The Royal Navy Discussions and Updates

[1805]

There are 2 runways, and they are quite well spaced out, have a look at the layout of the base on google earth it's huge and the aircraft shelters are very well dispersed.

That makes it twice as hard it would not be easy, but not impossible.

 

[swerve]

I didn't say it was easy, but its not inconcievable. They don't have to get all Typhoon, just deny the runway.

How many people, in how many locations, would it take to deny the use of both runways, for long enough to be effective? What's the chance of them being able to get there undetected, & hole up in that bleak, bare, countryside?

You're positing an Argentinean commander being willing to risk a lot of lives on a very thin thread. No, it's not impossible, but for something which would destroy the government that approved it & the careers of the generals who planned it, what chance of success is needed before anyone would go ahead? I reckon a lot more than 'not impossible'. This isn't a small part of a struggle for survival, where failure is a setback but something must be done & inflicting losses on the enemy is a gain in itself. This is a one throw of the dice gamble where failure leaves you humiliated, scorned & despised by your supporters. You have to be either utterly desperate, or very confident indeed, to take such a risk. The confidence has been shown to be misplaced. Where is the desperation? Argentina is thriving.

 

[1805]

How many people, in how many locations, would it take to deny the use of both runways, for long enough to be effective? What's the chance of them being able to get there undetected, & hole up in that bleak, bare, countryside?

You're positing an Argentinean commander being willing to risk a lot of lives on a very thin thread. No, it's not impossible, but for something which would destroy the government that approved it & the careers of the generals who planned it, what chance of success is needed before anyone would go ahead? I reckon a lot more than 'not impossible'. This isn't a small part of a struggle for survival, where failure is a setback but something must be done & inflicting losses on the enemy is a gain in itself. This is a one throw of the dice gamble where failure leaves you humiliated, scorned & despised by your supporters. You have to be either utterly desperate, or very confident indeed, to take such a risk. The confidence has been shown to be misplaced. Where is the desperation? Argentina is thriving.

Maybe not as many as you think who is going to take off a Typhoon or land reinforcements when there is the wreck of a fully fuelled and armed Typhoon burning in the centre of a runway and fire all around. The point is not about a likely senario the UK defences should be based on what could happen. The above although unlikely is not impossible. I could not create a senario when we would ever independently use a nuclear weapon but I still support a UK force.

Remember he who dares wins, he who sits around in risk assessments works in IT.

 

[riksavage]

Maybe not as many as you think who is going to take off a Typhoon or land reinforcements when there is the wreck of a fully fuelled and armed Typhoon burning in the centre of a runway and fire all around. The point is not about a likely senario the UK defences should be based on what could happen. The above although unlikely is not impossible. I could not create a senario when we would ever independently use a nuclear weapon but I still support a UK force.

Remember he who dares wins, he who sits around in risk assessments works in IT.

RAF ground/fire crews practice the removal of burning debris and crater filling as part of their SOP's. They have the kit standing-by. MP is a front line operational air base, not some civi recreational airfield.

UK SF planned to assault Argentine airfields in 82 using re-sprayed Hurc's in Argentine colours fairing an emergency landing. Mission being to kill the pilots and destroy airframes. Who Dares Wins and all that until one officer stood up and said what everybody else was thinking - suicide mission! A fighting withdrawal west to Chile would have proved a very painful exercise.

The Argentines with their current lack of kit/skills trying the same against MP, or attempting a major battalion level drop (requiring at least six stretched Hurc's - 3 x fighting companies, support and HQ company + kit) at 600 feet would end in tears. They would have to adopt the motto Who Dares Dies! If they suffer a 50% airframe loss rate either on appraoach, at the DZ or during the return to the mainland any follow-up drops/airlandings will be reduced significantly. If the deployed battalion fails to take the airfield before their ammo reserves run low they are in deep, deep do do.

 

[weasel1962]

Re:

They can't do this without an increase in the number of aircraft with aerial refueling and the tankers to go with them, otherwise the distance from the mainland means the limited number the AAF can get in the air at once will be cannon fodder for the Typhoons, I rather doubt the AAF pilots would be too happy about conducting suicide missions either.

There's only 4 typhoons. Even if all 13 hardpoints carry a missile each which they don't, its not enough to shoot down every plane in the argentine inventory except possibly in a computer game or assuming that each missile can take down 2 with each missile and with sufficient time to go to guns. That's not realistic.

The Falklands is only 500km from the argentine mainland. They don't need aerial refueling.

The assumption that UK forces need to patrol every inch of the Falklands is flawed. Any SF will need to get close to the airfield in order to strike it. Having forces milling around the rest of the island is a waste of time. There's more than enough forces to defend the airfield and Stanley is situated neatly in a small, defendable peninsular that is accessible only through one road ie at surf bay being a choke point.

 

[1805]

RAF ground/fire crews practice the removal of burning debris and crater filling as part of their SOP's. They have the kit standing-by. MP is a front line operational air base, not some civi recreational airfield.

UK SF planned to assault Argentine airfields in 82 using re-sprayed Hurc's in Argentine colours fairing an emergency landing. Mission being to kill the pilots and destroy airframes. Who Dares Wins and all that until one officer stood up and said what everybody else was thinking - suicide mission! A fighting withdrawal west to Chile would have proved a very painful exercise.

The Argentines with their current lack of kit/skills trying the same against MP, or attempting a major battalion level drop (requiring at least six stretched Hurc's - 3 x fighting companies, support and HQ company + kit) at 600 feet would end in tears. They would have to adopt the motto Who Dares Dies! If they suffer a 50% loss airframe loss rate either on appraoach, at the DZ or during the return to the mainland any follow-up drops/airlandings will be reduced significantly. If the deployed battalion fails to take the airfield before their ammo reserves run low they are in deep, deep do do.

I don't think any airborne attack would work before the 4 Typhoon have been removed from the equation, you just would not be able to get in undetected. It would have to be a landing from submarine or similar. I don't know what size of force could be landed a couple of submarines?

Also we are getting of the subject to a degree as the point was if the Falklands could be taken, could the RN protect a taskforce relying on just T45/T23.

 

[weasel1962]

Re:

I don't think any airborne attack would work before the 4 Typhoon have been removed from the equation, you just would not be able to get in undetected. It would have to be a landing from submarine or similar. I don't know what size of force could be landed a couple of submarines?

Also we are getting of the subject to a degree as the point was if the Falklands could be taken, could the RN protect a taskforce relying on just T45/T23.

Its a waste of subs. If an attack was suggested, then the subs should be focussed on striking the UK naval presence.

Take that out, then even speed boats can be used to ferry troops onshore. The assumption is that only LSTs or military vessels can perform the amphibious attack. If that's the case, no one could have invaded anyone via the sea before ww2.

The reality is that Argentina can't afford another war even if they had the capability to take the Malvinas. They can't hold it even if they take it today. Even if the RN fails today, the UK will just wait a few years until they have the QEs (accelerating construction) and then just take it back. The Argies can't afford the air force to stop the QEs even with a 10 year headstart.

 

[1805]

Its a waste of subs. If an attack was suggested, then the subs should be focussed on striking the UK naval presence.

Take that out, then even speed boats can be used to ferry troops onshore. The assumption is that only LSTs or military vessels can perform the amphibious attack. If that's the case, no one could have invaded anyone via the sea before ww2.

The reality is that Argentina can't afford another war even if they had the capability to take the Malvinas. They can't hold it even if they take it today. Even if the RN fails today, the UK will just wait a few years until they have the QEs (accelerating construction) and then just take it back. The Argies can't afford the air force to stop the QEs even with a 10 year headstart.

I don’t see why the subs would not have time to land SF and then pop back to help see of a taskforce.

I agree with you, I think democracy is now established in Argentina and the chances of the political will to launch an attack particularly a complete surprise attack without any raised tension is very unlikely.

 

[kev 99]

There's only 4 typhoons. Even if all 13 hardpoints carry a missile each which they don't, its not enough to shoot down every plane in the argentine inventory except possibly in a computer game or assuming that each missile can take down 2 with each missile and with sufficient time to go to guns. That's not realistic.

The Falklands is only 500km from the argentine mainland. They don't need aerial refueling.

The assumption that UK forces need to patrol every inch of the Falklands is flawed. Any SF will need to get close to the airfield in order to strike it. Having forces milling around the rest of the island is a waste of time. There's more than enough forces to defend the airfield and Stanley is situated neatly in a small, defendable peninsular that is accessible only through one road ie at surf bay being a choke point.

Well you're missile numbers suggest that the Argentines have more than 56 operational fast jets for starters, they almost certainly don't.

Secondly on the subject of tankers and aerial refueling the number of aircrafft the AAF could get in the air was a huge limiting factor in 82, it will be now, the sort of massed attack you are suggesting requires tankers unless you are willing to force feed the AAF pilots to the Typhoons in a steady drip-drip style attack which almost certainly allows the RAF pilots to play tag-team refueling/rearming. You almost certainly need the entire AAF fast jet force to operate from the closest airfields as well.

The distance from the mainland very definitely is a significant factor unless you want the AAF to send its pilots on a one way trip, this is no different from 82.

This mass attack requires fanatical pilots to work, because the first wave or two is almost certainly going to get wiped out. This isn't the Iranian Republican Guard it's the AAF, this plan requires their defenceless pilots to ignore their compatriots getting blown out of the sky and carry on regardless.

You also seem to have ignore the Rapier battery and the size of the Mount Pleasant base as well, enough of the AAF need to get through the Typhoons and Rapiers to put the base out action, as already explained there are 2 runways and 16 Fast jet shelters.

 

[weasel1962]

Re:

Well you're missile numbers suggest that the Argentines have more than 56 operational fast jets for starters, they almost certainly don't.

Secondly on the subject of tankers and aerial refueling the number of aircrafft the AAF could get in the air was a huge limiting factor in 82, it will be now, the sort of massed attack you are suggesting requires tankers unless you are willing to force feed the AAF pilots to the Typhoons in a steady drip-drip style attack which almost certainly allows the RAF pilots to play tag-team refueling/rearming. You almost certainly need the entire AAF fast jet force to operate from the closest airfields as well.

The distance from the mainland very definitely is a significant factor unless you want the AAF to send its pilots on a one way trip, this is no different from 82.

This mass attack requires fanatical pilots to work, because the first wave or two is almost certainly going to get wiped out. This isn't the Iranian Republican Guard it's the AAF, this plan requires their defenceless pilots to ignore their compatriots getting blown out of the sky and carry on regardless.

You also seem to have ignore the Rapier battery and the size of the Mount Pleasant base as well, enough of the AAF need to get through the Typhoons and Rapiers to put the base out action, as already explained there are 2 runways and 16 Fast jet shelters.

Incorrect on all counts. AAF has 4 fighter sqns in 2 grupos (1 IAI Dagger/Finger, 1 Mirage & 2 A-4AR in 5&6 air group) and the COAN still has the super etendards. Numbers should exceed 60. But that's besides the point. If the a/c comes from 5 vectors and you only got 4, you need to take out a vector and then move on the other. If you wait, then essentially, the reaction time to take out the remaining aircraft diminishes. Its not like a computer game where one just sees a fighter, fires a missile from a hundred miles out and downs it. The typhoon is a capable fighter but not a miracle aircraft.

This was prepared by the Turkish govt.
http://ihracat.ssm.gov.tr/TR/Lists/... Report and Needs for Defense Forces 2010.doc

Essentially 14 Mirage IIIEAs, 23 Mirage Vs, 34 A-4ARs and 11 Etendards equates to ~82 fighters.

The rationale for AAF aerial tankers in 82 was because the fleet was several hundred kms east of Falklands. That was intentionally to minimise range to Argentine airfields. Its not an issue for jets in Argentina to reach Falklands. If you understand air ops, you'd realise that 500km isn't that far for jets. At 600 kts, its under 30 minutes to cover that distance.

And as to Rapier, in 82 the Argies ran through rapiers, blowpipes, sea darts and sea wolfs. The current rapier battery won't be that major a deterrent esp when one considers that argies have better munitions today that outrange the rapier eg AS-25.

 

[swerve]

The distance from the nearest point of the mainland to the nearest point of the islands is unimportant. What matters is the distance from the nearest Argentinean airfield to the target, in this case MPA. That is not 500 km. To launch attacks from multiple vectors, as you suggest, adds more range, as the attacking aircraft would have to fly further, either from more remote bases or diverting from the shortest route. The only types Argentina used for raids from the mainland without AAR were the Canberra, & the Dagger (because it had no AAR capability!). The latter was limited to a single approach direction, straight in & out & back the same way, & had heavy losses from Harriers on that corridor.

Mount Pleasant to
Rio Grande - 663 km
San Julian - 714 km
Santa Cruz - 737 km
Rio Gallegos - 740 km
Comodoro Rivadavia - 941 km.

The fleet was not 'several hundred km' east of the Falklands: if it had been, the Sea Harriers could not fought over the islands.

Also, tankers were used to support raids on ships inshore, e.g. in San Carlos Water, i.e. over shorter distances than those above. Given the small number of tankers, I'm sure they wouldn't have done that if it wasn't necessary.

In 1982 Argentina had far more fighters than now, but never launched the attacks from multiple simultaneous or near-simultaneous vectors that you claim it can do now. Why do you think that is?

Even with tanker support, none of the Argentinean fighters had enough fuel to engage in air-air combat, & had very short times over target. I don't have any numbers for losses due to fuel starvation, but the tanker crews have told stories of landing on fumes, no chance for a go-round, because of loitering to refuel a returning fighter which would otherwise have ditched.

Argentina still operates much the same types. Their ranges have not increased. You suggest there are more than 60: well, if all those currently stored were made airworthy, yes - but that would need more money, & would probably be spotted, thus ringing alarm bells. And it's still only a little more than half the number it had in 1982.

 

[kev 99]

Incorrect on all counts. AAF has 4 fighter sqns in 2 grupos (1 IAI Dagger/Finger, 1 Mirage & 2 A-4AR in 5&6 air group) and the COAN still has the super etendards. Numbers should exceed 60. But that's besides the point. If the a/c comes from 5 vectors and you only got 4, you need to take out a vector and then move on the other. If you wait, then essentially, the reaction time to take out the remaining aircraft diminishes. Its not like a computer game where one just sees a fighter, fires a missile from a hundred miles out and downs it. The typhoon is a capable fighter but not a miracle aircraft.

This was prepared by the Turkish govt.
http://ihracat.ssm.gov.tr/TR/Lists/... Report and Needs for Defense Forces 2010.doc

Essentially 14 Mirage IIIEAs, 23 Mirage Vs, 34 A-4ARs and 11 Etendards equates to ~82 fighters.

The rationale for AAF aerial tankers in 82 was because the fleet was several hundred kms east of Falklands. That was intentionally to minimise range to Argentine airfields. Its not an issue for jets in Argentina to reach Falklands. If you understand air ops, you'd realise that 500km isn't that far for jets. At 600 kts, its under 30 minutes to cover that distance.

And as to Rapier, in 82 the Argies ran through rapiers, blowpipes, sea darts and sea wolfs. The current rapier battery won't be that major a deterrent esp when one considers that argies have better munitions today that outrange the rapier eg AS-25.

I said more than 56 OPERATIONAL aircraft.

Rapier is not the same weapon it was in 82. Does the AAF have a anti radiation missile? If not then the Rapiers are going to cause a problem.

Does the AS-25 have a surface attack mode, everything I've seen on it suggests it's an anti ship missile.

The rest of your argument has been pretty comprehensively dismissed by Swerve already.

 

[riksavage]

I said more than 56 OPERATIONAL aircraft.

Rapier is not the same weapon it was in 82. Does the AAF have a anti radiation missile? If not then the Rapiers are going to cause a problem.

Does the AS-25 have a surface attack mode, everything I've seen on it suggests it's an anti ship missile.

The rest of your argument has been pretty comprehensively dismissed by Swerve already.

Rapier has been upgraded and linked to the airfield longer range radar. In 82 they were never fully operational. Star-streak is a step-change compared to blowpipe and can attack from all angles. Rapier, Typhoon, Starsteak coordinated via the existing long range radar will cause a great deal of pain to the Argies. The risk is too great to warrant a strike followed by a landing.If a T class or Astute is in the vicinity Argie shipping and aircraft (assuming airfield is lost) will be devastated by TacTom unless they use the locals as human shields.

 

[weasel1962]

Re:

The distance from the nearest point of the mainland to the nearest point of the islands is unimportant. What matters is the distance from the nearest Argentinean airfield to the target, in this case MPA. That is not 500 km. To launch attacks from multiple vectors, as you suggest, adds more range, as the attacking aircraft would have to fly further, either from more remote bases or diverting from the shortest route. The only types Argentina used for raids from the mainland without AAR were the Canberra, & the Dagger (because it had no AAR capability!). The latter was limited to a single approach direction, straight in & out & back the same way, & had heavy losses from Harriers on that corridor.

Mount Pleasant to
Rio Grande - 663 km
San Julian - 714 km
Santa Cruz - 737 km
Rio Gallegos - 740 km
Comodoro Rivadavia - 941 km.

The fleet was not 'several hundred km' east of the Falklands: if it had been, the Sea Harriers could not fought over the islands.

Also, tankers were used to support raids on ships inshore, e.g. in San Carlos Water, i.e. over shorter distances than those above. Given the small number of tankers, I'm sure they wouldn't have done that if it wasn't necessary.

In 1982 Argentina had far more fighters than now, but never launched the attacks from multiple simultaneous or near-simultaneous vectors that you claim it can do now. Why do you think that is?

Even with tanker support, none of the Argentinean fighters had enough fuel to engage in air-air combat, & had very short times over target. I don't have any numbers for losses due to fuel starvation, but the tanker crews have told stories of landing on fumes, no chance for a go-round, because of loitering to refuel a returning fighter which would otherwise have ditched.

Argentina still operates much the same types. Their ranges have not increased. You suggest there are more than 60: well, if all those currently stored were made airworthy, yes - but that would need more money, & would probably be spotted, thus ringing alarm bells. And it's still only a little more than half the number it had in 1982.

Uhmm...

Agreed on the distances but they actually did multi-vector attacks. An example being the coventry sinking. Read Martin Middlebrooks' account in the fight for the Malvinas.

Noted that argies used 3 main bases for their jets in 82. Rio Grande 440 miles (65 sorties 4th group), San Julian 485 miles (150+ sorties) and Rio Gallegos 495 miles (100 sorties 5th group). The FAA in 82 had ~45 skyhawks, 37 daggers, 17 mirages + 10 canberras other than support.

Only one instance of the CVS actually approaching Falklands during the entire battle that I read and that was for the SAS raid via the hermes. As indicative numbers, in the early days of May, the task group was actually around 100nm or 180 km NE of Stanley. During the Sheffield attack, the task group was ~75nm (140km) SE of Stanley. Source: MM's "task force".

I note the bulk of the attacks on San Carlos were done without aerial refuelling. They actually had to search for the fleet and many sorties went without attack. A few hercs cannot refuel the entire Argie air fleet. And in most cases, the argies tried to coordinate such that attacks all reached their targets simultaneously.

I note the longest attack was the stern attack against the Avenger which the argies mistook as the Invincible (when using their last exocet). That was a 700nm raid from Rio Grande with 2 etendards and 2 skyhawks on a southern route and then rear attack with 2 KC-130s and 2 refuelling ops.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxx

The above doesn't make a diff, 4 Typhoons will have a hard time stopping 20 argie fighters raiding the airfield much less double that. 4 aces in 1 sortie where the aggressor is trying to evade rather than engage. Its an unrealistic assumption but they can still inflict attrition losses.

As to the AS-25K, I'm reading CITEFA presented 2 versions. 1 anti-ship, the other anti-surface which is what I translate when I read "presentará en versiones aire-mar y aire-superficie".

 

[weasel1962]

Re:

Rapier has been upgraded and linked to the airfield longer range radar. In 82 they were never fully operational. Star-streak is a step-change compared to blowpipe and can attack from all angles. Rapier, Typhoon, Starsteak coordinated via the existing long range radar will cause a great deal of pain to the Argies. The risk is too great to warrant a strike followed by a landing.If a T class or Astute is in the vicinity Argie shipping and aircraft (assuming airfield is lost) will be devastated by TacTom unless they use the locals as human shields.

Read about experience of T-battery of the 12th ADR who took 12 rapier launch units to the Falklands and apparently were the "most popular guys around" when the raids began in 82. I'm counting at least 6 instances of rapier firings against argie strikes but guess how many hits...

According to Gordon Smith's Battle of the Falklands War, I do note an attributed rapier kill on 29 May of a dagger flown by a Lt Bernhardt.

 

[1805]

I am not sure this aerial "charge of the light brigade" would have much chance of success. The 4 Typhoons might have trouble accounting for all of the attackers but unless you can knock the runway out completely which has generally proved difficult, their buddies will turn up.

Get the on the ground, or get some of them on the ground and send in the air drop and get the rest as they try to take off to intercept?

 

[swerve]

Uhmm...

Agreed on the distances but they actually did multi-vector attacks. An example being the coventry sinking. Read Martin Middlebrooks' account in the fight for the Malvinas.

Noted that argies used 3 main bases for their jets in 82. Rio Grande 440 miles (65 sorties 4th group), San Julian 485 miles (150+ sorties) and Rio Gallegos 495 miles (100 sorties 5th group). The FAA in 82 had ~45 skyhawks, 37 daggers, 17 mirages + 10 canberras other than support.

Only one instance of the CVS actually approaching Falklands during the entire battle that I read and that was for the SAS raid via the hermes. As indicative numbers, in the early days of May, the task group was actually around 100nm or 180 km NE of Stanley. During the Sheffield attack, the task group was ~75nm (140km) SE of Stanley. Source: MM's "task force".

For the most part, you're now agreeing with my criticisms of your previous post. 500km has suddenly turned into 500 miles, for example, & 'several hundred' into 140 to 180. Since when has 1.4 to 1.8 been 'several'?

Multi-vector in terms of direction of low-level approach to a ship, but not multi-vector in the terms which Typhoons on CAP will see. They'll all be approaching from the same arc: nothing will come from the east.

You talk of 20 fighters in one raid, & then describe a 'multi-vector' attack by four aircraft on two routes. Hmm. See the inconsistency? You obviously have access to good accounts of the campaign: what was the largest number of mainland-based (i.e. not counting Pucaras operating from strips on the islands) tactical aircraft the Argentineans had over the Falklands at once in 1982? How much less than 20 was it? Was it ever in double figures? Then ask yourself what evidence you have that it could be bettered now?

A few hercs cannot refuel the entire Argie air fleet.

Exactly what I've been saying! Two Hercs (only one usually flying at a time, these days, I've heard) can refuel very little. Half a dozen KC-390s will be much better (if they all get hose units), but they won't be in service before the late 2010s.

 

[weasel1962]

Re

For the most part, you're now agreeing with my criticisms of your previous post. 500km has suddenly turned into 500 miles, for example, & 'several hundred' into 140 to 180. Since when has 1.4 to 1.8 been 'several'?

You're being pedantic. Falklands is 500km from the mainland. Thats factually correct. You applied a different measure albeit more accurate measure which was to airfields and its not inconsistent for me to agree. That doesn't shift Falklands further from the mainland.

One of the dictionary definition of "several" is "more than one". But even if I'm accurate, that argument is irrelevant. The fact is all the aircraft in the FAA could in 82 operate over the Falklands without air refuel and have still retain some measure of manourvreability rather than the in and out that you claimed esp against a target which is fixed and whose location is known. In 2010, it doesn't change that.

Multi-vector in terms of direction of low-level approach to a ship, but not multi-vector in the terms which Typhoons on CAP will see. They'll all be approaching from the same arc: nothing will come from the east.

Wrong. Whilst the typhoon is claimed to have fantastic detection capabilities, it is not an aew if one observes the air space and the number of aircraft we're talking about =4. The argies do not necessarily have to approach from the same arc.

You talk of 20 fighters in one raid, & then describe a 'multi-vector' attack by four aircraft on two routes. Hmm. See the inconsistency?

You don't realise that you've already answered your own question. With multiple airfields, just check their direction from Stanley. Each is a vector on its own. They don't combine and come in as a group from a single direction. Whilst broadly speaking all are in the western arc, actual attacks came from both north and south as well. In the case of San Carlos, attacks came in all directions.

You obviously have access to good accounts of the campaign: what was the largest number of mainland-based (i.e. not counting Pucaras operating from strips on the islands) tactical aircraft the Argentineans had over the Falklands at once in 1982? How much less than 20 was it? Was it ever in double figures? Then ask yourself what evidence you have that it could be bettered now?

I'm too lazy to check what's the max since I will have to tally all the days. I will merely post an example on 1 May, 1982, San Julian sent 16 A4s + 5 Daggers. Rio Gallegos sent 12 Mirages (1 shot down SE of stanley) + 12 A4s, Rio grande sent 4 Daggers (1 shot down SW of stanley) whilst Trelew sent 6 canberras (one of which was shot down north of stanley). That's 49 fast jets and 6 slow bombers at one time and the shoot down locations will give you an idea of where the aircraft vectors could end up being.

You can't engage such numbers with just 4 typhoons.

Exactly what I've been saying! Two Hercs (only one usually flying at a time, these days, I've heard) can refuel very little. Half a dozen KC-390s will be much better (if they all get hose units), but they won't be in service before the late 2010s.

Agree its better but air refuel ultimately won't make much of a diff to an attack on Falklands and useless against the QEs.

Having M-2000s with Micas might improve the odds a little as they will occupy the typhoons. Adding smart munitions will improve survivability but it won't make a diff once the QEs with F-35s join in the fray.

Its an unwinnable war for the Argies.

 

[citizen578]

You can't engage such numbers with just 4 typhoons.

Nor would you need to, considering Argentina does not possess such a number of operational combat aircraft, or (as Swerve has mentioned several times) the AAR capability to get a sizable strike force to MPA and back carrying anything heavier than an inflatable sheep.

You've made little reference in any of your posts to FI defences beyond the 4 Typhoons. There is a highly capable ground based EW radar system in the Falklands, designed and positioned with the primary purpose of detecting just such an attack. No mention either of the layered GBAD around MPA and other key sites, or the doubtless cold-sweat it would cause any would be aggressor. Nor is there any mention of how Argentina could possibly hope to plan and prepare for such an attack without being noticed by the good folk of Vauxhall Cross and Cheltenham.

 

[citizen578]

Aust may use UK amphibious craft

Seems the RAN is considering leasing Largs Bay (as well as considering an outright purchase). This might buy the MoD's budgeteers a bit of breathing space, perhaps even allow us to take her back when the the financials are in better shape.