Swap UK with France during the Falklands War.

[Archibald]

Would it be possible to fly a Lightning on just one engine to save fuel ? Lit the second one just to beat the Crusaders or run away.

And before laughing, consider the fact that Israeli pilots did exactly that with SO-4050 Vautours, flying from Eilat on just one engine - to bomb the crap out of Luxor air base - where unfortunate Egyptians thought the remains of their air force were out of reach... well, they were not.

 

[alejandrogrossi]

Us far I known, the UK, never refuels her Buccaner and Sea Vixen from KC-130.
They allways use the VC10/Victor/Tristar.
really i don know, the Kc-130 can do it (max speed vs stall speed of the all aircraft)
Yes que cand do that

 

[lordroel]

Indeed. If you wanna know, I'm not involved in that at all.
But I will still grab popcorn and enjoy the air and naval battles.

I haven't seen you show up, as of late and short of getting worried.

You evidently no clue about my very, very troubled relationship with AH.com and its moronic moderator team since, what, 2017 ? That bunch of idiots banned me, and since then, from time to time I play cat and mice with them.
It's been a while since my last try - and that thread has been a motivation to try again.
(evil, maniacal laugh)

Well be careful, the thread on AH.com seems to have gone silent, but that could be due to me, when i post in a thread, i sometime end up killing it with no responds afterwards.

 

[Archibald]

Yep I haven't posted anything so far. Will keep quiet. Just watch for a Roald Dahl character newcomer...

 

[Deleted member 2278]

Maybe call yourself "Breathing" so they'll even have Breathing banned? There is a thread over there about putting Iroquois into an EE Lightning. Why stop there, why not RB211s?

 

[lordroel]

Yep I haven't posted anything so far. Will keep quiet. Just watch for a Roald Dahl character newcomer...

The Big Friendly Giant ore BFG.

 

[Hood]

Let's be truthful, Britain has rubbish fighter options in this scenario, nothing really works out to replace the Mirage.
We could look at some likely US options - MAP F-5s from the late-60s? F-86s even? Totally left-field Fiat G.91s (they brought the G.55 after all...)

Gannets instead of S-2 Tracker on De Mayo?
Wessex helicopters for troop transport and with the HU.5 rails for SS.12?

 

[alejandrogrossi]

Let's be truthful, Britain has rubbish fighter options in this scenario, nothing really works out to replace the Mirage.
We could look at some likely US options - MAP F-5s from the late-60s? F-86s even? Totally left-field Fiat G.91s (they brought the G.55 after all...)

Gannets instead of S-2 Tracker on De Mayo?
Wessex helicopters for troop transport and with the HU.5 rails for SS.12?

Hood
At the time of buying the M-III (1970) USA offer the F-5A and we want the "E". so we choose the french.
later the ofer the F-5E, because ther were lossing marktes against the french products.
This is in octuber 1975
The F-5E demostrator during her visit at the VIII Air Birigade (home of the M-III. you can see an M-IIIDA)

I would to see the F-5C (F-5A with IFR)

with that configuration, plus 2 AIM-9

Of course we will need more tanker, not only 2 Kc-130
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)





As for the F-86
The Argentine Aire Force acquired 28 F-86Fs, 26 September 1960, FAA s/n CA-101 through CA-128. The Sabres were already on reserve status at the time of the Falklands War but were reinstated to active service to bolster air defences against possible Chilean involvement (from Wiki). the can´t reach the islands, less fighting with SH, and in this secnario with the F-8E

 

[Archibald]

The F-5 has quite short range and can't aerial refuel (no IFR probe) so probably not a good choice for Argentina.
I would be surprised if Lockheed (being Lockheed !) did not tried their luck with F-104 - whatever the variant.

Note that the italian F-104S production line started in 1968 and did not stopped until 1979, the last F-104s built in the world. It also explains how and why F-104S lasted until 2004. And they had AIM-7 Sparrows or Aspides.

But I suppose Uncle Sam would veto any sale to Argentina (they did that to Taiwan in 1979: no Sparrow capability for them, whatever the fighter).

 

[Hood]

The Canadair CF-5 licence-built version had an IFR though.
Venezuela got their ex-RCAF examples in the mid-70s so its a possible AU source.

 

[Archibald]

The Canadair CF-5 licence-built version had an IFR though.
Venezuela got their ex-RCAF examples in the mid-70s so its a possible AU source.

Excellent ! (Montgomery Burns voice).

 

[alejandrogrossi]

The F-5 has quite short range and can't aerial refuel (no IFR probe) so probably not a good choice for Argentina.
I would be surprised if Lockheed (being Lockheed !) did not tried their luck with F-104 - whatever the variant.

Note that the italian F-104S production line started in 1968 and did not stopped until 1979, the last F-104s built in the world. It also explains how and why F-104S lasted until 2004. And they had AIM-7 Sparrows or Aspides.

But I suppose Uncle Sam would veto any sale to Argentina (they did that to Taiwan in 1979: no Sparrow capability for them, whatever the fighter).

The F-104 have even short range
The only with IFR probe was the F-104C,.
The italian test the probe in the "S" but not adopted. they have the installation
An f-104C with wing drop tank and wing tip tanks
Not pylon for missile


this is a kit, but I can´t find any pictures of F104C with missiles on ventral pylon


This was the f-104s testing the IFR


The F-5 have not IFR probe, but the F-5C, yes.
The F-5C was a conversion of F-5A: "In October 1965, the USAF began a five-month combat evaluation of the F-5A titled Skoshi Tiger. A total of 12 aircraft were delivered for trials to the 4503rd Tactical Fighter Squadron, and after modification with probe and drogue aerial refueling equipment, armor and improved instruments, were redesignated F-5C.[46] Over the next six months, they performed combat duty in Vietnam, flying more than 2,600 sorties, both from the 3rd Tactical Fighter Wing at Bien Hoa over South Vietnam and from Da Nang Air Base where operations were flown over Laos. Nine aircraft were lost in Vietnam, seven to enemy ground fire and two to operational causes"
So we can buying the F-5A, then do the modification to "C".
My idea was a F-5C with this configuration of drop tanks, and 2x AIM-9
(i known that is a NF-5A)
https://abpic.co.uk/pictures/view/1769063
Photo from 1980

or this
1980 too
https://abpic.co.uk/pictures/view/1638419



Our as Hood said we caon go for the CF-5
with the AIM-9 in the wing tips
https://www.planepictures.net/v3/show_en.php?id=653531
Date of the photo (06/1980)

 

[Archibald]

In passing, they really went the complicated way for a F-104 IFR probe: "over the shoulder" and air intake.
When the Mirage F1 (and 2000 and Rafale) probes look a bit simpler: just plant it on the nose, near the cockpit.
Then again, Lockheed probably had their own technical reasons NOT going this way.

 

[alejandrogrossi]

The Canadair CF-5 licence-built version had an IFR though.
Venezuela got their ex-RCAF examples in the mid-70s so its a possible AU source.

Hood I reply in the same post to Archibald.
And yes, that was the other choise.
But in any case (CF-5A o F-5C) we need more tankers and faster.

 

[alejandrogrossi]

In passing, they really went the complicated way for a F-104 IFR probe: "over the shoulder" and air intake.
When the Mirage F1 (and 2000 and Rafale) probes look a bit simpler: just plant it on the nose, near the cockpit.
Then again, Lockheed probably had their own technical reasons NOT going this way.

The israelies do the same with the Kfir C10 and Cheetha.
The M-5 and III of the PAF (ROSE version. the IFR was with the heps of the Israelies.

 

[timmymagic]

Support Fleet
Jules Verne - repair ship
5x Rhin - tenders
2x Durance - replenishment tankers
Isere - replenishment tanker
La Seine - replenishment tanker (think still operational in 1982)
La Charente - tanker plus fitted as a command ship
2x Punaruu - tankers
Saintonge - provisions ship

This is the only thing that matters.

Simple fact is the French don't make it into the South Atlantic....let alone spend 2 months there.

 

[Deleted member 2278]

"Amateurs talk about strategy and tactics. Professionals talk about logistics..." Yes it is perhaps an over-used quote but it should be kept in mind for every alt-his.

 

[Archibald]

Support Fleet
Jules Verne - repair ship
5x Rhin - tenders
2x Durance - replenishment tankers
Isere - replenishment tanker
La Seine - replenishment tanker (think still operational in 1982)
La Charente - tanker plus fitted as a command ship
2x Punaruu - tankers
Saintonge - provisions ship

This is the only thing that matters.

Simple fact is the French don't make it into the South Atlantic....let alone spend 2 months there.

Why do you say that ? I don't get the point.

Just thought about it: if you British used the Canberra, we would press Le France into the logistic train.
...
Well merde, forget this: it already had become Norway.

How about the giga tankers of the Batilius class ?

 

[uk 75]

The RN used "Ships taken up from Trade" (STUFT) to make its logistics work.
This stemmed in part from NATO roles reinforcing Denmark and Norway as well as past operations notably the 1956 Suez crisis.
Its force of 2 landing platform dockships (Fearless and Intrepid) plus five LSTs had been exercising this sort of thing since the 1960s.
France by contrast still had various land and air operations in Africa but no major use of its navy since Suez in 1956.
The two carriers Foch and Clemenceau rotated between the Atlantic and the Med with occasional out of area deployments.
They had modest AAW cover from Colbert and the two Suffrens. The Kersaint AAW ships were being phased out by 1982.
Seacat comes in for a lot of stick but it was widely fitted and did impact how the Argentines attacked ships. The MN had no analogue.
France might have been forced to fight the Argentine Navy before it could even reach the Malouines. Although it could probably have won such an engagement, it might not have been left with enough units to get its marines legionnaires and paratroops ashore.
Unlike the UK which depended on the US France might have been more "creative" in deploying an SSBN or making the Argentinians believe they would use it.

 

[timmymagic]

Why do you say that ? I don't get the point.

If you look at the number of ships, their size and capability and the number of ships they're being tasked to support.....its nowhere close to the RFA...and the RFA was seriously taxed with the Falklands.

The Marine Nationale still has the same issue today. Looks good on paper with a nuc carrier and amphibs....but very little logistics capability far from shore (2 x Durance Class to do everything...) and no ability to provide follow on forces to the limited numbers lifted on the Mistral. And thats fine for the missions that they find themselves doing, but personally I don't consider them a full Blue Water Navy, they're in a mid-point where they have some aspects of a Blue Water Navy but can't sustain it for more than a very limited period.

It's interesting that they're trying to correct this somewhat in the future (to a degree) replacing the 2 x Durance Class with 4 x Jacques Chevalier Class (essentially Italian Vulcano Class).

 

[starviking]

Maybe call yourself "Breathing" so they'll even have Breathing banned? There is a thread over there about putting Iroquois into an EE Lightning. Why stop there, why not RB211s?

Now, now! It’s obvious for the Iroquois - two on the wingtips with outriggers, all the space in the fuselage freed by the removal of engines filled with fuel.

 

[Archibald]

Why do you say that ? I don't get the point.

If you look at the number of ships, their size and capability and the number of ships they're being tasked to support.....its nowhere close to the RFA...and the RFA was seriously taxed with the Falklands.

The Marine Nationale still has the same issue today. Looks good on paper with a nuc carrier and amphibs....but very little logistics capability far from shore (2 x Durance Class to do everything...) and no ability to provide follow on forces to the limited numbers lifted on the Mistral. And thats fine for the missions that they find themselves doing, but personally I don't consider them a full Blue Water Navy, they're in a mid-point where they have some aspects of a Blue Water Navy but can't sustain it for more than a very limited period.

It's interesting that they're trying to correct this somewhat in the future (to a degree) replacing the 2 x Durance Class with 4 x Jacques Chevalier Class (essentially Italian Vulcano Class).

Well the French Navy TBH has run on a shoestring budget since the 1960's, because of the boomers eating a large chunk of the budget. Also the SSN.

More generally, since De Gaulle committed the country to the force de Frappe (early 1960) conventional forces have suffered in their budget. In the case of the AdA and army, probably less: Plateau d'Albion and Pluton are long gone, while ASMP-A don't cost that much, strapped to Rafales.

But boomers and SSNs... plus the CdG... plus amphibs... and escorts of all kind... as you said, that's a lot to chew for a medium size navy: halfway between GB and Italy, somewhat, with equal if not lower budget. But Italy has no nuclear carrier, while GB has just recovered a pair of conventional ones.

The mind wonder if the Italian / Spanish approach (ultra large, 30 000 tons amphibs doubling as VSTOL carriers) is not the right one, for European navies... or more generally, medium powers (South Korea, cough, Japan, cough).

And before it, the Invincible / Garibaldi / Asturias + Harriers approach.

To think the Harrier original idea came from Michel Wibault in 1957... maybe we should have listened him before he sold it to Hawker.

 

[Archibald]

Thinking about it... I think the reason for the French Navy "weak" logistic train relates to French overseas territories peculiar situation (and favorable).
Favorable enough for the Armée de l'Air to fill the gaps with the right air bases at crucial locations, plus just enough air tankers. Think of Djibouti and the UAE base there.

I would say the Falklands are really a pretty extreme case of logistics. The only French oversea territory as remote I can think off, are the Kerguelen islands. But who wants to invade such place ? (people also said that in 1981 about the Falklands, but there is no angry Argentina close from the Kerguelens AFAIK)

Otherwise most french oversea territories are either close enough - or, if remote (La Réunion is another example) protected by geography... except for Madagascar I really can't see who would try invading La Réunion.

Same for Mayotte: Comores aren't a real threat.

French Guiana, Guadeloupe, Martinique are much closer from M2tropole and can eventually support each others if somebody tries an invasion.

Saint Pierre et Miquelon ? unless Canada turns crazy, no issue there.

French Polynesia & New Caledonia are remote enough in the depths of the Pacific, too, for not being threatened - except perhaps by China in the veeeeeery long term.

Bottom line: the French Navy never had to fight an invasion all alone as happened to the RN in the Falklands. The AdA has its own tricks to be there - air bases and tankers.

 

[timmymagic]

plus just enough air tankers.

Problem is those air tankers (the C-135FR) are pretty much unusable. Because they're deployed full time on Force De Frappe duties supporting the Mirage IV, without which they're nigh on useless. There just aren't enough tankers to cover that key role and anything else.

In many ways the French Air Force made a better fist of it than the RAF did in the Cold War, they had a relentless focus on a small number of tasks that they mastered and equipped themselves for, instead of the UK trying to do everything and failing. The flip side is that there wasn't huge capability or ability to do much beyond those key tasks.

 

[Archibald]

Problem is those air tankers (the C-135FR) are pretty much unusable. Because they're deployed full time on Force De Frappe duties supporting the Mirage IV, without which they're nigh on useless. There just aren't enough tankers to cover that key role and anything else.

That's true between 1964 and 1972. As soon as boomers of the Redoutable class with M20 SLBMs entered service (1972) the number of Mirage IV squadrons was drastically reduced - and the fleet of tankers was available for "tactical" aircraft: starting with Jaguars (and Mirage F1s), IOC the same year: 1973.
Also the F-100s last years in Djibouti. C-135FR for tactical aircraft deployements really started in 1977 with the return to Africa after 15 years, post-Algeria: operation Lamentin.
Soon some Transalls were also adapted as tankers, too.

 

[Lascaris]

Indeed. If you wanna know, I'm not involved in that at all.
But I will still grab popcorn and enjoy the air and naval battles.

I haven't seen you show up, as of late and short of getting worried.

You evidently no clue about my very, very troubled relationship with AH.com and its moronic moderator team since, what, 2017 ? That bunch of idiots banned me, and since then, from time to time I play cat and mice with them.
It's been a while since my last try - and that thread has been a motivation to try again.
(evil, maniacal laugh)

Oh I might have guessed a nom de guerre or ten you've used since 2017. Not certain why they keep looking out for them, as far as I can tell they are not... always as vigorous.

A pity really. Relatively limited French input on my Free France on steroids.

 

[H_K]

Support Fleet
Jules Verne - repair ship
5x Rhin - tenders
2x Durance - replenishment tankers
Isere - replenishment tanker
La Seine - replenishment tanker (think still operational in 1982)
La Charente - tanker plus fitted as a command ship
2x Punaruu - tankers
Saintonge - provisions ship

This is the only thing that matters.

Simple fact is the French don't make it into the South Atlantic....let alone spend 2 months there.

Good point. Let’s look at logistics… could the French make it work?

Carrier Battle Group composition (modeled on the historical RN task force and delivering the same # of sorties/day):

11 ships with ~6,000 men

1x Foch CV
1x Jeanne d’Arc commando carrier
3x AAW escorts (of 6 in service)
3x ASW frigates with Crotale + 2 Lynx each (of 6 in service)
2x older ASW frigates with Malafon only (of 8 in service)
1x Jules Verne fleet ammunition/repair ship

Replenishment needs (approx):
Oil: ~900 tons/day (300 t/day for Foch, 100t/day for Jeanne d’Arc, 50-60t/day for escorts)

Aviation fuel: 150 tons/day (100 t/day for 32 fighter/strike sorties + 50t/day for Alize patrol, Etendard IVP buddy tankers, helos)

Food: All ships have 45 days stores.

Munitions: 1,300t aboard Foch + 300t aboard Jules Verne

Ports available for resupply: 4 options within 4,500nm. French Guyana, Dakar (Senegal), Abidjan (Ivory Coast), Libreville (Gabon). Dakar would be ideal (closest to France), but any of the above would work for picking up oil/food supplies. Historically the Brits used Freetown (Sierra Leone) which is the same distance.

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.

 

[Archibald]

Brilliant !

 

[H_K]

Before I look at the invasion force, let’s do a digression and look at the submarine force logistics.

Deployed submarines
- 3 Narwal oceanic SSKs (of 6 in service)
- 2 Agosta SSKs (of 4 in service)
I’m assuming the 10 smaller Daphnés aren’t deployed and Rubis SSN (in sea trials) deploys too late.

Resupply needs
The Narwals have 20,000nm range and 90 days supply. Can stage pretty autonomously from French Guyana or (preferably) the naval base at Fort de France in Martinique.

The Agostas have ~8,500nm range and 45 days supply so will need support from a submarine tender.

Submarine tender
Luckily a tender exists: BSM Rhone. It can provide living space for 2 spare sub crews, 3x sets of torpedo reloads, and numerous workshops. I imagine that at sea replenishment could be done in calm seas around the Equator or South Atlantic high... if not then maybe 4 Narwals can be sent instead of 3 Narwals + 2 Agostas.

4-5 subs deployed means 3-4 on station at most times. So… while not as effective as the RN’s SSN force, a decent submarine presence could be maintained.

 

[Archibald]

Only one carrier ? In this case I would take the one with the most recent IPER, think Foch was already the "fresher" of the two. Clemenceau can still come at a later date and be used either to carry spare aircraft, or a crapload of helicopters, or even more supplies for the fleet.

there is a drastic way of involving another French military branch while getting a crapton of helicopters: ask the Army for Pumas and Gazelles. On top of the Navy Super Frelons and Lynx.

 

[H_K]

@Archibald Yes I expect Clemenceau would come out of refit to ferry replacement aircraft and helicopters. This is critical as otherwise there would be no way to replace losses of fighter aircraft aboard Foch. Historically she was available at 5 days notice when in minor refit so this isn’t a stretch.

She could also bring a full load of aviation fuel, munitions and aviation spares… which would be very helpful to relieve the 2 Durance replenishment ships.

 

[H_K]

@Archibald The helicopter situation is as follows:

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.

 

[timmymagic]

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.

Unfortunately it doesn't work like that....

You can't rely on 2 ships shuttling from one location because if one goes down......

It also ignores the time necessary to accomplish replenishment evolutions across a fleet, the necessity for reasonable weather (and that doesn't happen in the South Atlantic...), its usually conducted in daylight and good visibility, and the fact that heavily loaded ships do not want to run near empty in the South Atlantic for stability reasons. If you look at the number of replenishment oilers the UK were using, many of which were far larger and more capable than the Durance, it should be instructive....the RN were a Navy far more used to, and skilled at replenishment at sea than the French were.

I'm also not sure they could have held 45 days for the ships company onboard...

It's also worth noting that having Grytviken as a safe harbour 1,000 miles away was very useful and was used on numerous occasions...the French won't have that advantage.

 

[Deleted member 2278]

It does seem that France's fleet train is lacking in resilience but then the French might not have such....restrictive RoEs so the lacking of endurance might not necessarily be critical? There would likely be no TEZ nonsense for starters.

 

[Hood]

I agree with Tinymagic, the logistics still feels a little thin, you need some margins, here everything has to run like clockwork and using every kilo of capacity.
In turn that might make the Admiral's Staff more cautious in some respects, they might get twitchy about supply and fuel status and that might lead to operational compromises (i.e. they might pull the resupply further away from the Islands).

The submarines can forward deploy to some extent Guyana or Martinique, so closer than the RN SSKs, but even so it takes time to transit, I'm not sure they would arrive much before the main task force.

Also, usually the Narval-class is credited with 15,000nm @ 8kts snorting (checked with my copy of Flottes de Combat) but I don't think that would pose too much trouble in this scenario and is equal to the Oberons the RN deployed.
The Narvals were refitted in the late 60s-1970, I'm no French systems expert - I'm not sure what sonars they had and I'm assuming older-model torpedoes. Against the newer Argentine Type 209s it might still have been dicey. Some Agostas would be good if they can given logistical support - their range is puny even the Type 209 has nearly twice the range snorting.

 

[timmymagic]

It does seem that France's fleet train is lacking in resilience but then the French might not have such....restrictive RoEs so the lacking of endurance might not necessarily be critical? There would likely be no TEZ nonsense for starters.

In practice the TEZ made little difference, it just opened up a free fire zone where the UK could be assured that any vessels were from one or other of the combatants, Argentinian naval and air assets were still subject to attack wherever they were found. Belgrano was of course sunk outside it, Operation Mikado would have taken place outside it and HMS Splendid was operating well outside it when it was attempting to get a shot at Vienticinco de Mayo, a fact the Argentinian navy well understood as they headed at speed to litoral waters then harbour.

 

[Archibald]

English Wikipedia page of the Durance-class oilers

Durance-class tanker - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Just like the Rubis SSN, bad luck: third Durance entered service in February 1983.

On line traduction of Netmarine, a great resource on the French navy.

Batiments d�sarm�s de la Marine nationale

Liste des b�timents d�sarm�s de la Marine fran�aise de 1945 � nos jours

www-netmarine-net.translate.goog

Hey look at that ! January 1982 ORBAT of the French Navy. Ain't that cool ?

Flotte 1982

Another resource in english https://www.worldnavalships.com/french.htm

Some more amphibs there (Landing Ship Tanks)

Les bâtiments de débarquement de chars

 

[EwenS]

AIUI the RoE in the original Maritime Exclusion Zone allowed the British subs to attack Argentine warships and auxiliaries within the 200 mile zone. It also allowed them to attack Argentine shipping outwith the zone as a matter of self defence.

On 30 April the MEZ became a TEZ with the impending arrival of the Task Force in Falklands waters the next day. The original RoE were extended to cover aircraft, including civilian traffic engaged on recce missions and to all types of shipping.

On 30th April the RoE for the subs were altered to allow attacks on the 25th of May outwith the TEZ right up to the limit of Argentine Territorial Waters (the 12 mile limit) in the area to the north of 35 degrees W and 48 degrees S.

On 2nd May the RoE for the subs was again changed to extend the 30th April RoE to all Argentine warships. This was a rush job to allow attacks on the Belgrano group.

On 7th May the TEZ itself was extended all the way to Argentine Territorial Waters.

 

[Deleted member 2278]

The TEZ really wasn't the point of my post. My point was that French doctrine/RoE/strategy (delete as you prefer) whatever it may be, would differ from the UK's and so their campaign timetable would also. That they couldn't fight as protracted a campaign as historical due to logistical short-comings has been demonstrated, I believe, upthread. My question now is, would they need to? The French command authorities would know all of the above when sailing south (before too). So surely they would formulate a strategy accordingly? Could we not see some bolder and riskier moves on the French force's part? The French hare to the UK's tortoise as it were.

 

[Archibald]

Ok so while France had evidently no Vulcan bombers for any Black Buck raid, fact is that both Mirage IVA and Jaguars did extremely long endurance flights in 1983-1988
- Jaguars flew 10h20 with C-135FR support, from their base of Toul (north-east France) to Mauritania and back.
- Mirage IVA bet that only marginally, flying from Mont de Marsan to Chad and back: 11h, again with massive tanker support.

No idea what was the cruise speed, and armament was certainly ultra-light if non existent (the Jaguars at worse had a pair of internal guns).

Just mentionning this because these flights were contemporary to Falklands (related to Dakar, Lebanon and Lybia / Chad operations) and these records stood until Rafales broke them.

10 hours at 700 km per hour would be 7700 km, it matches the attached map.
11 hours at 800 km per hour average would be 8800 km: not enough for French Guiana - Falklands - French Guiana.

Just like the RAF hated the idea of staying out of the Falklands, you can guess the AdA would be equally frustrated and try such whacky schemes.

Unlike the Victors however, not sure C-135FR can refuel each others !