haven't checked the thread to see if it has.

Does swapping France with the UK mean that the latter doesn't sell 2 Type 42 destroyers to Argentina and in their place the former sells 2 Masurca armed destroyers to Argentina instead?

Does it also mean that France doesn't sell Super Etendards, 3 A69 corvettes and Exocet missiles to Argentina? What do the British sell in their place. I was going to say Buccaneers and Martels in place of the Super Etendards and AM39 Exocets but I doubt that the Argentine aircraft carrier could cope with the Buccaneer.
NOMISRRUC
If the swap is UK with france
Why not the Our can not buy the Type 42 for the Navy.
Of course, we have not SUE or the A69, and Exocet.
See my post 41 / 64 and 71. There i do the changes in our aerial equipment, that demand this swap
Your Post 64.
The Argentine Navy had two task groups. One based on De Mayo with A4s (perhaps SHars or AV8 in this timeline). The other based on Belgrano. Each would have had a Seadart equipped T42 (Trinidad and Hercules). Given UK support a couple of T42 might have been added plus T21 or Mk 10 frigates instead of the ex S African A69s. An ex RFA like Chile one of the Tide class.
Scorpion family including 90mm another possibility along with 105mm light gun and Rapier instead of Roland.
UK built Jaguar Mk50s perhaps like Ecuador and cancelled S50 Buccaneers from S Africa.
If Nott in UK you might add Invincible, Fearless and Intrepid to Argentine Navy but only if action takes place in 1983 (NATO saved F and I in our timeline before 1982)
uk75
May 1ts 1982
Buccaneer S50 cancelled with SAAF (which was the date?)
Past 1976 we can not purchase any aircraft for Europe and US - embargo- (see my post 41)
Maybe in 1972 we can buy the Sea Vixen FAW.2 at the time of her withdraw.
By that time maybe some Buccaneer S1 (no the best option) in replace of the IAI DAgger
The SAAF ordered 16 Buccaneers (plus an option for another 14) on 11.10.62 and (except for one which crashed near the Canary Islands on 31.10.65) were delivered in 1965-66 . The First Wilson Government (1964-70) which had allowed Hawker Siddeley to deliver the aircraft ordered by the previous government would not allow the Firm to accept follow up orders or to build a replacement for the aircraft that crashed on its delivery flight.

Having written that the Buccaneer was in production until 1977 and Argentines bought 2 second-hand Canberras from British Aerospace in 1981. Therefore, Argentina could have bought Buccaneers instead of Daggers because it was still being built and as the British Government was prepared to sell Canberras to Argentina I don't see the the British Government having any moral objections about selling Buccaneers in place of the Daggers (or the Lightnings referred to in Post 252 for that matter). Also they allowed the Argentine Type 42 destroyer being built by Vickers to be delivered in 1976 and for British firms to supply equipment for the second Type 42 which was built in Argentina and completed in 1981.

However, considering the state of the Argentine economy at the time, Dennis Healy the then Chancellor of the Exchequer, would insist on payment in corned beef and footballers rather than Argentine Pesos.*

Although I originally poo pooed the idea of Argentina buying Sea Vixens from the second-hand market it might be better than the Mirage III because it could carry 4 heavy AAMs and I suspect that it had a much greater range.

*Payment in footballers is a reference to Tottingham Hotspur buying Osvaldo Ardiles and Ricardo Villa in 1978. At the time it was uncommon for English football clubs to buy players who weren't from the British Isles.

See below for the reason behind the deliberate misspelling of Tottenham.
Ironically, Ardiles didn't score in the match or the replay, but Villa scored a goal in the replay.
 
Last edited:
I don't remember this being asked before and haven't checked the thread to see if it has.

Does swapping France with the UK mean that the latter doesn't sell 2 Type 42 destroyers to Argentina and in their place the former sells 2 Masurca armed destroyers to Argentina instead?

Does it also mean that France doesn't sell Super Etendards, 3 A69 corvettes and Exocet missiles to Argentina? What do the British sell in their place. I was going to say Buccaneers and Martels in place of the Super Etendards and AM39 Exocets but I doubt that the Argentine aircraft carrier could cope with the Buccaneer.
NOMISRRUC
If the swap is UK with france
Why not the Our can not buy the Type 42 for the Navy.
Of course, we have not SUE or the A69, and Exocet.
See my post 41 / 64 and 71. There i do the changes in our aerial equipment, that demand this swap
Your Post 71.
Quoting the outline of the scenario. Bolded text by me.
So in this scenario lets assume the following:
1. The islands remained French this whole time rather than British. This alternate colony is roughly the same size as what the British had there in reality at that time
2. Aside from that, the rest of history remained the same. Argentina split from Spain. WW1 and 2 happened
3. Rather than acquiring French aircraft such as Mirages and Super Entendards.. the Argentines bought British instead (also works with their carrier!). However the war still happens in 1982. Like how the French worked with the British, the British work with the French in this scenario.
Zen
I replace the M-III (buy in 1970) by buying the Sea vixen FAW.2 at the time her withdraw
No SUE in 1979. I her replace Sea harrier FRS.1.
I keep the A-4 (received 1966-71 air Force and Naval)
I chose to swap the Dagger for S50.
But looking that Canberra (12) was received at the beginning of the 1970s, I chose swap her by the Buccaneer.
And in 1978/79 buy the IAI Nesher/Dagger
So at the time of the war...
Air Force: 12 S50 / 19 Sea Vixen FAW.2 /A-4
COAN: 8 A-4Q (historical) and 5 Sea Harrier (same number us we have SUE at the time of the war)
All perfectly feasible.
  • 19 Sea Vixens for 19 Mirages - feasible - although I'd do 19 Lightnings.
  • 14 Sea Harriers for 14 Super Etendards - feasible.
  • Keep the A-4s - I agree.
  • 49 Buccaneers for 49 Daggers - feasible - although I'd do 49 Lightinings.
  • 12 Buccaneers for the 12 Canberras purchased in 1970 - feasible - plus 2 ex-RAF aircraft for the Canberras purchased in 1981 - although I'd do Vatours as we're exchanging French aircraft for British and vice versa.
 
Last edited:
That's a reply to helmutkohl

All I did was bold some text that was of relevance.
 
A-4:
Fro wiki: "Argentina was the first foreign user of the Skyhawk and had nearly 130 A-4s delivered since 1965. The Argentine Air Force received 25 A-4Bs in 1966 and another 25 in 1970, all refurbished in the United States by Lockheed Service Co. prior to their delivery as A-4P, although they were still locally known as A-4B. They had three weapon pylons and served in the 5th Air Brigade (Spanish: V Brigada Aérea). In 1976, 25 A-4Cs were ordered to replace the F-86 Sabres still in service in the 4th Air Brigade (Spanish: IV Brigada Aérea). They were received as is and refurbished to flight status by Air Force technicians at Río Cuarto, Córdoba. The C model had five weapon pylons and could use AIM-9B Sidewinder air-to-air missiles"
"The Argentine Naval Aviation also bought the Skyhawk known as A-4Q in the form of 16 A-4Bs plus two for spare parts[citation needed], which unlike the Air Force's A-4Ps, were powered by 8,400 lbf (40 kN) J-65-W-20 engines and fitted to use Sidewinder air-to-air missiles. They were received in 1971 to be used mainly from the aircraft carrier ARA Veinticinco de Mayo by the 3rd Fighter/Attack Squadron (Spanish: 3ra Escuadrilla Aeronaval de Caza y Ataque)."
How did you arrive at your total of nearly 130 Skyhawks?

In the above there are 25 + 25 + 25 = 75 for the FAA and 16 for the Naval Aviation = 91.

This website says it was 75 Air Force + 16 Navy = 91 too.

This is a quote from the above.
During the Falklands/Malvinas war, the FAA still had 20 operational A-4Ps with the IV Brigade Aerea at El Plumerillo and 26 with the V Brigade Aerea at Villa Reynolds, while the 3rd Escuadrilla Aeronaval de Caza y Ataque, Comando, de Aviacion Naval (CANA) had three A-4Qs at Puerto Belgrano and eight A-4Qs aboard the 25 de Mayo. The Skyhawks of the FAA and CANA carried out several gallant attacks against the British landing forces that were attempting to regain the Falklands. They were credited with sinking the HMS Ardent, HMS Antelope and HMS Coventry and they damaged several other Royal Navy ships. The Royal Navy losses might have been even heavier were it not for the improper fusing of many bombs dropped by the Skyhawks, many of which failed to explode when they struck British ships. The Skyhawks were often operating at the very limit of their range, and they were often without any fighter escort, and losses were heavy, with Sea Harriers, surface-to-air missiles, and various accidents resulting in the loss of 19 A-4Ps and 3 A-4Qs.
So the available force was 57 Skyhawks:
  • 20 A-4Ps with the IV Brigade Aerea at El Plumerillo.
  • 26 A-4Ps with the V Brigade Aerea at Villa Reynolds.
  • 11 A-4Qs with the 3rd Escuadrilla Aeronaval de Caza y Ataque, Comando, de Aviacion Naval (CANA) - 3 at Puerto Belgrano and 8 aboard the 25 de Mayo.
Of which, 22 aircraft (19 A-4Ps and 3 A-4Qs) were lost in combat and accidents.
 
Last edited:
Post 193 by me.
I don't remember this being asked before and haven't checked the thread to see if it has.

Does swapping France with the UK mean that the latter doesn't sell 2 Type 42 destroyers to Argentina and in their place the former sells 2 Masurca armed destroyers to Argentina instead?

Does it also mean that France doesn't sell Super Etendards, 3 A69 corvettes and Exocet missiles to Argentina? What do the British sell in their place. I was going to say Buccaneers and Martels in place of the Super Etendards and AM39 Exocets but I doubt that the Argentine aircraft carrier could cope with the Buccaneer.
I should have read the Opening Post before going off on this tangent. Viz.
So in this scenario lets assume the following:
1. The islands remained French this whole time rather than British. This alternate colony is roughly the same size as what the British had there in reality at that time
2. Aside from that, the rest of history remained the same. Argentina split from Spain. WW1 and 2 happened
3. Rather than acquiring French aircraft such as Mirages and Super Entendards.. the Argentines bought British instead (also works with their carrier!). However the war still happens in 1982. Like how the French worked with the British, the British work with the French in this scenario.
This time it's me emboldening the text that was of relevance and not @zen. See Post 254 and 255.
 
Interesting thread. I've actually had to explain the Falklands War to Canadians by asking the question: 'Would Canada be justified in invading St.Pierre and Miquelon?' Now there's an interesting scenario...
The Dominion in the North threatened to invade the Islands in 1941.
12.12.41 - Canada - De Gaulle orders Admiral Muselier to prepare Free French Naval Force in Halifax to begin preparations for the liberation of Saint Pierre et Miquelon. Muselier notifies Canadians and the American Embassy in Ottawa of his orders. Washington attempts to halt the mission and Canada announces its intention to land its own troops on the islands to prevent Axis use of the island’s radio transmitter. De Gaulle orders Muselier to proceed with all due speed.
Source: http://worldatwar.net/timeline/france/empire40-45.html

And this is the page about St.Pierre and Miquelon on the same website.
 
Too few Vautours left: barely 140 build, Israel swooped most of them after 1958, leaving only a handful of them to the french- for a few squadrons at BA 106 Bordeaux Merignac. They lasted until 1970 in Israel and 1978 at Bordeaux.
 
Super Etendards anf F-8 were highly maneuverable in a way Mirage was not. If anyone is suggesting Lightnings and Buccaneers dogfighting F-8's and Super Etendards favored the former, its a bit misguided. Buccaneers were good for low level sea level sprints, but they weren't dogfighters and lacked power for sustained turns. Lightnings couldn't reach the island with any useful fuel to put up a fight, so F-8's would have run them down during egress.

The Buccaneers were bigger radar targets. The thin fuselage and low wing of A-4 made them natural for sea skimming. Buccaneer would have been a smoother ride, but a much more significant radar reflector. Argentina was better off with A-4's for attacking ships. The Buccanneer offered more payload but no qualitative edge in effective delivery.

The French would also have Clemenceau and Foch available in 1982. That alone is a qualitative edge over the British through-deck carriers. Angled decks and better fleet support from their complement of aircraft. Their defenses were better at fending off attacks by fighters during ingress. Unfortunately, they didn't have a HMS Hermes equivalent, so no equivalent AEW. Masurca, like Sea Dart, would have been inadequate against sea skimmers.
 
Super Etendards and F-8 were highly manoeuvrable in a way Mirage was not. If anyone is suggesting Lightnings and Buccaneers dogfighting F-8's and Super Etendards favoured the former, its a bit misguided. Buccaneers were good for low level sea level sprints, but they weren't dogfighters and lacked power for sustained turns. Lightnings couldn't reach the island with any useful fuel to put up a fight, so F-8's would have run them down during egress.
I don't believe that anyone has suggested Buccaneers dogfighting F-8s and Super Etendards. It isn't a fighter for one thing.

It has been suggested (by me) that Lightnings be procured instead of Mirages and Daggers, which couldn't reach the island with any useful fuel to put up a fight either. So no change there.
The Buccaneers were bigger radar targets. The thin fuselage and low wing of A-4 made them natural for sea skimming. Buccaneer would have been a smoother ride, but a much more significant radar reflector. Argentina was better off with A-4's for attacking ships. The Buccaneer offered more payload but no qualitative edge in effective delivery.
Your points are irrelevant as neither myself or @alejandrogrossi has suggested Buccaneers instead Skyhawks. My suggestion was French Vatours instead of the Canberras and his suggestion was Buccaneers instead of Canberras.

The Buccaneer was designed for the low-level under-the-radar attack profile, which amongst other things allowed it to perform spectacularly at Red Flag, if I remember correctly. So I put it to you that the aircraft had the qualitative edge over Skyhawk in effective delivery.
The French would also have Clemenceau and Foch available in 1982. That alone is a qualitative edge over the British through-deck carriers. Angled decks and better fleet support from their complement of aircraft. Their defences were better at fending off attacks by fighters during ingress. Unfortunately, they didn't have a HMS Hermes equivalent, so no equivalent AEW. Masurca, like Sea Dart, would have been inadequate against sea skimmers.
If you'd read the thread you'd have know that it has already been established that they were better than Hermes and Invincible or at least they were on paper. It had also been established that both of them were available in 1982. However, there might not have been enough aircraft to provide full-strength air groups for both ships and one of them might have had to carry a third flight of Super Etendards vice the Crusader flight due to a shortage of the latter aircraft.

You'd also have read that the French Alizé (10 aboard each French carrier when their air groups were at full-strength) could do AEW as well as ASW. Furthermore, the AEW Sea King didn't enter service with the Royal Navy until after the Falklands. So it was the other way around, i.e. the British didn't have a Clemenceau equivalent, so no equivalent AEW.

The French had 3 ships armed with Mascura, 3 ships armed with Standard SM-1 MR and 6 armed with Crotale. I wanted to start a discussion what the advantages and disadvantages of these systems in relation to their British equivalents, but I was distracted.

I particularly wanted to discuss how good or bad the French air surveillance radars were compared to the British Type 965 and Type 1022, especially the radars inside the "Kojak" style domes on Suffren and Duquesnse. I've read that the Sea Darts on Exeter and Invincible performed better because they had the Type 1022 radar and the other Sea Dart armed ships had the Type 965.
 
Too few Vautours left: barely 140 build, Israel swooped most of them after 1958, leaving only a handful of them to the French- for a few squadrons at BA 106 Bordeaux Merignac. They lasted until 1970 in Israel and 1978 at Bordeaux.
As far as I know 36 Vatour IIB were used by the Force de Frappe until the Mirage IV replaced them. If that's correct and they weren't scrapped straight away there should have been more than enough left to to provide the 12 I want sold to Argentina in place of the Canberras.

How did the Vatour compare to the Canberra in terms of capability?
 
Faster and more agile, swept wings instead of straight. Antiquated avionics, comparable bombload and range.
 
Maybe the Vautours were used as trainers but officially the force de frappe was activated on October 1, 1964 at Mont de Marsan air base with Mirage IVA.
What I still don't know if whether the Vautours were ever wired to carry AN-11 / 21 / 22 / 52 free fall nukes. I do know that they had a lot of secondary, support roles for the Mirage IVAs and FDF.
- one was turned into a tanker, but C-135FR got the job instead
- two seat bomber trainers, but Mirage IIIB were a tad more realistic and longer lived
- ECM (not wild weasel, just jammers: until 1978 in Bordeaux, replaced by Jaguars and Mirage IIIE also with jammers, and AS-37s)


EB 1/92 BourgogneBR35 BR7 Vautour IIBMérignac (2)
EB 2/92 Aquitaine4B3 2.I/25 =Mérignac (2)

Sont tous deux fondus dans la 92ème escadre le 01/09/74

The Vautour role as a "backup" to the Mirage IVA in many roles was after 1965 fulfilled by Jaguars and Mirage IIIs. Sud Aviation was told to forget it, Dassault had now an iron grip on combat aircraft not even Breguet could shake. But they did proposed a massive update with Spey and top list avionics and pointy nose, to Israel as Tsikklon. Dassault however steamrolled that with successive offers for Mirage V, Mirage IV (15 of them, according to a recent book) and Mirage F2.

But had history turned otherwise, the Vautour might have got Atar 8s, better avionics from the Mirage IIIE (Cyrano radar series) and AS-37 Martels in that big bomb bay.
 
Last edited:
Faster and more agile, swept wings instead of straight. Antiquated avionics, comparable bomb load and range.
Maybe the Vautours were used as trainers but officially the force de frappe was activated on October 1, 1964 at Mont de Marsan air base with Mirage IVA.
NB. I started writing this before @Archibald added the information to Post 264.

I thought EB92 operated Vatour IIBs from 1958 to 1964 when they were replaced by Mirage IVs

However, when I checked my source (http://www.traditions-air.fr/index.htm) I discovered that the Vatours remained in service with EB92 until 1974 and the Mirage IV was operated by EB91, EB93 and EB94 that were formed 1964-67.

So it looks like no Vatour IIB bombers were for sale in 1970. Therefore, it's stick to the Canberra or buy the Buccaneer as suggested by @alejandrogrossi.
 
The Vautour role as a "backup" to the Mirage IVA in many roles was after 1965 fulfilled by Jaguars and Mirage IIIs. Sud Aviation was told to forget it, Dassault had now an iron grip on combat aircraft not even Breguet could shake. But they did proposed a massive update with Spey and top list avionics and pointy nose, to Israel as Tsikklon. Dassault however steamrolled that with successive offers for Mirage V, Mirage IV (15 of them, according to a recent book) and Mirage F2.
When did Dassault offer 15Mirage IVs to Israel? Do you know if they were new or refurbished airframes?
 
Well I've red this very recently on this forum by one member who had read a recent book about the Mirage IVA. But for crap sake I can't find the post any more. We have to call the french musketeers to the rescue.
@Deltafan
@alanqua
@MIRAGE 4000
From the top of my head, it is one among those three gentleman...
 
Faster and more agile, swept wings instead of straight. Antiquated avionics, comparable bomb load and range.
Maybe the Vautours were used as trainers but officially the force de frappe was activated on October 1, 1964 at Mont de Marsan air base with Mirage IVA.
NB. I started writing this before @Archibald added the information to Post 264.

I thought EB92 operated Vatour IIBs from 1958 to 1964 when they were replaced by Mirage IVs

However, when I checked my source (http://www.traditions-air.fr/index.htm) I discovered that the Vatours remained in service with EB92 until 1974 and the Mirage IV was operated by EB91, EB93 and EB94 that were formed 1964-67.

So it looks like no Vatour IIB bombers were for sale in 1970. Therefore, it's stick to the Canberra or buy the Buccaneer as suggested by @alejandrogrossi.

Yes I checked and now I have a clearer vision of the Vautours (Vulturs) in French service.

There were three variants: the A (for attack) the B (bomber) and the N (night fighter) .

Main difference:
- the A had plenty of guns in a solid nose to demolish ground targets by straffing - IDF/AF excelled at this.
- the B had a bomb bay to do the same except with gravity bombs, with a glazed nose and a navigator and a NORDEN.
- the N was an all weather / night fighter and a two man crew in a tandem canopy - so solid nose with guns like the A.

What exactly happened is the following.

The Vautour A, the Armée de l'Air did not gave a rat about it - straffing with guns was not their thing. So they were dumped to the Israelis, who did wonders against the Arabs this way.

The Vautour N ended screwed by the Mirage IIIC, IIIE, F1 Mach 2 all weather (or partially) interceptors. And so the N were also dumped to Israel, who used them to chase Il-28s and Tu-16s at night - before 1962 when they received 60 Mirage III-C. After what the Vautours were recycled into a mixed A&B role: gravity bombs into the runways first, then straffing of arab aircraft. And they were damn efficient in that role, flying as far as Luxor on one engine to save fuel (!) before taking the poor egyptians there with their pants down.

This left only the Vautour B with the glazed Tu-16 like nose, navigator and NORDEN in French service, this for a pretty stupid reason. The Armée de l'Air saw it as a jet powered A-26 Invader or B-26 Marauder - they had used both aircraft from 1943 (free french) to 1963 (Algeria brush war). So they put a NORDEN bombsight into the Vautour B and a navigator in the nose and also gravity bombs, and used a near supersonic jet that way. From medium altitudes, like a WWII light bomber.

When the Israelis first batch of pilots came to France for initial Vautour training in spring 1958 and saw that, they were pretty baffled and aghast. As soon as the Vautours were ferried across the Mediterranean sea via Corsica, the Israeli developed their own tactics I mentionned above.

If you want to use gravity bombs on a Vautour, use them to thunder at low level, take the target with its pants down and to crater the runway first - large and impossible to miss target. Then turn back and use the four 30 mm guns to straffe the shit out of any parked aircraft.

But go tell that to the Armée de l'Air. Even more in the age of supersonic and pointy and nuclear Mirage IV. Sounds familiar ? TSR-2 versus Buccaneer, and the RAF miseries 1958-1968 (they staunchly refused the Buccaneer fifth times in a row, yet they got it in the end - muhahahahaha !!!)

So the few remaining Vautours, all of them B- models of the dumb gravity bombs and NORDEN kind, ended at BA-106 Bordeaux Merignac, in two squadrons: 1/92 and 2/92. By 1974 the two squadrons merged into just one 92 squadron, which was disbanded late 1978 putting an end to 20 years of obscure Vautour service in France.

That 92 squadron(s) did all kind of obscure but useful missions in support of the Mirage IVA, because the Vautour was the one and only with enough range to follow them... or go further. It trained pilots to aerial refueling, as a tanker with a Mirage IV trailing it or in reverse - trailing a C-135FR.
It also trained pilots to two seat fast bombers flying long range and low level because, once again, only the Vautour could do that.

But the Bordeaux Merignac 92 squadron also had a peculiar mission: electronic warfare. Jamming of Soviet radars to create a breach and allow the Mirage IV to cross into the Eastern block and then proceed to Moscow and nuke the place. They were not wild weasel, just jammers. Wild weasel came to France with the AS-37 Martel, but Vautours were too old and slow: Mirage IIIE and Jaguars got the big missiles instead (and they were damn heavy, particularly for the Adour 102 Jaguars).

That mission was called CHIPIRON, because of the cuttlefish Basque seafood dish (don't ask me why)

The Vautour electronic warfare missions was not different from similar Canberra, Skywarrior or Il-28 variants. All four aircraft were rather similar overall. Also the Yak-25s and Yak-28s, which truly looked like Vautourskis or Vautourov.

For the IDF/AF it took Phantoms after 1969 to replace the Vautours as their long range strike arm - nowadays assumed by the F-15I. Before the Phantoms escort to the Entebbe C-130s in 1976 and the F-15 over Osirak in 1981, the Vautours truly pioneered those kind of long range strikes.

During the 6-days war they completed the destruction of the Egyptian air force by going where no Mirage or Mystere could go: Luxor.
The baffled Egyptians had moved their surviving Migs and Il-28 to the south, hopefully out of reach of IDF/AF supersonic jet fleet.
With no aerial refueling, and with just one engine to save fuel. On the return trip one damaged Vautour liped back to Eilat backward airstrip at the southern tip of Israel. Just when it touched down, the engine stopped, dry of fuel. The pilot could just wheel down and stop.
 
Last edited:
Vautour and nuclear weapons.

Early free fall A-bombs came in two flavors.

AN-11, AN-21 & AN-22 were strategic weapons for the Mirage IVA, developed and fielded in the 1960's.

From them was derived the more compact AN-52: a tactical nuke that found its way on the Jaguars and Mirage IIIE in the early 1970's.

AFAIK no other aircraft was wired to carry these free fall bombs. The Etendard IVM could not drag that weapon - it took the Super Etendard to carry ASMP in the 1980's.

This leaves the case of the Vautour as a nuclear bomber - either with the Mirage IV strategic nuke, or with the IIIE & Jaguar AN-52 weapon.

TBH, I can't find a valid source confirming or denying the Vautour could carry AN-11 / 21 / 22. AN-52 probably came too late, and since the Jags and Mirages already had it, I doubt Vautours near retirement ever got it.
 
I don't remember this being asked before and haven't checked the thread to see if it has.

Does swapping France with the UK mean that the latter doesn't sell 2 Type 42 destroyers to Argentina and in their place the former sells 2 Masurca armed destroyers to Argentina instead?

Does it also mean that France doesn't sell Super Etendards, 3 A69 corvettes and Exocet missiles to Argentina? What do the British sell in their place. I was going to say Buccaneers and Martels in place of the Super Etendards and AM39 Exocets but I doubt that the Argentine aircraft carrier could cope with the Buccaneer.
NOMISRRUC
If the swap is UK with France
Why not the Our can not buy the Type 42 for the Navy.
Of course, we have not SUE or the A69, and Exocet.
See my post 41 / 64 and 71. There I do the changes in our aerial equipment, that demand this swap.
Should your second sentence be? Why can't Argentina buy the Type 42 for the Navy?
And the third sentence be? Of course we do not have SUE [Super Etendard] or the A69 and Exocet.

My thinking was that, as the thread is swap the UK with France as Argentina's opponent, should the British equipment that the Argentines had in the Falklands be substituted with French equipment as well? And vice versa, that is, should the French equipment that the Argentines used be substituted with British equipment?

That's:
  • The pair of Type 42 destroyers ordered in 1970 plus the second-hand Canberras (that I didn't remember until writing this reply) from Britain.
  • And the 3 A69 corvettes, 14 Super Etendards, Exocet missiles and the Mirage IIIs (you mentioned in Post 41 that I forgot about) from France.
I'm going to write separate posts about your Posts 41, 64 and 71.
I've done the aircraft. Now the surface warships!

In the "real world" Argentina purchased the following destroyers, frigates and corvettes between 1970 and 1980.
  • 2 British Type 42 destroyers were ordered on 18.05.70. ARA Hercules built by Vickers at Barrow was laid down on 16.06.71, launched on 24.10.72 and completed on 10.05.76. ARA Santísima Trinidad built in Argentina by AFNE was laid down on 11.10.71, launched on 09.11.74 and completed in July 1981. Their entry in Conway's 1947-95 (from which I got the dates) says that Santísima Trinidad was sabotaged by terrorists on 22.08.75. Did that contribute to its exceedingly long construction time of nearly 10 years?
  • 6 German MEKO360H2 frigates were ordered from Blohm & Voss on 11.12.78, but this was reduced to 4 ships which were laid down 1980-81 and completed 1983-84. These ships had the same Olympus-Tyne CODOG machinery as the 2 Type 42 destroyers.
  • 3 French A69 corvettes joined the fleet 1978-81. The first 2 were ordered by South Africa, but delivered was prevented by the UN arms embargo adopted on 04.11.77. They were purchased by Argentina on 25.09.78 and delivered on 02.11.78. The third ship ordered by Argentina, was laid down on 01.12.78, launched on 28.06.80 and completed on 22.06.81.
  • 6 German MEKO140 corvettes were ordered from AFNE on 02.10.80. The first 4 were laid down 1981-82 and completed 1985-90. The last 2 were laid down 1985-86 and completed 2000-04.
I wanted the pair of French guided missile destroyers ordered instead of the British Type 42s to be a hybrid of the French C70AS and C70AA. That is it would have the C70AS machinery of 2 Olympus gas turbines and 2 diesels in the CODOG configuration and the C70AA armament. Except that the ships would have "Mascura Junior" instead of the Mk 13 GMLS firing Standard MR missiles. "Masurca Junior" was the standard Mascura missile without the booster, which made it the French equivalent to Standard MR. The C70AA frigates built for France in this timeline would also be armed with "Mascura Junior" instead of the Mk 13 GMLS firing Standard SM-1 missiles removed from T47 destroyers that armed the ships in our timeline.

This resulted in Argentina ordering 6 C70AS frigates in 1978 in place of the 6 MEKO360H2 ships ordered in our timeline. One of the reasons why the French bid was successful was there was a great degree of standardisation with the C70AA frigates purchased instead of the Type 42s. Another reason was that in common with the C70AA order half the ships were to be built in France and the rest were to be built in Argentina by AFNE.

A trio of British Vosper-Thornycroft or Yarrow corvettes should have been acquired instead of the A69s. However, I decided that the Argentines would still buy 3 A69 and then order another 6 to be built by AFNE instead of the MEKO140s. However, the German corvettes were larger, faster and better armed so the 6 ships built instead of the MEKO140s might be a "Super A69" with a larger hull, more powerful engines for a higher maximum speed and the French equivalent of the MEKO140 armament.

There were two problems with that scenario which make it impossible.
  1. The C70 design wasn't ready in 1970. The first C70AS wasn't laid down until 1974 and the first C70AA wasn't laid down until 1982.
  2. "Mascura Junior" proved to be a figment of my imagination.
Therefore, the two ships ordered in 1970 would have to be built to the FLE60 design (Suffren class) with the result that the Argentines would still buy the MEKO frigates and corvettes. Argentina would still buy the 3 A69 frigates. This was because South African couldn't buy VT or Yarrow corvettes due to the British Government banning the sale of arms to South Africa in the 1960s.
 
Last edited:
As I've suggested the SAM issue is resolvable by AMCA. Which would have to evolve as ACLOS (Automatic Command Line of Sight).

This actually would be possible by combination of Real World AMCA and access to UKs MRS.5 computer by Elliots (a 5ton system in thd late 50's mostly used for gunnery computation).
And in turn this provides the solution the MN wanted in 1968 for Local Area Defence a.k a System C (coverage to 5nm against crossing targets) by which point the computer ought to drastically weigh less.
Cotral might be the casualty of such a process.
 
As I've suggested the SAM issue is resolvable by AMCA. Which would have to evolve as ACLOS (Automatic Command Line of Sight).

This actually would be possible by combination of Real World AMCA and access to UKs MRS.5 computer by Elliot's (a 5ton system in the late 50's mostly used for gunnery computation).
And in turn this provides the solution the MN wanted in 1968 for Local Area Defence a.k a System C (coverage to 5nm against crossing targets) by which point the computer ought to drastically weigh less.
Cotral might be the casualty of such a process.
Was AMCA an area defence SAM? What you're describing read's like a point defence SAM. Which doesn't resolve the issue.

The Argentine Type 42s were armed with Sea Dart an area defence SAM. Therefore, the French substitutes MUST be armed with an area defence SAM.

The only French area defence SAMs available in 1970 were Masurca which was real and the "Masurca Junior" which although made up by me is perfectly feasible.

Is Cotral a misspelling of Crotale?
 
Last edited:
Your Post 238 with the underlining by me.
However there was AMCA being Command Guidance. Cancelled in the late 50'sin favour of HAWK. Essentially a sort of larger Nord AS.37 as a short range defensive SAM.

Ironically had they got the UKs computer companies behind it, it could have been formidable.

And the Contrevenes series of SAMs leading upto Micron. Earlier versions did feature as options for export cruisers by UK firms.
A short range defensive SAM isn't fit for purpose, that is what is required is an area defence SAM to act as a substitute for Sea Dart.

Was AMCA British or French? I can't tell. The purpose of the thread is to swap British equipment for French and vice versa. It won't meet the requirements of the thread it if it's British because the British Sea Dart is being swapped for the British AMCA.
 
Furthermore, if the Argentines didn't need ships armed with an area defence SAM they'd buy the C67 (Tourville class) or C70AS both of which would be armed with Crotale instead of the British Type 42 destroyers.
 
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.
At the beginning of April 1982 Bulwark, Tiger and Blake were all still in Reserve. All were surveyed to see if they could be reactivated quickly.

Bulwark had suffered a boiler room fire in March 1980 which was never fully repaired before she went to Reserve. Her speed was reduced after that and it was simply accepted. She suffered another major fire this time in the forward hangar and several messdecks while tied up at Portsmouth later in 1980. Her wiring by then was in a poor material state. She paid off in March 1981. She was then used by the Royal Marines for demolition practice, which further reduced her already poor state. In May 1982 thoughts were given to reactivating her as an aircraft maintenance ship to be towed south if necessary. This was then seen as impractical. Sold for scrap in 1984. Hobbs “British Carrier Aviation”.

Tiger & Blake had both been placed on the Disposal List in 1979 but the only interest seems to have been from Chile in summer 1982 and that was short lived.

Tiger & Blake had been sent to the Standby Squadron at Chatham Naval Base in 1980. They were both surveyed in April 1982 with a view to reactivating them, and some work was begun because they were in a good material state. But by May it was expected the Falklands War would be over before that could be completed, and also the Belgrano effect, so work was stopped towards the end of May.

Blake was not sold for scrap until August 1982, leaving Chatham for Cairnryan on 29 Oct and arriving 7 Nov where scrapping began.

Tiger was finally sold for scrap in 1986.

Britain deployed 20 Victor K.2 for Operation Corporate and at least 9 Nimrod MR.1/2/2P. The air refuelling capability for Nimrod was very quickly developed in April 1982 at the outbreak of the Falklands War. They were operating from Ascension, Freetown & Dakar. That is something the Atlantique has never got. Given the ranges over which the MPA had to operate to the Falklands, I think the RAF had a very substantial advantage over the French Navy. Plus of course the deployment of a secretive Nimrod R.1 which also acquired a refuelling probe at some point.
 
Last edited:
I don't remember this being asked before and haven't checked the thread to see if it has.

Does swapping France with the UK mean that the latter doesn't sell 2 Type 42 destroyers to Argentina and in their place the former sells 2 Masurca armed destroyers to Argentina instead?

Does it also mean that France doesn't sell Super Etendards, 3 A69 corvettes and Exocet missiles to Argentina? What do the British sell in their place. I was going to say Buccaneers and Martels in place of the Super Etendards and AM39 Exocets but I doubt that the Argentine aircraft carrier could cope with the Buccaneer.
NOMISRRUC
If the swap is UK with France
Why not the Our can not buy the Type 42 for the Navy.
Of course, we have not SUE or the A69, and Exocet.
See my post 41 / 64 and 71. There I do the changes in our aerial equipment, that demand this swap.
Should your second sentence be? Why can't Argentina buy the Type 42 for the Navy?
And the third sentence be? Of course we do not have SUE [Super Etendard] or the A69 and Exocet.

My thinking was that, as the thread is swap the UK with France as Argentina's opponent, should the British equipment that the Argentines had in the Falklands be substituted with French equipment as well? And vice versa, that is, should the French equipment that the Argentines used be substituted with British equipment?

That's:
  • The pair of Type 42 destroyers ordered in 1970 plus the second-hand Canberras (that I didn't remember until writing this reply) from Britain.
  • And the 3 A69 corvettes, 14 Super Etendards, Exocet missiles and the Mirage IIIs (you mentioned in Post 41 that I forgot about) from France.
I'm going to write separate posts about your Posts 41, 64 and 71.
Argentine Aircraft Carriers

The sale of Arromanches to Argentina to give them a second aircraft carrier has been suggested in this thread. Not by you or I. However, it's worth examining.

Arromanches was retired in 1974, which was 3 years after the Argentines scrapped Independencia, which (when it was HMS Warrior) was refitted to a similar standard to Arromanches. As far as I know they were in the same material condition in 1971 so the Argentines would have kept Independencia if they wanted a second carrier. The only way that I can see Argentina buying Arromanches is to provide a source of spare parts for Veinticinco de Mayo

Furthermore, if France was prepared to sell Arromanches to Argentina in this timeline other countries would have been prepared to sell their aircraft carriers to Argentina too.

The Canadians might have sold Bonaventure to Argentina instead of having it broken up in 1970. Unlike Arromanches and Independencia she had a steam catapult and had recently completed the 1960s version of a SLEP refit.

Though the best ships available (and by coincidence the ones that best fit the sprit of the timeline) are Centaur and Hermes.
  • Centaur was paid off at the end of 1965 and used as an accommodation ship until 1970 but wasn't sold for scrap until 1972. It was newer, larger and faster than Karel Doorman. It also had 2 steam catapults to Karel Doorman's one. However, the Dutch ship's catapult had a longer shuttle run and may have been as powerful. Karel Doorman had a fully angled flight deck while Centaur only had a partially angled flight deck.
  • Hermes was paid off in 1970 and converted to a commando carrier 1971-73 when it replaced Albion. It was a far superior ship to Arromanches on account of it being newer, larger and faster. Both ships had interim angled flight decks, but before her conversion to a commando carrier Hermes had 2 steam catapults that could launch Buccaneers instead of the single hydraulic catapult on Arromanches.
Therefore, the best alternative for Argentina would be to buy Centaur and Hermes in 1968 instead of Karel Doorman and the proposed purchase of Arromanches.
  • Centaur would probably need a refit before it could be delivered to the Argentines. It's possible that this might include upgrading the ship to operate Buccaneers.
  • In common with our timeline, Hermes would remain in service with the Royal Navy until 1970, but it would then be transferred to Argentina. Her place in the Royal Navy after 1973 would be taken by Albion which would be run on until paid off in 1984 (instead of 1973) and possibly be sold to India afterwards.
Jane's 1982-83 said Veinticinco de Mayo had an air group of 18 fixed wing aircraft (Skyhawks and Trackers) and 4 helicopters (Sea Kings). However, it's been pointed out on another thread that she couldn't have put to sea with a full-strength air group due to attrition.
  • 11 Skyhawks were left out of the 16 purchased with 8 aboard the carrier and 3 ashore.
  • Of 6 S-2E in service only 5 were operational with only 4 deploying on the carrier at any one time.
  • Of 5 SH-3D in service in May 1982 only 3 were operational.
I think Centaur and Hermes could have carried 50% more aircraft of equivalent size to those operated by Veinticinco de Mayo and the Argentines would have bought 3 times as many aircraft to operate from them. However, attrition would have meant that these ships wouldn't have been able to put to sea with full-strength air groups either.
  • 33 Skyhawks would have been left out of the 48 purchased with 24 aboard the carriers and 9 ashore.
  • Of 18 S-2E in service only 15 would be operational with only 12 deploying on the carriers at any one time.
  • Of 15 SH-3D in service in May 1982, only 9 would be operational.
Except that another source I have says that the Argentines bought 6 S-2E Trackers in the 1960s and the 6 S-2E Trackers were delivered in 1978 and at least 3 of the S-2As were left in 1982 because they were deployed to BAN Río Grande in Tierra del Fuego when the S-2Es replaced them aboard the carrier.

All other things being equal the Argentines would have acquired 18 S-2A Trackers in the 1960s and 18 S-2E Trackers in 1978. However, I think it would have been 12 S-2A Trackers & 6 E-1A Tracers in the 1960s and 12 S-2E Tracers & 6 E-1B Tracers in 1978. Therefore, the two Argentine carriers would have had an AEW capability that the real carrier lacked.

Except I think the Argentines would have bought new Buccaneers, second-hand Sea Vixens and second-hand AEW Gannets to operate from the ships instead of Skyhawks, Trackers and Tracers.

According to Marriott in RN Aircraft Carriers 1945-1990 Centaur's final air group in RN service was 24 aircraft (12 Sea Vixens, 8 ASW helicopters and 4 AEW Gannets). However, the refit that she would have had before delivery to Argentina might have included increasing her carrying capacity to that of Hermes as well as upgrading the ship to operate Buccaneers.

According to seaforces.org it Hermes had an air group of 30 aircraft 1966-70 made up of 7 Buccaneers, 12 Sea Vixens, 5 Gannets (4 AEW and one COD) and 6 helicopters. However, Ballance, Howard & Sturtivant say that her Buccaneer squadron had 8 aircraft from 1966 to 1970 except for August 1968 to April 1969 when it was increased to 12 and none of the other squadrons were reduced.

Therefore, I think the two ships in Argentine service would have air groups of 36 aircraft made up of 12 Sea Vixens, 12 Buccaneers, 6 Gannets (4-5 AEW and 1-2 COD) and 6 helicopters. Except that by 1982 attrition probably meant that there weren't enough aircraft for 2 full-strength air groups.

This is a long way from what the thread's Opening Post asked and is more like a Contrive the best possible Argentine Navy in 1982 thread.
 
Last edited:
The Atlantique with only two turboprop has an helluvah long range and loitering time (14 hours) - although it is also very slow, as slow as a Belfast with the same Tynes.
 
You could twist the AU plot another way - Argentina could say "a pox on both your houses" and go cap in hand to Washington for MAP goodies.
Could have had F-104Gs or brand-new F-5Es for interception and some A-7s for strike roles alongside the Canberras. Plus that still enables the Navy to keep A-4s and Trackers and have some A-7s of its own for shore-based strike and maybe even some surplus F-8s. Maybe 6-7 Orions to replace the ageing Neptunes too. And if Washington had thrown some Harpoons into the sale then France's problems would be added too.

Sadly 1982 is too soon to pick up any US frigate disposals (didn't start until 88-89) but on paper the German-built fleet is actually one of the most modern in South America and if it had been completed in its entirety would have been pretty potent.
 
Part of Post 107 with one of the paragraphs underlined by me.
Replenishment fleet:

The 2 Durance replenishment tankers can shuttle back & forth every ~12 days, bringing each time ~10,000 tons of liquids, food for 6,000 men for 9 days, and 150t of munitions.

This should be enough to cover 80% of the ~CVBG’s oil & food needs, leading to a slow drawdown of the ships’ stores over 45 days of operations.

Additional liquids from 2 oilers (La Charente + Isère) should be sufficient to make up for the liquids shortfall, with each oiler making ~13 day shuttle runs and bringing ~15,000t oil each time.

Some of France’s merchant oiler fleet will be needed to bring fuel to the staging port, and ideally all the way into the staging area for at sea transfer. Some cargo ships with cranes should also be available to bring food and supplies.

So… based on the above I feel pretty confident that the carrier group could be supplied on station for the duration of the conflict. This is enough to gain sea control and air superiority and cut off the Argentine forces from resupply… ie. sufficient for strategic victory.

Next: let’s look at the supply situation for the invasion force to actually win on the ground.

These are the British and French merchant tanker fleets at 01.01.82

France had 109 tankers displacing more than 1,000 gross tons. They had a combined displacement of 7,304,000 gross tons and 13,881,000 deadweight tons. The average sizes were 67,000 gross tons and 127,350 deadweight tons.

The UK were 344 tankers displacing more than 1,000 gross tons. They had a combined displacement of 12,737,000 gross tons and 22,649,000 deadweight tons. The average sizes were 37,000 tons gross and 65,840 tons.

The source was:

Merchant Fleets of the World
Oceangoing Steam and Motor Ships of 1,000 Gross Tons and Over as of January 1, 1982
U.S. Department of Transportation
Elizabeth Hanford Dole
Maritime Administration
H.E. Shear
Administrator
Prepared by the Office of Trade Studies and Subsidy Contracts, Maritime Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation.

Which is available as a free download from Google Books.
 
Back
Top Bottom