Erm, in none of those cases did RN submarines engage surface targets. I'm not talking about firing off a couple of Tomohawks against places on land, I'm talking about other frigates and destroyers.
I think you're getting overly excited over something that happened 25 years ago. Remember that Conqueror would not have been able to pursue the Belgrano any further - if that had happened it would have been up to the Exocet-armed frigates to take the Argentines on. Also, what would have happened if the Argentine aircraft carrier and her escorts had carried on regardless, maybe with the destroyers in the South not stopping? What could Conqueror have done then? Sweet fa, that's what!
You can't rely on just one part of your navy. For expeditionary warfare you need a well-balanced force of submarines, surface combatants and AAW destroyers to look after aircraft carriers and/or transports. Focusing on one at the expense of another is a recipe for disaster.
You also ignored my point about increased costs from reduced numbers of units produced.
I'm not trying to engage in some sort of aggressive point by point rebuttal, everyone's views are valid and I'm interested in contra points of view or I wouldn't have asked for them.
If you want a reply to your specific point then yes, I'd imagine it would push up the unit cost of the C1 ships but it would also likely reduce the unit costs of the Astute as their already expended R&D costs would be spread over more units. I don't know if that would be a quid pro quo £ for £ or not.
I made the point about land attack capability to reinforce the fact that the submarine isn't single role. I think I'm allowed to make a point in its own right without it having to be in direct reference to something someone else said.
I don't see what's not relevant about the Falklands example today. The thread I referenced on the South African exercise shows the continued potency of the submarine against surface units.
In terms of the Falklands then as you say, Conqueror had followed Belgrano for some time and had to make an engage/not engage decision due to increasingly shallow waters. Maybe the decision to engage was
precisely because we didn't want to be relying on 25 mile range anti-ship missiles on frigates.
As to what would have happened if the Argentines had kept coming who knows. There were two other SSN's there though as well as Conqueror (two S class, Spartan was one, can't remamber the other). One of the S class had V de Mayo in her scope sights but wasn't allowed to engage as the Argentine carrier wasn't in the total exclusion zone (If my memory serves me right I read that in "We come unseen: The Untold Story of Britains Cold War Submariners" by Jim Ring). I'd suggest though that the Argentines would have been badly mauled which is
precisely why they didn't carry on regardless.
The submaines achieved their mission, establishing sea control and protecting the fleet from surface attack. I think they'd be as relevent at that today as they were then.
Completely agree with your view on the need for balance. Of course where the balancing point lies is always a matter of judgement on which we seem to have a perfectly acceptable difference of opinion!
Cheers
Steve
). 