The Royal Navy Discussions and Updates

[harryriedl]

I keep forgetting how far away the islands are from the mainland as maps show it as right next to Argentina when in fact it's quite a long way away. Did the UK have a second task force if the first failed?

Well if you go on other fora there was supposedly other options but they remain in my opinion in the land of pipe dream as its everything from an old Essex class lone from the USA to a recommissioned Bulwark and Lusty and a similar escorts ect as the HVT are the priority

 

[1805]

I keep forgetting how far away the islands are from the mainland as maps show it as right next to Argentina when in fact it's quite a long way away. Did the UK have a second task force if the first failed?

No other task force other than the ships mentioned but there were other options. Had the Argentinians continued to sink ships as the rate they were doing. I think we might have seen attacks on mainland airfields, either by Harriers/Vulcans or SAS. There is very slight evidence of this type of escalation in the Sea King that got lost with SAS onboard and had to crash land in Chile. Never really explained convincingly how it could be so far away.

I think it suited the Government to keep it a local fight.

 

[riksavage]

No other task force other than the ships mentioned but there were other options. Had the Argentinians continued to sink ships as the rate they were doing. I think we might have seen attacks on mainland airfields, either by Harriers/Vulcans or SAS. There is very slight evidence of this type of escalation in the Sea King that got lost with SAS onboard and had to crash land in Chile. Never really explained convincingly how it could be so far away.

I think it suited the Government to keep it a local fight.

The UK SAS planned a strike against the airfields using C130's painted in Argie colours, the plan was to land, extract and then kill the pilots and associated technicians (planes can be replaced in the short term, pilots can't). The assigned Sqn Commander stood up and said the mission was suicide, subsequently it was cancelled and he was RTU'd.

The Sea King mission was to deploy early warning equipment on the mainland, unfortunately the crew landed on the beach, rather than in the sea following the drop off. The idea being the helo was to be sunk without trace and the crew would then E&E to Chile. Once the equipment was in situ the SAS team would follow the aircrews example and cross the border.

Both incidents are in the public domain.

 

[Grim901]

No other task force other than the ships mentioned but there were other options. Had the Argentinians continued to sink ships as the rate they were doing. I think we might have seen attacks on mainland airfields, either by Harriers/Vulcans or SAS. There is very slight evidence of this type of escalation in the Sea King that got lost with SAS onboard and had to crash land in Chile. Never really explained convincingly how it could be so far away.

I think it suited the Government to keep it a local fight.

A suitable escalation, the Argentinians were planning on stopping our Navy by hitting Gibraltar after all.

 

[StevoJH]

Well if you go on other fora there was supposedly other options but they remain in my opinion in the land of pipe dream as its everything from an old Essex class lone from the USA to a recommissioned Bulwark and Lusty and a similar escorts ect as the HVT are the priority

From memory the Tiger's and Bulwark were surveyed for reactivation, but they werent carried out as it was felt they wouldn't be available before the conflict ended. Remembering that as well as a refit, they also needed crews.

However given time, they could be sent.

The other thing that needs to be remembered, is that the number of T42's, T22's and Sea Wolf Leanders available increases massively come December 1982/January 1983.

 

[AndrewMI]

A suitable escalation, the Argentinians were planning on stopping our Navy by hitting Gibraltar after all.

Wow - i was not aware of that. What was the plan?

The most dramatic thing i heard involved the Resolution class - which would have been unbelievably stupid. Thank god that never happened.

The Falklands debate is so strange - aside from political gerymandering by (Insert Argentine Government here) and the Royal Navy - it really is a "dead" issue!

 

[citizen578]

It involved frogmen attacking British ships in Gib harbour, but was rumbled by MI6 and (ironically) the frogmen were arrested by Spanish special police before the mission truly started.

Don't believe the conspiracies about Maggy considering using nukes against Arg. It's utter BS and is based around passing comments made in an unofficial and otherwise un-noteworthy biography of Mitterand.

 

[Grim901]

It involved frogmen attacking British ships in Gib harbour, but was rumbled by MI6 and (ironically) the frogmen were arrested by Spanish special police before the mission truly started.

Don't believe the conspiracies about Maggy considering using nukes against Arg. It's utter BS and is based around passing comments made in an unofficial and otherwise un-noteworthy biography of Mitterand.

Indeed. I do wonder what the British escalation would have been had the attack carried on though. Any ideas?

 

[AndrewMI]

Hmmm - now you would think it would be as simple as a TacTom raid on a few airfields. Back then those sorts of raids would have been much harder. Perhaps the subs would have been asked to do more?


Defence manifestos of all parties claim they will not reduce the defence budget, but will look to make efficiency savings. We should make a note of that. All seem to recognise the importance of the RN.

UKIP and BNP, although minor parties have some interesting defence policies. UKIP want a fleet to rival the US and the BNP want all weapons to be British made and designed...

 

[ianjones1246]

Indeed. I do wonder what the British escalation would have been had the attack carried on though. Any ideas?

Hi.

I m new here (have been following this forum as a visitor for a while) but just figured i d add my 2-cents.

Regarding the UK escalating the Falklands War by extending attacks to Argentinean targets on the mainland it wouldn't generally have been a problem with International Law provided the use of force was proportional to the military value of the target, and provided the force was used solely for the purposes of self-defence and that it was used in a way which discriminated between military targets, civilian targets, and military targets not involved in the conflict.

I.e. UK attacks on Argentinean military forces positioned along the Argentinean-Chilean border would almost certainly have been condemned via international law and the international community - since they were not being used in the conflict and played no part in it... so it would have been very hard for the UK to justify such attacks based on self-defence.

Attacks on Argentinean military forces and targets on the mainland which were involved in the conflict however would have been proportional i.e. targetting the air-fields which the Argentinean airforce was operating from, along with supporting infrastructure - since clearly these were being used by the Argentineans to interfere with the UK's attempts to retake the Falklands, and causing extensive losses.

I would guess it would have been a borderline area for the UK to attack targets such as Argentinean Naval Facilities - since on one hand these were used to attack the Falklands originally, and untill the Belgrano were still used against the UK - but after the Belgrano was sunk the Argentinean Navy mainly returned back to port and effectively became non-combatants. So in the circumstances hitting the Argentinean Navy while in port you could argue they still posed a serious threat to the UK, and could still be used against the UK since they were previously used... but on the other that they ve ceased being involved, so hitting them some would argue wouldn't be proportional. It would have been a very borderline incident and could have gone eithier way.

As such - i d guess any UK escalation would have taken the above into account, and consequently the escalation would have been only against targets actively involved in Argentinean efforts to resist the UK.

 

[StevoJH]

ianjones,

Or declare war, then anything goes. It can hardly be denied that the invasion of the Falkland Islands was an act of war. However as far as I know, there was no official declaration, hance keeping the "action" within the exclusion zone....except for the belgrano incident and a couple of minor SF incidents.

 

[AndrewMI]

ianjones,

However as far as I know, there was no official declaration, hance keeping the "action" within the exclusion zone....except for the belgrano incident and a couple of minor SF incidents.

I know that is the case - technically it was known as the Falklands Crisis.

 

[ianjones1246]

ianjones,

Or declare war, then anything goes. It can hardly be denied that the invasion of the Falkland Islands was an act of war. However as far as I know, there was no official declaration, hance keeping the "action" within the exclusion zone....except for the belgrano incident and a couple of minor SF incidents.

Declarations of war have been illegal since 1945. Only times military force is legal under international law is in self-defence, or with the authorisation of the U.N in order to fullfill the U.N's objectives.

I.e. One of the reason's the 2003 invasion of Iraq was such a gray area is because the U.N when it authorises military force ordinarily uses the the term "by any means necessary". Britain & the USA argued that repeated sanctions dating all the way back to the original gulf-war authorised use of force... however France & Russia argued the only times the U.N authorises force is by a very specific statement i.e. "by any means necessary".

If you think about it - no nations have declared war on the other for a long long time. Thats because war itself is illegal under the U.N charters. I.e. Falklands war - no declaration of war. Georgia/ Russia Crisis - no declaration of war. Iraq 2003 - no declaration of war. Invasion of Afghanistan - no declaration of war.

There's no way around international law - your eithier obeying it, or your not. If you don't obey it - you run the risk of international action (i.e. sanctions, isolation, potentially even use of force) as well as domestic repercussions (protests, more hardship for the public due to economic impacts etc...). Declaration of war are illegal - and *any* action by eithier side during a conflict is still covered by international & Humanitarian law regardless. Whether or not these are effectively enforced is however, a whole different discussion.

For a democratic nation like the UK though, to go against international law would almost certainly result in the government being removed.

 

[PeterCrisp]

Isn't that just a case of semantics though as countries have attacked other countries and whether or not they declare actual war is pretty irrelevant to the fighters on the front lines. Is this just a case of you can have war but you can't call it war?

That makes me sound like a warmonger which I'm not I just find the idea of war being illegal kind of odd.

 

[StevoJH]

Declarations of war have been illegal since 1945. Only times military force is legal under international law is in self-defence, or with the authorisation of the U.N in order to fullfill the U.N's objectives.

No, wars of "aggression" are illegal. Country A attacks Country B. Country B can declare war on Country A without trouble as Country A is the agressor. Country A has launched a war of aggression, not Country B, who are just defending themselves.

Thats my understanding anyway.

 

[MrQuintus]

and frankly the UKs population could give a fig about international law, so I doubt anyone would've been marching on downing street over what the rest of the world had to say

 

[swerve]

...

UKIP and BNP, although minor parties have some interesting defence policies. UKIP want a fleet to rival the US and the BNP want all weapons to be British made and designed...

Not really. Three CVF instead of two, 4 SSBN, 12 Astute, Ark Royal & Illustrious run on as LPHs ('back-up' amphibs they say in the manifesto - meaning reserve?), two more LSDs, 30 destroyers & frigates (types not specified), 50 naval Merlin, & 25 EEZ patrol/MCM vessels. Oh, & some more JSF so that there are enough for three carriers plus some for the RAF.

Not enough to challenge the USN, but quite a fleet.

Much the same elsewhere. Army back up to 125000, with more Commonwealth recruitment. More helicopters.

Air force - 21 A330 tankers. Scrap the PFI. More C-17s before the line closes, for a total of 10. More helicopters.

Spending up to above 3% of GDP, to pay for this.

BNP policy is far less specific.

 

[StevoJH]

BNP policy is far less specific.

If they get anywhere near power there is something wrong with the average voter in the UK.

 

[harryriedl]

Not really. Three CVF instead of two, 4 SSBN, 12 Astute, Ark Royal & Illustrious run on as LPHs ('back-up' amphibs they say in the manifesto - meaning reserve?), two more LSDs, 30 destroyers & frigates (types not specified), 50 naval Merlin, & 25 EEZ patrol/MCM vessels. Oh, & some more JSF so that there are enough for three carriers plus some for the RAF.

Not enough to challenge the USN, but quite a fleet.

Much the same elsewhere. Army back up to 125000, with more Commonwealth recruitment. More helicopters.

Air force - 21 A330 tankers. Scrap the PFI. More C-17s before the line closes, for a total of 10. More helicopters.

Spending up to above 3% of GDP, to pay for this.

BNP policy is far less specific.

Not to dissimilar to the occasional pipe dream fleets on forums here and elsewhere. Crewing all that would be an interesting challenge

 

[AndrewMI]

Not enough to challenge the USN, but quite a fleet.


BNP policy is far less specific.

Depends if the USN fire cricket balls (which we can track) or missiles (who knows...)

BNP want everything to be built in British factories by British workers. Perhaps the most unlikely/crazy idea you could think of....


StevoJH - their rise has been incredible. I saw a "party political broadcast" by them the other day. 5 years ogo that would never have happened... I only hope the mainstream parties take heed of why they have risen, as opposed to their half-cock methods of discrediting them (a la Newsnight fiasco).