Sinking an Aircraft carrier

Status
Not open for further replies.

powerslavenegi

New Member
contedicavour said:
Agree. Chances of sending a carrier battle group against a country with a powerful navy are weak. Chances of sending it against a country with a strong air force are already higher though...
Argentina's 1982 navy was pretty big as a matter of fact : an ex UK light carrier, a WW2 vintage ex USN cruiser, several destroyer escorts and several submarines including 2 Type 209s... Still no match against the RN.

cheers
Well should say you did not provide the complete picture,They had a carrier and A/C's but no missiles they had a handful of exocets and should say they put them to good use.More importantly their A/C did not have aam hence their delta daggers and super etendards were help less against even slower harriers.The only thing that saved RN was sidewinder and sea-wolf for Argentinians suffered a lot in that department.
 

swerve

Super Moderator
powerslavenegi said:
Well should say you did not provide the complete picture,They had a carrier and A/C's but no missiles they had a handful of exocets and should say they put them to good use.More importantly their A/C did not have aam hence their delta daggers and super etendards were help less against even slower harriers.The only thing that saved RN was sidewinder and sea-wolf for Argentinians suffered a lot in that department.
They did have AAMs (R530, perhaps Shafrir), but were unable to use them because they were operating at extreme range, & they weren't all-aspect. They had to get there on economical cruise, bomb, & run for home ASAP. They were operating close enough to their limits that carrying AAMs as well as bombs & fuel tanks might have pushed them over it. The one time they tried a CAP mission, it was a disaster.

They didn't have any Delta Daggers - that was the F-102. Never operated by Argentina. A-4, Mirage 3, Dagger (Israeli Mirage 5 copy), Canberra & Pucara as well as the Super Etendard. The Mirages & Daggers weren't faster than the Harriers, because fuel limits prevented them from using afterburner (switch it on, you're swimming home . . . ) & they were laden with bombs & fuel tanks.

BTW, Sea Dart probably shot down more than Seawolf.
 

powerslavenegi

New Member
swerve said:
They did have AAMs (R530, perhaps Shafrir), but were unable to use them because they were operating at extreme range, & they weren't all-aspect. They had to get there on economical cruise, bomb, & run for home ASAP. They were operating close enough to their limits that carrying AAMs as well as bombs & fuel tanks might have pushed them over it. The one time they tried a CAP mission, it was a disaster.

They didn't have any Delta Daggers - that was the F-102. Never operated by Argentina. A-4, Mirage 3, Dagger (Israeli Mirage 5 copy), Canberra & Pucara as well as the Super Etendard. The Mirages & Daggers weren't faster than the Harriers, because fuel limits prevented them from using afterburner (switch it on, you're swimming home . . . ) & they were laden with bombs & fuel tanks.

BTW, Sea Dart probably shot down more than Seawolf.
Points taken dude,however I dont agree to the fact that Mirages and daggers werent faster than those harriers(they werent even supersonic at level flight).Also AFAIK during Falklands war Daggers did engae the AB's during bombing runs but only helped the sidewinders and their cause.Yes it was the Sea-Dart (my mistake..).
 

gf0012-aust

Grumpy Old Man
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
powerslavenegi said:
however I dont agree to the fact that Mirages and daggers werent faster than those harriers(they werent even supersonic at level flight).
The old mirages are faster in a straight line than the hornet (RAAF assessment done during the evals).

The Hornets are definitely faster in a straightline than a Harrier - so I'm unsure as to why you think the Mirages aren't as quick as the harriers - they are by some margin - esp at dogfighting levels. (I can't remember the altitude band that the RAAF reports commented on)
 

kams

New Member
gf0012-aust said:
The old mirages are faster in a straight line than the hornet (RAAF assessment done during the evals).

The Hornets are definitely faster in a straightline than a Harrier - so I'm unsure as to why you think the Mirages aren't as quick as the harriers - they are by some margin - esp at dogfighting levels. (I can't remember the altitude band that the RAAF reports commented on)
however I dont agree to the fact that Mirages and daggers werent faster than those harriers(they werent even supersonic at level flight).

Err he is saying Mirages are Faster than Harriers. :)
 

isthvan

New Member
kams said:
Err he is saying Mirages are Faster than Harriers. :)
Exactly:)

He is saying that while Mirages and Daggers are faster then Harrier they couldn’t use there superior speed thanks to the fact that they have operated at maximum range so they needed to save fuel so they could return to bases after attack…

If they would use afterburners or even fly at high speeds there fuel consumption would be too high and they wouldn’t have any fuel left to go home… So during that conflict superior speed of Argentinean fighters wasn’t advantage since they couldn’t use it…
 

swerve

Super Moderator
isthvan said:
Exactly:)

He is saying that while Mirages and Daggers are faster then Harrier they couldn’t use there superior speed thanks to the fact that they have operated at maximum range so they needed to save fuel so they could return to bases after attack…

If they would use afterburners or even fly at high speeds there fuel consumption would be too high and they wouldn’t have any fuel left to go home… So during that conflict superior speed of Argentinean fighters wasn’t advantage since they couldn’t use it…
Exactly. I should have said so more clearly.

The Skyhawks & Super Etendards could refuel in the air, but Argentina only had two C-130 tankers, so they were very limited in their ability to refuel them. The Mirages & Daggers had no air-air refuelling ability. At least one is reported to have been lost as a result of fuel starvation. The Canberras had plenty of range to reach the islands & hang around, but were very vulnerable to Sea Dart & Harriers at altitude, & not suitable for the nap of the earth bomb runs the fighters did so well.
 

contedicavour

New Member
swerve said:
They did have AAMs (R530, perhaps Shafrir), but were unable to use them because they were operating at extreme range, & they weren't all-aspect. They had to get there on economical cruise, bomb, & run for home ASAP. They were operating close enough to their limits that carrying AAMs as well as bombs & fuel tanks might have pushed them over it. The one time they tried a CAP mission, it was a disaster.

They didn't have any Delta Daggers - that was the F-102. Never operated by Argentina. A-4, Mirage 3, Dagger (Israeli Mirage 5 copy), Canberra & Pucara as well as the Super Etendard. The Mirages & Daggers weren't faster than the Harriers, because fuel limits prevented them from using afterburner (switch it on, you're swimming home . . . ) & they were laden with bombs & fuel tanks.

BTW, Sea Dart probably shot down more than Seawolf.
If I remember correctly Argentina had both Magic IR missiles (R-550) and older versions of the Sidewinder (AIM-9B).
What made the difference was the brand new AIM-9L which the Reagan administration graciously handed over to the Royal Navy just before it left for the Falklands.
If the Harriers hadn't had the AIM-9L, the Argentinian Mirage-III & Daggers would have had quite a good chance of shooting down some Harriers with the R-550, which is a pretty good missile (the current Magic-2 is an evolution of it, still in use in France since the Mica is only starting to be delivered)

cheers
 

Whiskyjack

Honorary Moderator / Defense Professional / Analys
Verified Defense Pro
contedicavour said:
If I remember correctly Argentina had both Magic IR missiles (R-550) and older versions of the Sidewinder (AIM-9B).
What made the difference was the brand new AIM-9L which the Reagan administration graciously handed over to the Royal Navy just before it left for the Falklands.
If the Harriers hadn't had the AIM-9L, the Argentinian Mirage-III & Daggers would have had quite a good chance of shooting down some Harriers with the R-550, which is a pretty good missile (the current Magic-2 is an evolution of it, still in use in France since the Mica is only starting to be delivered)

cheers
Lets not forget the ability of the RN Harriers and pilots here either. :)

Also the fact that the Harriers had more fuel reserve to 'mix it' than the AAF.
 

Rich

Member
Whiskyjack said:
Lets not forget the ability of the RN Harriers and pilots here either. :)

Also the fact that the Harriers had more fuel reserve to 'mix it' than the AAF.
Yes, the training and morale of the British navy and naval air was far superior. Still, they defeated a pretty decent maritime strike air force "in south American terms". The Falklands war was a pretty nasty little war. In the beginning Yank policy was split. I remember that at the time that nit-wit Jeanne Kirkpatrick was in favor of backing the military junta of Argentina. There was quite a bit of secret Yank assistance, as there should have been.

The Brits lost 4 or 5 warships but their carriers survived. Thats how they won.
 

contedicavour

New Member
Rich said:
Yes, the training and morale of the British navy and naval air was far superior. Still, they defeated a pretty decent maritime strike air force "in south American terms". The Falklands war was a pretty nasty little war. In the beginning Yank policy was split. I remember that at the time that nit-wit Jeanne Kirkpatrick was in favor of backing the military junta of Argentina. There was quite a bit of secret Yank assistance, as there should have been.

The Brits lost 4 or 5 warships but their carriers survived. Thats how they won.
What would have made the difference would have been transforming the Port Stanley airstrip into a real airport for jet aircrafts (only Pucaras could take off from there). Mirage and Daggers with filled up fuel tanks and Magic missiles would have been a harder match for Harriers.
Though I fully agree that British pilots were very well trained and performed brilliantly.

cheers
 

aaaditya

New Member
i remember reading in an armada magazine ,that one of the main reasons that argentina lost the falklands war was their poor maintainence.

the argentine pilots(particularly those flying the a4 skyhawk) were simply superb ,their daradevilery was acknowledged even by the british pilots,many time they came into perfect firing posistions flying extremely low over the sea waters ,but their exocet missiles would fail to release due to salt accumulation on the electronics,or the poor fuse setting on these missiles.

the argentine pilots were also in dilemma as to the altitude of bomb release,if they tried to release from higher altitude ,they would be detected at a considerable distance and can be engaged by either fighters or surface to air missiles,if they tried to release at a lower altitude the missiles often exploded before the aircraft was clear from their range cusing considerable damage to the shyhawks,this resulted in poor aimimg particularly with iron bombs,also there was the problem of salt water corrossiom.

the royal navy also had it's share of problems ,particularly the frequent failure of the radar systems of their carrier escorts ,their surface to air missiles failing in the last minute and off course friendly fire.

overall the argentine pilots realy excelled,had their technicians been a bit well trained ,royal navy's losses would have been tremendous.
 

zetruz

New Member
Obviously, you just need a Gotland class submarine to sink a US aircraft carrier:D Although, we don't know how many torpedoes you'd need:rolleyes:
 

contedicavour

New Member
aaaditya said:
i remember reading in an armada magazine ,that one of the main reasons that argentina lost the falklands war was their poor maintainence.

the argentine pilots(particularly those flying the a4 skyhawk) were simply superb ,their daradevilery was acknowledged even by the british pilots,many time they came into perfect firing posistions flying extremely low over the sea waters ,but their exocet missiles would fail to release due to salt accumulation on the electronics,or the poor fuse setting on these missiles.

the argentine pilots were also in dilemma as to the altitude of bomb release,if they tried to release from higher altitude ,they would be detected at a considerable distance and can be engaged by either fighters or surface to air missiles,if they tried to release at a lower altitude the missiles often exploded before the aircraft was clear from their range cusing considerable damage to the shyhawks,this resulted in poor aimimg particularly with iron bombs,also there was the problem of salt water corrossiom.

the royal navy also had it's share of problems ,particularly the frequent failure of the radar systems of their carrier escorts ,their surface to air missiles failing in the last minute and off course friendly fire.

overall the argentine pilots realy excelled,had their technicians been a bit well trained ,royal navy's losses would have been tremendous.
It's true that several bombs and a couple of Exocets litterally broke through ships only to emerge on the other side without exploding...
Btw rumour has it that an Argentine sub torpedoed Royal Navy vessels but the old torpedo (even older than Mk37, don't remember the type) failed to explode.
Just one detail though : Exocets were only launched from Super Etendard, the A4s and Daggers used only iron bombs and rockets.

cheers
 

contedicavour

New Member
zetruz said:
Obviously, you just need a Gotland class submarine to sink a US aircraft carrier:D Although, we don't know how many torpedoes you'd need:rolleyes:
That is, unless a SSN has sunk it before ;)
No carrier goes around without adequate SSN / ASW FFG cover !

cheers
 

sidishus

Defense Professional
Verified Defense Pro
Aircraft carriers have been in a lot of battles since World war 2, by many nations, not just the USA. Not a single one has been sunk or even damaged from direct enemy action as far as I can recall. What does that say to people?
That this is an entirely fallacious argument.

What serious threats have been sent after a carrier since WWII?

None.


None in a hot war scenario. How many times have carriers been sunk in exercises?

More times than anyone can count.

Simply because opponents have not chosen to attack carriers DOES NOT mean they are invulnerable.

No one has shot at them so therefore carrers are immune to hostile intent is what you are saying and it makes no sense.


Indeed, as captial ships they are exceeding vulnerable.

Also, the whole argument about sinking a carrier is pretty much pointless. Destroy its aircraft, destroy its ability to conduct flight ops, or destroy its ability to sustain its aircraf,t and you have achieved operational success.
Doing any of those is much easier than the current rhetoric suggests.

Also, by leaving a carrier badly damaged, you now force whats left of your offensive platforms to stop what they are doing and engage in a extremely difficult rescue/defense posture.
 

swerve

Super Moderator
contedicavour said:
What would have made the difference would have been transforming the Port Stanley airstrip into a real airport for jet aircrafts (only Pucaras could take off from there). Mirage and Daggers with filled up fuel tanks and Magic missiles would have been a harder match for Harriers.
...

cheers
Could have been done, & I think the Argentinean air force argued for it, but the army generals in charge weren't interested. Argentina had the equipment & engineers to do it - on the mainland. They could have had a ship unloading heavy earth-moving equipment & steel matting in Stanley the day after the invasion, & flown in everything else after shipping movements got tricky, but all the transport was taken up with thousands of half (& in some cases un-) trained conscripts.

I'd have fixed the airstrip as number 1 priority, sent no more than half as many men, made sure they were all properly trained (regulars, or at least fully-trained conscripts), properly dressed, with plenty of food & ammo, enough vehicles, fuel for them, & helicopters. Not tried to defend everywhere, just Stanley & the airport, & perhaps a couple of dispersal grass airstrips for Pucaras, with constant armed aerial recce everywhere else (the Pucaras would have been perfect for that). With trained troops with transport (cross-country vehicles & helicopters), it should have been possible to oppose any British cross-country movement much more effectively.
 

merocaine

New Member
I dont know if you have read "the Falklands War" by Max Hastings, excellent history of the conflict by someone who sailed with the Task force.
Of all the arms of the arge forces the Airforce was the only one that really took the war seriously and pressed its attacks to the fullest of its abilty, some of the posters have mentioned it, but most people dont seem to realise how good the Argintine pilots were, and the incredible dash and bravery that they pressed there attacks with. (a British Captain at the time said they shouldent have been suprised they could fly, as argentiana regularly turned out first class F1 drivers!)
There Iron bombs failed to arm in the air due to the fact that the planes were coming in so low that the bombs had insuffient flight time. The Americans declined to pass the knowladge of how to fuse there bombs on to the argintaine airforce, if they had, and all those bombs that stuck british ships exploded, they could well have prevented the british from landing.
It was a very close thing, the Taskforce deserves great credit as it did'ent put a foot wrong during its operations, but this doesent change the fact that if the Argintines had have had of had a few more exocets or knew how to fuse there bombs for a shorter flight time, the Taskforce could had been decimated.

During the first days of the Landing the Taskforce had real problems with sea dart and sea wolf, and vectoring in there fighter CAP. During there the first two days there was a very real possiblity of the Taskforce being turned back, if the Agentines had a bit more luck, this conversation would be about how foolish the British were in sending out such a poorly protected Taskforce.

Could have been done, & I think the Argentinean air force argued for it, but the army generals in charge weren't interested. Argentina had the equipment & engineers to do it - on the mainland. They could have had a ship unloading heavy earth-moving equipment & steel matting in Stanley the day after the invasion, & flown in everything else after shipping movements got tricky, but all the transport was taken up with thousands of half (& in some cases un-) trained conscripts.

I'd have fixed the airstrip as number 1 priority, sent no more than half as many men, made sure they were all properly trained (regulars, or at least fully-trained conscripts), properly dressed, with plenty of food & ammo, enough vehicles, fuel for them, & helicopters. Not tried to defend everywhere, just Stanley & the airport, & perhaps a couple of dispersal grass airstrips for Pucaras, with constant armed aerial recce everywhere else (the Pucaras would have been perfect for that). With trained troops with transport (cross-country vehicles & helicopters), it should have been possible to oppose any British cross-country movement much more effectively
With the forces the Argintines had on the ground, even with active patrolling they would only have delayed the envitable British victory once they landed on the Islands.
Thier best troops remained on the Chilian border guarding against a possible Chilian suprise attack.
But even thier best troops would have been found lacking against the British forces, mainly because they had'ent been conditioned in modern killing techniques, when the arge conscripts fired there guns they rarely shot to kill, where as the British troops shot to kill everytime(the crew serviced weapons and snipers did'ent have this problem, and most of the british causties came from those sources).

What was criminal from the Argintaine point of view was the sheer lack of communication between the services, the navy gave no support to air operations against the Task force, not even Radar intelligence! it was like the wanted them to fail!
 

contedicavour

New Member
merocaine said:
I dont know if you have read "the Falklands War" by Max Hastings, excellent history of the conflict by someone who sailed with the Task force.
Of all the arms of the arge forces the Airforce was the only one that really took the war seriously and pressed its attacks to the fullest of its abilty, some of the posters have mentioned it, but most people dont seem to realise how good the Argintine pilots were, and the incredible dash and bravery that they pressed there attacks with. (a British Captain at the time said they shouldent have been suprised they could fly, as argentiana regularly turned out first class F1 drivers!)
There Iron bombs failed to arm in the air due to the fact that the planes were coming in so low that the bombs had insuffient flight time. The Americans declined to pass the knowladge of how to fuse there bombs on to the argintaine airforce, if they had, and all those bombs that stuck british ships exploded, they could well have prevented the british from landing.
It was a very close thing, the Taskforce deserves great credit as it did'ent put a foot wrong during its operations, but this doesent change the fact that if the Argintines had have had of had a few more exocets or knew how to fuse there bombs for a shorter flight time, the Taskforce could had been decimated.

During the first days of the Landing the Taskforce had real problems with sea dart and sea wolf, and vectoring in there fighter CAP. During there the first two days there was a very real possiblity of the Taskforce being turned back, if the Agentines had a bit more luck, this conversation would be about how foolish the British were in sending out such a poorly protected Taskforce.



With the forces the Argintines had on the ground, even with active patrolling they would only have delayed the envitable British victory once they landed on the Islands.
Thier best troops remained on the Chilian border guarding against a possible Chilian suprise attack.
But even thier best troops would have been found lacking against the British forces, mainly because they had'ent been conditioned in modern killing techniques, when the arge conscripts fired there guns they rarely shot to kill, where as the British troops shot to kill everytime(the crew serviced weapons and snipers did'ent have this problem, and most of the british causties came from those sources).

What was criminal from the Argintaine point of view was the sheer lack of communication between the services, the navy gave no support to air operations against the Task force, not even Radar intelligence! it was like the wanted them to fail!
I would only add that the Argentine navy didn't participate seriously to the conflict (except for the Super Etendard of course)... they tried a pincer movement with the carrier north and the Belgrano cruiser south, but after a T209 didn't manage to hit the RN ships with torpedoes, and after the sinking of the useless Belgrano, the Arge Navy just retreated and never came back.
If they had used their ASW assets to cover the carrier and a few destroyer escorts, they could at least have forced the RN to disperse its forces to search for the Argentine ships, and could have menaced the RN with a Super Etendard/exocet attack from unexpected directions. The Argentine excuse was that the catapults on the 25 de Mayo weren't fully operational at the time... who knows if it's true...

cheers
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top