The Royal Navy Discussions and Updates

[Systems Adict]

I know...can't see any point where I've definitively claimed it has been.

How about we actually *talk* about it? Say, have a chat in terms of "would this be a good choice or a bad choice?

I dunno, or maybe we can go back to arguing with 1805?

Ian

PLEASE, take this as a personal apology from myself.

My comments were directed in the form of a definative statement, to clarify that no decision has been made.

It was in no way directed at you as an individual & it wasn't my intention or implication to do so.

The action & reaction on this thread over the last 12 months haven't exactly been harmonious & I can only apologise again if you have taken this personally.

SA

 

[FluffyThoughts]

First post since the depressing SDSR and whilst I have been lurking I have had little positive to say. What I would like is the inane social chatter to be kept of the thread (as everyone generally contributes something - however ludicrous it may be - to the discussion).

If you have an issue with a poster can you IM them. This is one of the few sites where posting remains curteous and on-message. [And apologies to the Mods if I am treading on their ground.]

Many thanks, :spam

 

[overlander]

It would be interesting to know how the falklands will be defended after these wild cuts in the event of an argentinian attack because in my modest opinion or they reinforce the garrison with more fighters and anti air missiles or without carriers it,s not not an easy task.

 

[citizen578]

You've had every opportunity to post said article at any point in the time since - to me, it was news, I heard it three days ago, I brought it to the forum to discuss it. Since the reaction to just doing that has been so incredibly negative, I won't bother again,

Ian

Indeed I have, and chose to do so in other fora. My apologies for any offence caused - my post was to highlight that this thread over the past two years or so has been a wasted opportunity. The site is filled with some very knowledgable people - the callibre of which you would be hard pressed to find on another defence site.
Unfortunately, there's little opportunity to post or discuss genuine news, when the majority of time is spent with 'distractions'.

As I don't want this to become another, I'll stop at that.

 

[citizen578]

It would be interesting to know how the falklands will be defended after these wild cuts in the event of an argentinian attack because in my modest opinion or they reinforce the garrison with more fighters and anti air missiles or without carriers it,s not not an easy task.

The balance in the South Atlantic on a routine basis hasn't changed, as both the FI based units, and the Argentine forces remain completely unchanged to what they were a few months ago (and in the Arg case, as few decades ago!)
Certainly we face a highly denuded capability to send a task force anywhere in any modern-day reenactment of Op Corporate.

For us there is a light at the end of the tunnel, and some very sophisticated kit to keep us a notch above in the meantime. The Fuerza Argentina cannot say the same.

 

[1805]

It would be interesting to know how the falklands will be defended after these wild cuts in the event of an argentinian attack because in my modest opinion or they reinforce the garrison with more fighters and anti air missiles or without carriers it,s not not an easy task.

If you ignore the political appetite of Argentina to used force, which although not inconceivable is unlikely. The two issues I see are could with the exiting or slightly enhanced forces Argentina; a) take the Falkland’s and b) defend them against a British Task Force.

It would not be easy for them to take the Islands, but it is possible to put a credible plan forward that has the potential to work.

Even with the cuts we have a more capable assault/lift capability than we had in 1982. The big question is would 6 T45 (and T23 with far more capable SAMs) be able to defend a task force against air attack long enough to retake the islands, without carrier bourne fighters?

Thinking about it, a big case for the CVF is we could largely saved the cost of the Typhoons/garrison in Stanley; as it is a credible threat to retake (capability and political will) that keeps the Falklands safe not the size of the local defences.

 

[Troothsayer]

It would not be easy for them to take the Islands, but it is possible to put a credible plan forward that has the potential to work.

Hmmm, have they got secret invisible amphibious shipping in their inventory that I haven't heard of which would allow them to put more than 300 ashore at any time?

 

[SASWanabe]

Hmmm, have they got secret invisible amphibious shipping in their inventory that I haven't heard of which would allow them to put more than 300 ashore at any time?

Hercules is still around she can carry 230 or so... its not like they had much of an amphib force the first time round

 

[riksavage]

Hercules is still around she can carry 230 or so... its not like they had much of an amphib force the first time round

True, but the 230 odd will be carried to a watery grave!

Unfortunately for the Argentines every rotating military unit that is posted out to the Falklands practices infinitum just about every possible scenario known to man. Including amphib landing, SF covert approach via submarine and air-landing involving a re-sprayed C130 (RAF colours) forced landing at MP by an Argie SF team.

I seriously doubt considering the resources available to the current Argentine military they have anything in their inventory, which can ship enough resources to the Island (3 to 1 ratio attacker to defender) in time. UK C17's can bring in enough force multipliers to mitigate any credible attack assuming ISTAR picks-up intent. A single battery of MLRS would lay waste to a beachhead, tracked or man-pad starstreak (complimenting existing Rapier) would severely hinder any CAS effort and a single ASTUTE (worst case scenario 15 days sailing time from the UK) could decimate the entire Argentine fleet or hammer their coastal air-bases with TacTom.

We've done this 'what if' Falklands II option to death. Since the upgrading of Mount Pleasant with associated infrastructure, manning and hard-shelters the Falklands is basically a static aircraft carrier minus a full airwing (bar the 4 x typhoon flight). Within 24hrs the 4 could become 12 and so on and so forth.

In 82 the defending RM party was restricted to 7.62mm small arms and Charlie G's. Imagine what the current stock of Javelin firing posts would do to the Amtrak's coming ashore. Combine this with the 105mm guns, GMG's and .50's in the garrisons armoury backed up by not a single company of defenders but a battalion strength (Infantry + supporting arm's, RAF Reg, local reserve force and general odds and sods).

There will be NO taking back of the Falklands unless Argentina dramatically increases defence spending. The RN loves to us the taking back argument to mitigate cuts, unfortunately it simply doesn't wash with the Army and RAF.

On a separate note the F-35's AN/APG-81 surveillance range (165 kilometers / 90 nautical miles) is a step-change over the previous generation FAA aircraft (Harrier). Will the vastly superior radar fit in some way reduce the need for a dedicated manned shipboard early warning platform if dovetailed with the T45 (PAAMS) in the escort role? We are no longer facing a Soviet level threat, so wouldn't a cheaper long range unmanned UAV be a more sensible option based on current budget restrictions until a PRC sized superpower ramps up its capabilities/postering? In a hostile environment F35's flying picket combined with PAAMS should provide enough warning to the fleet against what Iran or NK could bring to the table.

 

[1805]

True, but the 230 odd will be carried to a watery grave!

Unfortunately for the Argentines every rotating military unit that is posted out to the Falklands practices infinitum just about every possible scenario known to man. Including amphib landing, SF covert approach via submarine and air-landing involving a re-sprayed C130 (RAF colours) forced landing at MP by an Argie SF team.

I seriously doubt considering the resources available to the current Argentine military they have anything in their inventory, which can ship enough resources to the Island (3 to 1 ratio attacker to defender) in time. UK C17's can bring in enough force multipliers to mitigate any credible attack assuming ISTAR picks-up intent. A single battery of MLRS would lay waste to a beachhead, tracked or man-pad starstreak (complimenting existing Rapier) would severely hinder any CAS effort and a single ASTUTE (worst case scenario 15 days sailing time from the UK) could decimate the entire Argentine fleet or hammer their coastal air-bases with TacTom.

We've done this 'what if' Falklands II option to death. Since the upgrading of Mount Pleasant with associated infrastructure, manning and hard-shelters the Falklands is basically a static aircraft carrier minus a full airwing (bar the 4 x typhoon flight). Within 24hrs the 4 could become 12 and so on and so forth.

In 82 the defending RM party was restricted to 7.62mm small arms and Charlie G's. Imagine what the current stock of Javelin firing posts would do to the Amtrak's coming ashore. Combine this with the 105mm guns, GMG's and .50's in the garrisons armoury backed up by not a single company of defenders but a battalion strength (Infantry + supporting arm's, RAF Reg, local reserve force and general odds and sods).

There will be NO taking back of the Falklands unless Argentina dramatically increases defence spending. The RN loves to us the taking back argument to mitigate cuts, unfortunately it simply doesn't wash with the Army and RAF.

On a separate note the F-35's AN/APG-81 surveillance range (165 kilometers / 90 nautical miles) is a step-change over the previous generation FAA aircraft (Harrier). Will the vastly superior radar fit in some way reduce the need for a dedicated manned shipboard early warning platform if dovetailed with the T45 (PAAMS) in the escort role? We are no longer facing a Soviet level threat, so wouldn't a cheaper long range unmanned UAV be a more sensible option based on current budget restrictions until a PRC sized superpower ramps up its capabilities/postering? In a hostile environment F35's flying picket combined with PAAMS should provide enough warning to the fleet against what Iran or NK could bring to the table.

Could not a small SF group be landed by submarine(s) proceed to MP and destroy the 4 Typhoon with standoff AT missiles. Remain sufficiently near to deny the airfield to reinforcement (with MANPADS etc). Followed up by an old fashioned airborne landing in waves aka Crete.

I am not sure the landings could be made at sufficient distance/height to minimise the risk of Rapier and the likes, but the Falklands are big?

Avoid any seaborne activity; in fact avoid any naval build up that might provoke a British reinforcement. The Argentines could undertake a subtle build up that would significantly improve their capability to undertake such an operation without attracting too much attention.

I could see lots of places where this could all easily go wrong but is it so unlikely a scenario? Incidentally the British failed to defend Crete despite nearly 4- 5 times the numbers of the attacking force.

 

[weasel1962]

Re:

Could not a small SF group be landed by submarine(s) proceed to MP and destroy the 4 Typhoon with standoff AT missiles. Remain sufficiently near to deny the airfield to reinforcement (with MANPADS etc). Followed up by an old fashioned airborne landing in waves aka Crete.

I am not sure the landings could be made at sufficient distance/height to minimise the risk of Rapier and the likes, but the Falklands are big?

Avoid any seaborne activity; in fact avoid any naval build up that might provoke a British reinforcement. The Argentines could undertake a subtle build up that would significantly improve their capability to undertake such an operation without attracting too much attention.

I could see lots of places this could all go wrong but it so unlikely a scenario? Incidentally the British failed to defend Crete despite nearly 4- 5 times the numbers of the attacking force.

No. The island is patrolled regularly. The Argentine air force only needs to out-number the typhoons. There's a limit to how many fighters can shoot down and the Argies have more than that. Sufficient to ignore the Typhoons and just bombed the airstrip.

Having said that, the AAF is a shadow of its former self and as already mentioned the RAF can easily reinforce rapidly with a full sqn of typhoons if needed. In view of the state of the argentine af, imho, the Type 45s are more than adequate for this mission.

 

[1805]

No. The island is patrolled regularly. The Argentine air force only needs to out-number the typhoons. There's a limit to how many fighters can shoot down and the Argies have more than that. Sufficient to ignore the Typhoons and just bombed the airstrip.

Having said that, the AAF is a shadow of its former self and as already mentioned the RAF can easily reinforce rapidly with a full sqn of typhoons if needed. In view of the state of the argentine af, imho, the Type 45s are more than adequate for this mission.

The Falklands are nearly the size of Wales the ability to detect a SF group competely must be limted. However I agree their AF is probably not sufficient to deal with a taskforce protected by 6 T45 and T23 armed with a capable SAM.

 

[Troothsayer]

The Argentine air force only needs to out-number the typhoons. There's a limit to how many fighters can shoot down and the Argies have more than that. Sufficient to ignore the Typhoons and just bombed the airstrip.

So as well as this new invisible amphibious shipping, they've got new 'invisibility cloaking devices' on their what? 20 airworthy FJ that lets them fly in undetected by the 3 radar stations.

 

[kev 99]

No. The island is patrolled regularly. The Argentine air force only needs to out-number the typhoons. There's a limit to how many fighters can shoot down and the Argies have more than that. Sufficient to ignore the Typhoons and just bombed the airstrip.

Having said that, the AAF is a shadow of its former self and as already mentioned the RAF can easily reinforce rapidly with a full sqn of typhoons if needed. In view of the state of the argentine af, imho, the Type 45s are more than adequate for this mission.

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.

 

[riksavage]

Could not a small SF group be landed by submarine(s) proceed to MP and destroy the 4 Typhoon with standoff AT missiles. Remain sufficiently near to deny the airfield to reinforcement (with MANPADS etc). Followed up by an old fashioned airborne landing in waves aka Crete.

I am not sure the landings could be made at sufficient distance/height to minimise the risk of Rapier and the likes, but the Falklands are big?

Avoid any seaborne activity; in fact avoid any naval build up that might provoke a British reinforcement. The Argentines could undertake a subtle build up that would significantly improve their capability to undertake such an operation without attracting too much attention.

I could see lots of places where this could all easily go wrong but is it so unlikely a scenario? Incidentally the British failed to defend Crete despite nearly 4- 5 times the numbers of the attacking force.

Crete was a pyrrhic victory for the Germans, the resulting casualties to men and airframes had strategic implications (Stalingrad air-bridge) resulting in Hitler banning all future large scale operational drops. The only reason why they weren’t defeated was the NZ General in charge of allied land forces totally ignored intelligence and positioned his best infantry battalions to prevent a none-existent sea-borne invasion. He failed to kill the Para’s on the DZ before they got to their weapons containers. They still suffered horrendous casualties though.

The Argies would have to drop a brigade based on 3:1 ratio (don’t have enough lift) and be prepared to suffer a 50-60% casualty rate to Rapier, man-pads, DZ injuries and small arms fire. Not an option.

The problem with the Falklands is there is almost zero cover and no local support. The place may be the size of Wales, but any SF have to move close to MP. All possible firing points are marked and patrolled. Plus the local population provides additional eyes and ears.

 

[1805]

Crete was a pyrrhic victory for the Germans, the resulting casualties to men and airframes had strategic implications (Stalingrad air-bridge) resulting in Hitler banning all future large scale operational drops. The only reason why they weren’t defeated was the NZ General in charge of allied land forces totally ignored intelligence and positioned his best infantry battalions to prevent a none-existent sea-borne invasion. He failed to kill the Para’s on the DZ before they got to their weapons containers. They still suffered horrendous casualties though.

The Argies would have to drop a brigade based on 3:1 ratio (don’t have enough lift) and be prepared to suffer a 50-60% casualty rate to Rapier, man-pads, DZ injuries and small arms fire. Not an option.

The problem with the Falklands is there is almost zero cover and no local support. The place may be the size of Wales, but any SF have to move close to MP. All possible firing points are marked and patrolled. Plus the local population provides additional eyes and ears.

Nothing to worry about then, you are sounding a bit like the man who said the Ardennes were impassable to Panzers in 1940.

Agree with you on Crete shocking defeat, Freyberg was brave but maybe not the greatest general.

 

[swerve]

Could not a small SF group be landed by submarine(s) proceed to MP and destroy the 4 Typhoon with standoff AT missiles. Remain sufficiently near to deny the airfield to reinforcement (with MANPADS etc). Followed up by an old fashioned airborne landing in waves aka Crete..

This is one of those 'everything must go right, & the enemy has to co-operate', scenarios.

Your small SF group has to get ashore & evade detection long enough to get a shot at the Typhoons. It's unlikely that they'll ever get a shot at all four. They live in hardened shelters - of which there are 16, so the RAF can play shell games with them. One Typhoon is a spare, so the most that are ever out of shelters at the same time is probably three, & usually only one or two.

The shelter doors all face in different directions, & IIRC are all shielded by berms. I think they're not visible from outside the perimeter. From each shelter there are at least two routes to the runway.

There's no cover outside the perimeter. The defenders have night vision gear, infra-red, etc. They know every inch of the countryside around the base. They patrol it regularly. They'd hugely outnumber any group that could get ashore surreptitiously, & have vastly greater firepower.

So, what do we have? A small group, carrying all their supplies (shooting sheep attracts attention) has to get ashore & find their way to a point near the base & from which they can overlook the runway, without being detected. They then have to stay there, undetected, while watching for a chance to get a shot at a Typhoon. They need to either make do with attacking a single aircraft, or wait - perhaps weeks - for a better chance. They will not get a second chance, so they'd better score with their first shot. Once they open fire, all hell breaks loose. The FIDF (& these days that is not to be despised) is called out, helicopters, tracker dogs, foot patrols, the works. However good they are, they'll be dead or caught quickly.

Landing in waves in Crete only worked because the airfields there were poorly defended (as said), the attackers were prepared to take heavy casualties, & once they'd landed the defence became disorganised.

 

[swerve]

No. The island is patrolled regularly. The Argentine air force only needs to out-number the typhoons. There's a limit to how many fighters can shoot down and the Argies have more than that. Sufficient to ignore the Typhoons and just bombed the airstrip.

Wrong calculation.

It doesn't matter how many fighters Argentina has. What matters is how many can get to the Falklands on one raid. Argentina only has two ancient KC-130s, & that limits how many aircraft it can send to bomb MPA (other than on a one-way trip) to a number that two Typhoons can deal with, leaving two armed & ready on the ground for the next raid.

Remember, when those Argentinean aircraft get to the Falklands, they're on their own against fighters which can kill them without the Argentineans ever detecting what shot them down. The Typhoons have the advantages of performance, sensors, weapons, & ground environment. There won't be any dogfights.

To change that, Argentina would have to spend a lot of money on the air force, & there's no sign of that happening.

 

[1805]

This is one of those 'everything must go right, & the enemy has to co-operate', scenarios.

Your small SF group has to get ashore & evade detection long enough to get a shot at the Typhoons. It's unlikely that they'll ever get a shot at all four. They live in hardened shelters - of which there are 16, so the RAF can play shell games with them. One Typhoon is a spare, so the most that are ever out of shelters at the same time is probably three, & usually only one or two.

The shelter doors all face in different directions, & IIRC are all shielded by berms. I think they're not visible from outside the perimeter. From each shelter there are at least two routes to the runway.

There's no cover outside the perimeter. The defenders have night vision gear, infra-red, etc. They know every inch of the countryside around the base. They patrol it regularly. They'd hugely outnumber any group that could get ashore surreptitiously, & have vastly greater firepower.

So, what do we have? A small group, carrying all their supplies (shooting sheep attracts attention) has to get ashore & find their way to a point near the base & from which they can overlook the runway, without being detected. They then have to stay there, undetected, while watching for a chance to get a shot at a Typhoon. They need to either make do with attacking a single aircraft, or wait - perhaps weeks - for a better chance. They will not get a second chance, so they'd better score with their first shot. Once they open fire, all hell breaks loose. The FIDF (& these days that is not to be despised) is called out, helicopters, tracker dogs, foot patrols, the works. However good they are, they'll be dead or caught quickly.

Landing in waves in Crete only worked because the airfields there were poorly defended (as said), the attackers were prepared to take heavy casualties, & once they'd landed the defence became disorganised.

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

 

[kev 99]

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

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.