Falklands War The Second?

I am pie · 20-03-2012 2:59pm

gatecrash wrote: »

Do you HONESTLY think that if the Argentinians invaded the Falklands, that the US, would not bring it's diplomatic weight firmly down on the side of the UK? Militarily, not so sure, but you can be certain that the US will stand beside the UK if this were to come to pass.

You're making the mistake of assuming they will invade, which I've categorically said they will not. They don't need to. It's going to pretty tricky for the British to drill for oil without any ports in the region to service the operation. Exploration is one thing, a production drilling operation is another. There are scant few UK allies left in the region with ports. Chile is aligned with Argentina, as are all of the regional intranational bodies. This time Argentina is playing a different game, diplomacy and imposing severe logistical challenges are the strategies they are employing. Once Chile, Brazil, Peru and Uruguay refuse logistical support an oil refining operation starts to look like a pretty big challenge.

Regional solidarity will hold, the US would support the UK if there was an invasion, but there won't be one. Where would the UK attack? Argentina !?

Best outcome is a renogiation of the Oil exploration treaty which provides real benefits to all, unilateral action should be explicitly forbidden in the treaty.

Lemming · 20-03-2012 3:14pm

I am pie wrote: »

You're making the mistake of assuming they will invade, which I've categorically said they will not. They don't need to. It's going to pretty tricky for the British to drill for oil without any ports in the region to service the operation. Exploration is one thing, a production drilling operation is another. There are scant few UK allies left in the region with ports. Chile is aligned with Argentina, as are all of the regional intranational bodies. This time Argentina is playing a different game, diplomacy and imposing severe logistical challenges are the strategies they are employing. Once Chile, Brazil, Peru and Uruguay refuse logistical support an oil refining operation starts to look like a pretty big challenge.

Regional solidarity will hold, the US would support the UK if there was an invasion, but there won't be one. Where would the UK attack? Argentina !?

Best outcome is a renogiation of the Oil exploration treaty which provides real benefits to all, unilateral action should be explicitly forbidden in the treaty.

You forget one thing. Money. It's all fine & well doing the solidarity thing now, but as has already mentioned, Mercursor trade talks with the EU have already taken a hammering, thus hampering efforts to access the largest single block market in the world. That's going to start biting companies & economies to a degree. On top of that, the offer of developing an oil storage/shipment facility is going to bring in a lot of money for a local economy on top of giving greater regional socio-economic political clout; as the expression goes: "Money talks & bullsh*t walks".

I don't see Mercursor at each others throats; they have to live with each other and they know it, but I do see the Argentinian (and it's all Argentinian, not Mercursor) rhetoric having the rug pulled from under it - if not outright, but enough to blunt whatever De Kirschner feels like trying to do to distract people from her general poor handling of the economy & general stink of corruption from her government on any given day of the week.

getz · 20-03-2012 3:19pm

I am pie wrote: »

You're making the mistake of assuming they will invade, which I've categorically said they will not. They don't need to. It's going to pretty tricky for the British to drill for oil without any ports in the region to service the operation. Exploration is one thing, a production drilling operation is another. There are scant few UK allies left in the region with ports. Chile is aligned with Argentina, as are all of the regional intranational bodies. This time Argentina is playing a different game, diplomacy and imposing severe logistical challenges are the strategies they are employing. Once Chile, Brazil, Peru and Uruguay refuse logistical support an oil refining operation starts to look like a pretty big challenge.

Regional solidarity will hold, the US would support the UK if there was an invasion, but there won't be one. Where would the UK attack? Argentina !?

Best outcome is a renogiation of the Oil exploration treaty which provides real benefits to all, unilateral action should be explicitly forbidden in the treaty.

watch my lips,argentina does not recognize the citizens of the falklands yet the UN does[check what they said when argentina last invaded] britian will not talk with argentina without the wishes of the falkland islanders,so no talks will take place about falklands untill argentina changes its constitution,as far as britain is concerned they are happy for things to stay as they are,argentina meanwhile cannot afford to, they are already in the UN bad books by trading with iran,a diplomatic row with the US and upsetting the spanish by boarding their fishing boats fishing legally in falklands waters, she is a lose cannon,and her neighbours know it.

cyrusdvirus · 20-03-2012 3:37pm

I am pie wrote: »

You're making the mistake of assuming they will invade, which I've categorically said they will not. They don't need to. It's going to pretty tricky for the British to drill for oil without any ports in the region to service the operation. Exploration is one thing, a production drilling operation is another. There are scant few UK allies left in the region with ports. Chile is aligned with Argentina, as are all of the regional intranational bodies. This time Argentina is playing a different game, diplomacy and imposing severe logistical challenges are the strategies they are employing. Once Chile, Brazil, Peru and Uruguay refuse logistical support an oil refining operation starts to look like a pretty big challenge.

Regional solidarity will hold, the US would support the UK if there was an invasion, but there won't be one. Where would the UK attack? Argentina !?

Best outcome is a renogiation of the Oil exploration treaty which provides real benefits to all, unilateral action should be explicitly forbidden in the treaty.

Concerning the difficulties regarding the oil exploration, that find off the Cork coast has been supported from Milford Haven, not Cork.

Now I'm well aware that there is a world of difference between the a trip to the South Atlantic from the UK, and a trip to just off the Irish coast from the UK, but in terms of doing what needs to be done, one company has already proven that it can support exploration totally avoiding the nearest land mass.

If the Mercursor countries make life logistically difficult then it just means you plan a bit better before dispatching any ships with goodies.

Raging_Ninja · 20-03-2012 3:38pm

gatecrash wrote: »

How?

it denied the use of the only runway on the islands to the argentine fast jets, thus meaning they had to fly from the mainland to engage their targets, reducing search and loiter time. It also meant that the planes were flying with reduced weapons loads to allow for increased fuel capacity..

It WAS a crucial attack and to deny that it altered the shape of the conflict it just plain ol' silly.

The runway was too short for Argentinian fast jets to use during the war. The runway was operational again within a couple of hours (all they had to do was fill in the hole).

All throughout the war the Argentinians were flying in supplies and launching ground attack aircraft (Pucaras etc) from the airport.

BostonB · 20-03-2012 3:45pm

gatecrash wrote: »

How?

it denied the use of the only runway on the islands to the argentine fast jets, thus meaning they had to fly from the mainland to engage their targets, reducing search and loiter time. It also meant that the planes were flying with reduced weapons loads to allow for increased fuel capacity..

It WAS a crucial attack and to deny that it altered the shape of the conflict it just plain ol' silly.

How?

The airfield was too short and the ships with the matting to extend the runway couldn't risk the submarine threat. Also Argentine aircraft did operate from Port Stanley throughout the war regardless. The hit was at one end too. The arrestor wire test wasn't successful but A4's had used the runway as is. Even assuming the arrestor worked. Could a fully bombed up and fuelled aircraft A4 or Mirage take off from a runway so short. So its a very large leap to "denied the runway" from 1 hit out of 63 bombs dropped from 6 raids. Never mind the shape of the conflict.

I am pie · 20-03-2012 3:59pm

getz wrote: »

watch my lips,argentina does not recognize the citizens of the falklands yet the UN does[check what they said when argentina last invaded] britian will not talk with argentina without the wishes of the falkland islanders,so no talks will take place about falklands untill argentina changes its constitution,as far as britain is concerned they are happy for things to stay as they are,argentina meanwhile cannot afford to, they are already in the UN bad books by trading with iran,a diplomatic row with the US and upsetting the spanish by boarding their fishing boats fishing legally in falklands waters, she is a lose cannon,and her neighbours know it.

Watch your lips? What?

What is your point here? You think the Argentines will invade? They really won't. Only ignorance of the difference between the current government and the junta would allow you to be so misled.

No talks is fine, it pretty much plays into the hands of the Argentines, they will keep going to international bodies saying 'we just want to talk about sovereignty'

Her neighbours are fully paid up members of a number of different regional bodies who vocally support Argentina's position. Check it out for yourself if you don't believe me.

cyrusdvirus · 20-03-2012 4:08pm

BostonB wrote: »

How?

The airfield was too short and the ships with the matting to extend the runway couldn't risk the submarine threat. Also Argentine aircraft did operate from Port Stanley throughout the war regardless. The hit was at one end too. The arrestor wire test wasn't successful but A4's had used the runway as is. Even assuming the arrestor worked. Could a fully bombed up and fuelled aircraft A4 or Mirage take off from a runway so short. So its a very large leap to "denied the runway" from 1 hit out of 63 bombs dropped from 6 raids. Never mind the shape of the conflict.

So that hit, smack bang in the middle of the runway is a figment of my imagination, is it?

Lets not forget, Stanley was also hit by Harriers the night of Black Buck One, 9 aircraft also attacked the field.

I am pie · 20-03-2012 4:08pm

Lemming wrote: »

You forget one thing. Money. It's all fine & well doing the solidarity thing now, but as has already mentioned, Mercursor trade talks with the EU have already taken a hammering, thus hampering efforts to access the largest single block market in the world. That's going to start biting companies & economies to a degree. On top of that, the offer of developing an oil storage/shipment facility is going to bring in a lot of money for a local economy on top of giving greater regional socio-economic political clout; as the expression goes: "Money talks & bullsh*t walks".

I don't see Mercursor at each others throats; they have to live with each other and they know it, but I do see the Argentinian (and it's all Argentinian, not Mercursor) rhetoric having the rug pulled from under it - if not outright, but enough to blunt whatever De Kirschner feels like trying to do to distract people from her general poor handling of the economy & general stink of corruption from her government on any given day of the week.

Corruption and protectionism are sadly realities in Argentina. Unfortunately populism takes the form of ridiculous 'para todo' projects which buy public support. Such potential, such poor government. Regionally i think they view Chinese FDI as a get out clause, not sure if it's viable long term but they certainly view it as the current great white hope in argentina.

Raging_Ninja · 20-03-2012 4:26pm

gatecrash wrote: »

So that hit, smack bang in the middle of the runway is a figment of my imagination, is it?

Lets not forget, Stanley was also hit by Harriers the night of Black Buck One, 9 aircraft also attacked the field.

Its irrelevant where the hit was, the runway remained operational throughout the war.

BostonB · 20-03-2012 4:34pm

gatecrash wrote: »

So that hit, smack bang in the middle of the runway is a figment of my imagination, is it?

Lets not forget, Stanley was also hit by Harriers the night of Black Buck One, 9 aircraft also attacked the field.

The question is, is the photo accurate...
http://www.phoenixthinktank.org/2011/12/falklands-30-rewriting-history/

They continued to use the runway. The argument ends there. If the argument is it denied fast jets. Where is the evidence fast jets fuelled up and bombed up could use it even undamaged due to the length. You can't deny them the use of something they couldn't use in the first place.

Summary 6 Black Buck missions, 63 bombs dropped, 1 hit off center. Runway still in use.

BostonB · 20-03-2012 4:37pm

Besides which its been known since WWII that bombing runways is rarely successful. Even when you do hit it. Hard to deny the whole runway, and its usually fixed up quickly.

balkanhawk · 20-03-2012 5:36pm

BostonB wrote: »

Besides which its been known since WWII that bombing runways is rarely successful. Even when you do hit it. Hard to deny the whole runway, and its usually fixed up quickly.

Pretty sure runway denial was a central mission for the RAF during Gulf War 1. think this weapon was designed to fill the gap highlighted during the falklands.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZAGmDqH4c-8

BostonB · 20-03-2012 6:04pm

balkanhawk wrote: »

Pretty sure runway denial was a central mission for the RAF during Gulf War 1. think this weapon was designed to fill the gap highlighted during the falklands.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZAGmDqH4c-8

I can't see the video I assume its a JP233. Thats not an iron bomb though is it. Besides which, they got decimated doing low level attacks, and its been withdrawn from service. Outlawed under the Ottawa Treaty for the mines element. It wasn't needed in the Gulf war anyway, they destroyed aircraft in hangers, or sweep the skys clear. No need to destroy the runway, or get killed trying to destroy it.

Lemming · 20-03-2012 6:09pm

I am pie wrote: »

Regionally i think they view Chinese FDI as a get out clause, not sure if it's viable long term but they certainly view it as the current great white hope in argentina.

TBH, China is headed for stormy waters as it stands with the rather large and exponentially growing bubble it's courting. I would consider putting all of your eggs in a single basket that is another country is foolish at the best of times as said other country is guaranteed to act in their best interest first, yours may or may not come second if at all. I would consider putting all of your eggs in that same basket and pursuing aggressive political posturing on the back of that to be sheer f*cking idiocy. Short term, there may be some gains, mid-term less so, and long term I really, really wouldn't lay odds on it.

Manic Moran · 21-03-2012 5:11pm

BostonB wrote: »

If you read the book about the Black Buck raid you'd see they had to resort to searching museums for some of the parts for that. Decommissioned wouldn't have been that much a hurdle to over come. Unless the vessels were unfit to be recommissioned.

Something similar happened with Tracked Rapier. They had all been turned into gate guards or sent to musea, then rapidly re-acquired and pressed into service in 1990/1991 once the British realised they had a mobile air defence gap until the new systems came into service.

The question is, is the photo accurate...
http://www.phoenixthinktank.org/2011...iting-history/

Not convinced by that paper, though I will agree that the RAF made much PR hay with what they did. At least, the raid appears to have had the result of the Argentinians not using the runways by day, since they kept putting piles of FOD onto the runway to convince the British they weren't using it at night. And since the jets generally couldn't conduct their strikes at night, that pretty much removed the thread of attack aircraft from Stanley.

NTM

BostonB · 21-03-2012 5:36pm

That link was simply to demonstrate that you can't believe everything you read/see. How do you come to conclusion the raid stopped them using the runways during the day? Besides you can't stop something that never started, the jets using Stanley.

cyrusdvirus · 21-03-2012 5:45pm

BostonB wrote: »

That link was simply to demonstrate that you can't believe everything you read/see. How do you come to conclusion the raid stopped them using the runways during the day? Besides you can't stop something that never started, the jets using Stanley.

Your link was a paper written by one Mr Nigel 'Sharkey' Ward, who has his own reasons for downplaying the Black Buck missions.

The first mission was an undoubted propaganda coup for the British Forces in theatre, and as I said, the Stanley was attacked by Sea Harriers the same night, further reducing the airfields usefulness.

No one denied that the runway was still in use, but the runway was denied to the fast jets of the Argentinian airforce.

BostonB · 21-03-2012 6:14pm

gatecrash wrote: »

Your link was a paper written by one Mr Nigel 'Sharkey' Ward, who has his own reasons for downplaying the Black Buck missions.

The first mission was an undoubted propaganda coup for the British Forces in theatre, and as I said, the Stanley was attacked by Sea Harriers the same night, further reducing the airfields usefulness.

No one denied that the runway was still in use, but the runway was denied to the fast jets of the Argentinian airforce.

I was referring to the photo's not the whole "paper"

Most of the aircraft based on the falklands were destroyed on the ground, no matter where they were. That would suggest, they didn't need to attack the airfeld, they had air superiority over the islands. Much easier to destroy aircraft than a runway. Lessons of history and all that. To deny them it implies they could use it in the first place. They pulled their A4's from the island on April 13 and never operated any faster/heavier jets there. They tried a arrestor wire unsuccessfully. But even if it had worked, how could they take off with a full load of fuel/bombs/missiles for CAP/Strike missions. The runway was too short for that. The raid wasn't till 30 April. Arguably the submarine threat stopped them making the runway longer had a bigger impact on operations than the Black Buck raid. Or their lack of enough tanker aircraft. The argument it was good for morale or why not use the vulcan has a lot more credibility, than it denied the airfield. Because it simply didn't. I wouldn't underestimate the value of morale or PR though.

It was an interesting conflict though. From a military tactics and strategy pov. I think it was a close run thing though, if they argies had sunk a few more ships....

OS119 · 21-03-2012 9:04pm

BostonB wrote: »

...The argument it was good for morale or why not use the vulcan has a lot more credibility, than it denied the airfield. Because it simply didn't. I wouldn't underestimate the value of morale or PR though....

Black Buck was never likely to close/deny the airfeild - the RAF thought that it would take 25 BB missions to close the airfield, and the logistics chain involved in getting one Vulcan over PSA meant that there were never going to be 25 BB's.

BB's projected (hoped for!) effect was, as part of the Harrier, Naval bombardment, and ship borne SAM trap 'team', to make the airfield less useful and less dependable than it might otherwise be. the damage to the runway caused the Argentines problems when using their C-130's, and the general 'unsafeness' of the airfield forced them to disperse their aircraft around the FI - the helicopter force to Mount Kent, the Picaras and Turbo Mentors to Pebble Island and Goose Green, and it put a stop to any consideration of extending the runway, whether that was going to be possible given the presence of the RN SSN's or not.

it also forced the AAF to move its most advanced fighters up around BA to protect it against a potential Vulcan attack, rather than keep them in the south where they could be used to escort the strike aircraft and give the Sea Harriers something to choke on.

so, even excluding the morale and PR issues, BB definately contributed to making Argentine air power less effective that it otherwise would have been, and therefore it succeeded in its mission.

Manic Moran · 21-03-2012 9:44pm

BostonB wrote: »

How do you come to conclusion the raid stopped them using the runways during the day?

A runway full of fake craters made of rocks and dirt is just as unusable as one full of real craters. As it happens, according to MG Fields, the commander of the Royal Engineers who did the repairing of the recapture airfield, it took two weeks to properly repair the runway to safe standards.
The raids would also have the effect of putting a serious damper in using it as a divert field or even as a staging area for a quick turnaround for attacks with less-than-full fuel loads.

In any case, and this is something of a side note, Adm Woodward's take:

My dark blue aviators said “Oh, it’s the air force just trying to get in on the act”, but I said, hang on a minute, there will be two things. If they do hit the runway, that can’t be bad, they can disrupt it… but also it will have exactly that effect of causing them [the junta] to think they could come at us on the mainland. It is showing reach and therefore it is deterrent. And I suspect it made them hold back some of their Mirages, which could have acted as top cover for their A-4 raids. So I signed up for it and told my aviators to shut up.’

NTM

BostonB · 22-03-2012 10:37am

.. and you take seriously the idea of a Vulcan attacking the mainland, without escort, in range of quite a lot of Argentina fighters. To achieve useful strikes with a hit ratio of 1 in 63. So basically carpet bomb BA. (and miss it going on their accuracy) Apart from that been slightly deranged, it would have been a big escalation of the conflict which would have alienated the international community against Britain. Even excluding the fact that the Govt had already stated they wouldn't strike the mainland.

Somehow I think the 1,200 shells the Navy fired at the airport had more of an effect than the 1 bomb the Vulcan manage to hit it with.

Repairs? unusable? The only fact that matters is they used the runway right the way up to the end of the war.

Its a great story. But the facts don't really add up.

cyrusdvirus · 22-03-2012 10:50am

BostonB wrote: »

.. and you take seriously the idea of a Vulcan attacking the mainland, without escort, in range of quite a lot of Argentina fighters. To achieve useful strikes with a hit ratio of 1 in 63. So basically carpet bomb BA. (and miss it going on their accuracy) Apart from that been slightly deranged, it would have been a big escalation of the conflict which would have alienated the international community against Britain. Even excluding the fact that the Govt had already stated they wouldn't strike the mainland.

Somehow I think the 1,200 shells the Navy fired at the airport had more of an effect than the 1 bomb the Vulcan manage to hit it with.

Repairs? unusable? The only fact that matters is they used the runway right the way up to the end of the war.

Its a great story. But the facts don't really add up.

Of course the facts don't add up. Because we are looking at a historical event, and we cannot change that history. No matter what level of conjecture myself and the other users suggest we cannot say for certain.

BUT, it is not unreasonable to say that the airfield COULD have been used as a staging area.

An aircraft taking off from the Argentinian main land to attack the Task Force had a limited loiter time, and had limited weapons to carry, BECAUSE of it's limited fuel.
If an aircraft could take off with a larger weapons load, attack the task force with it's larger weapons load and stop off in Stanley to refuel to get back to the mainland, operating within the runways constraints, then denying the runway to that aircraft with the big bomb crater in the middle of it, or the fake craters in the middle of it, or the piles of dirt on it, means the Black Buck 1 WAS effective.

BostonB · 22-03-2012 11:10am

gatecrash wrote: »

... then denying the runway to that aircraft ...

But it didn't.

Fully loaded a Mirage III needs approx 1600m runway. Stanley is 900m. How would it take off.

OS119 · 22-03-2012 11:22am

BostonB wrote: »

.. and you take seriously the idea of a Vulcan attacking the mainland, without escort, in range of quite a lot of Argentina fighters. To achieve useful strikes with a hit ratio of 1 in 63. So basically carpet bomb BA. (and miss it going on their accuracy) Apart from that been slightly deranged, it would have been a big escalation of the conflict which would have alienated the international community against Britain. Even excluding the fact that the Govt had already stated they wouldn't strike the mainland...

the Argentine 'government' attacked and occupied the sovereign and defended territory of a nation state with 2 aircraft carriers, 40 escorts, 12 attack submarines, 400+ nuclear weapons, 50 long range, strategic nuclear strike bombers, and a history of administering painful slappings to people it didn't like. does that sound like the actions of an entirely logical, well-considered thought process to you?

conversely, the Argentines didn't believe a word we said with regards to the islands, so its quite probable - indeed i'm re-reading Middlebrook right now, and its certain - that they at least took with a pinch of salt our declaration that we wouldn't bomb the mainland. we demonstrated a capability to do so, and given that there were unsure about out intent, they decided that it was a viable threat - and moved their most capable AD aircraft to protect BA, where they could have no impact on the Falklands area of operations.

you will also note that plans change - in March 1982 we had no plans to send two SSN's to the FI, that changed. in Jan 1982 the Argentines had no intention of invading within 6 months, that changed. the Argentines, not stupid people, knew that if we had a capability we might find ourselves using it if we found ourselves in an unpleasent situation. had a carrier been lost, or the land campaign bogged down, and defeat looked a real possibility, then they will have known that we might have to have tried something else - Vulcan attacks on the southern airbases would have been very strong contenders for that, and Vulcan attacks on other targets a less strong, but still viable possibility.

wars tend to be 'gloves off' affairs, and the price of losing them is quite high - once they discovered that the UK was going to fight, they will have been under no illusion that the UK government would have done whatever was neccesary to win, public statements to the contrary not withstanding.

cyrusdvirus · 22-03-2012 11:37am

BostonB wrote: »

But it didn't.

Fully loaded a Mirage III needs approx 1600m runway. Stanley is 900m. How would it take off.

It wouldn't need to be fully loaded, just enough fuel to get home...

And the fact that NO A-4's used the airfield after the attack says that it DID deny the runway to that aircraft.

BostonB · 22-03-2012 11:39am

OS119 wrote: »

the Argentine 'government' attacked and occupied the sovereign and defended territory of a nation state with 2 aircraft carriers, 40 escorts, 12 attack submarines, 400+ nuclear weapons, 50 long range, strategic nuclear strike bombers, and a history of administering painful slappings to people it didn't like. does that sound like the actions of an entirely logical, well-considered thought process to you?

conversely, the Argentines didn't believe a word we said with regards to the islands, so its quite probable - indeed i'm re-reading Middlebrook right now, and its certain - that they at least took with a pinch of salt our declaration that we wouldn't bomb the mainland. we demonstrated a capability to do so, and given that there were unsure about out intent, they decided that it was a viable threat - and moved their most capable AD aircraft to protect BA, where they could have no impact on the Falklands area of operations.

you will also note that plans change - in March 1982 we had no plans to send two SSN's to the FI, that changed. in Jan 1982 the Argentines had no intention of invading within 6 months, that changed. the Argentines, not stupid people, knew that if we had a capability we might find ourselves using it if we found ourselves in an unpleasent situation. had a carrier been lost, or the land campaign bogged down, and defeat looked a real possibility, then they will have known that we might have to have tried something else - Vulcan attacks on the southern airbases would have been very strong contenders for that, and Vulcan attacks on other targets a less strong, but still viable possibility.

wars tend to be 'gloves off' affairs, and the price of losing them is quite high - once they discovered that the UK was going to fight, they will have been under no illusion that the UK government would have done whatever was neccesary to win, public statements to the contrary not withstanding.

You saying if the UK says its going to do something,it does it. If they say they are going to fight for the island, then they mean that. But if they say they won't attack the mainland, then they don't mean that. So its only true if suits your argument.

The threat of Vulcan strikes demonstrated they could barely hit anything, doesn't seem like a huge threat to me. That was against a target with no CAP to defend it too.

This is a bit like the Gruffalo story everyones scared of the mouse (vulcan) with the Gruffalo (subs, harriers, Navy) standing behind it.

BostonB · 22-03-2012 12:04pm

gatecrash wrote: »

It wouldn't need to be fully loaded, just enough fuel to get home...

And the fact that NO A-4's used the airfield after the attack says that it DID deny the runway to that aircraft.

Except they'd stopping using it before the raid. So the reason couldn't have been the raid. That doesn't preclude they might have used it later. But there were other reasons why that was a bad idea.

I assumed you were talking about keeping a CAP over the Island and the Mirage III. Not that any of them would have much hope against a Sea Harrier in A2A with the relative training and equipment they had. The A4 would still be very marginal with the length of Stanley. Its only just long enough, that's for a factory fresh aircraft in good weather. No margin for error, damage or the age of the aircraft which were old and tired, and would be unlikely to perform as well as their official figures in terms of take off and landing.

In that light low fuel forced them to make once off fast low strikes on the ships. Which was coincidentally was the best chance of success against the Harriers and the ships. If they'd had time to "loiter" as you suggest, or hung around Stanley rearm, fuel in daylight, I think they would have suffered badly. That they withdrew them before the raids, suggests they'd realised it wasn't viable option already. As does the fact they had made preparations to extend the runway.

cyrusdvirus · 22-03-2012 12:15pm

BostonB wrote: »

Except they'd stopping using it before the raid. So the reason couldn't have been the raid. That doesn't preclude they might have used it later. But there were other reasons why that was a bad idea.

I assumed you were talking about keeping a CAP over the Island and the Mirage III. Not that any of them would have much hope against a Sea Harrier in A2A with the relative training and equipment they had.

In that light low fuel forced them to make once off fast low strikes on the ships. Which was coincidentally was the best chance of success against the Harriers and the ships. If they'd had time to "loiter" as you suggest, or hung around Stanley rearm, fuel in daylight, I think they would have suffered badly.

Sorry, maybe i phrased my posts badly. I was never thinking of a CAP situation, i was always referring to the possibility of using Stanley for a splash of fuel and dash home job.

BostonB · 22-03-2012 12:20pm

While useful I don't think its a war winner.

Falklands War The Second?

Comments