Another 'What If': Falklands II.

[RETAC21]

Do you seriously envisage Argentinean naval ships standing close in to the coast to shell the airport? Sounds suicidal to me.

 

Argentina in 1982 was able to launch raids. A few aircraft at a time, intermittently, with a short time over target, because of the distance from airbases & very limited tanking capacity. Now they have far fewer fighters & the same tankers. Do you really think you can deny flight operations with such small-scale raids, seen coming from far enough away for fighters on the ground (assuming they're armed & fuelled) to take off & intercept them. Two Tornados should easily deal with any raid which Argentina could launch, & it should be possible to keep two ready at all times. The FAA wouldn't be able to use terrain masking to attack MPA by surprise. Even without AEW, the radar coverage is much better.

 

Personally, I'm also uneasy about risking rare & expensive E-3s if we don't have to, but we don't have a smaller AEW aircraft. A pity: a couple of "forward AEW" aircraft, Erieye or the like on a utility transport airframe, might be better in these circumstances.

 

Why not? if they are really keen on taking the islands, rather than land at Stanley they could go for Pleasant first, and an invasion force could sail from the mainland within a fortnight, plus there's no need to risk the Air farce until the Tornadoes are neutralised, and with just four airframes a commando raid could do just as well. Why do they have to present a symmetrical threat?

 

If it goes their way they achieve instantaneous air superiority and can land easily to deal with the garrison, and they get a real airbase to boot.

[swerve]

Why not? if they are really keen on taking the islands, rather than land at Stanley they could go for Pleasant first, and an invasion force could sail from the mainland within a fortnight, plus there's no need to risk the Air farce until the Tornadoes are neutralised, and with just four airframes a commando raid could do just as well. Why do they have to present a symmetrical threat?

 

If it goes their way they achieve instantaneous air superiority and can land easily to deal with the garrison, and they get a real airbase to boot.

 

It would have to be a very efficient commando raid. Got to avoid detection before landing (trawlers are chased unless licenced), trek inland over rough & boggy country undetected, hit the right 4 of 16 dispersed aircraft shelters or all 16, either avoiding detection until they reach the shelters or overpowering the guards. Hmm. How many commandos did you say you'd use?

[TDHM]

There is an Infantry Company at MPA, along with the rest of the forces in the Falklands. I can't see MPA not being reinforced in times of tension. Certainly Special Forces might be able to attack the planes on the ground, I think its a fanciable suggestion to think that if all the planes were managed to eliminated, I find it hard believe that the Argentine forces could perform any landing before MPA could be reinforced. If you try to fly into the Airbase, you will probably be shot down, or risk landing into the sights of quite a few weapons.

 

If you try and keep the airbase, it will be destroyed by either the forces in place, who greatly out number any prospective commandos. or by TLAM.

 

I just cant see it happening. Argetina has less Amphibous capability than in 1982 IIRC correctly & faced a much smaller garrison in 1982. A Garrison which can be speedily reinforced in times of crisis.

[BillB]

It would have to be a very efficient commando raid. Got to avoid detection before landing (trawlers are chased unless licenced), trek inland over rough & boggy country undetected, hit the right 4 of 16 dispersed aircraft shelters or all 16, either avoiding detection until they reach the shelters or overpowering the guards. Hmm. How many commandos did you say you'd use?

Which also means the commandos themselves would have to be a bit more capable and efficient than in 1982 too I think, given the hash they made of securing Government House last time. No hiding in roofspaces eating Walkers crisps, for example.

 

BillB

[RETAC21]

There is an Infantry Company at MPA, along with the rest of the forces in the Falklands. I can't see MPA not being reinforced in times of tension. Certainly Special Forces might be able to attack the planes on the ground, I think its a fanciable suggestion to think that if all the planes were managed to eliminated, I find it hard believe that the Argentine forces could perform any landing before MPA could be reinforced. If you try to fly into the Airbase, you will probably be shot down, or risk landing into the sights of quite a few weapons.

 

If you try and keep the airbase, it will be destroyed by either the forces in place, who greatly out number any prospective commandos. or by TLAM.

 

I just cant see it happening. Argetina has less Amphibous capability than in 1982 IIRC correctly & faced a much smaller garrison in 1982. A Garrison which can be speedily reinforced in times of crisis.

 

Like I said above, I don't think the Argentinians could do it right now, but then, the Israelis didn't think that the Egyptians could cross the Canal in '73... Awaiting for tensions to rise before reinforcing give the Argentinians a time margin to put in place a well thought out plan, remember that in '82 they managed to pull it off by surprise under the cover of naval maneuvers with Uruguay.

 

I don't remember the size of the buffer zone around the Falklands but I imagine "Hercules" at 30 knots can cover the distance faster than reinforcements can be flown in. In regards to sub patrols, if there's only one SSN, there's a lot of sea to cover and the TR1700 SSKs should be able to slip away since their endurance runs up to 70 days, so given time they could get through.

 

Taking MPA couldn't be done with Commandoes IMO, but if the garrison is just an infantry company it wouldn't be an unsurmountable difficulty for the Argentinian Marines, even in the reduced state of today.

 

Again, a lot pivots on what's "tension", Argie politicians will return to the Malvinas issue time and again and do nothing in the meantime, and that will lull a state of inatentiveness in those charged with the defence so tension might not be recognised as such. It wasn't in 1982.

 

The good that comes out of this is that the basic worthlessness of the islands is nowadays reckoned by all, so another conflict is improbable IMO.

Edited April 10, 2008 by RETAC21

[Anthony EJW]

The good that comes out of this is that the basic worthlessness of the islands is nowadays reckoned by all, so another conflict is improbable IMO.

 

Forgetting the fact that there is the potential for a significant amount of oil around the islands, the Falklands were reckoned as being worthless in 1982 as well.

[RETAC21]

Forgetting the fact that there is the potential for a significant amount of oil around the islands, the Falklands were reckoned as being worthless in 1982 as well.

 

Not for the Junta, who was planning on invading them before the wreckers in S. Georgia forced their hand. I believe, but I am not sure, that the islands have already been surveyed for oil.

[Jim Martin]

Oil billions beckon Falkland Islands

 

"We could be looking at 5 to 6 billion barrels of reachable oil, with a potential value of $50bn (£25bn)," says Desire Petroleum's Mr Phipps.

[RETAC21]

Oil billions beckon Falkland Islands

 

I remembered from the time they pulled out as uneconomical, well, there's motivation enough, let's hope the Argies don't start planning now.

[Anthony EJW]

Not for the Junta, who was planning on invading them before the wreckers in S. Georgia forced their hand. I believe, but I am not sure, that the islands have already been surveyed for oil.

 

I don't understand the point you're making. If you're not taking about economics then the islands are manifestly not worthless then and aren't worthless now. That the Argentine constitution now proclaims the Falklands to be 'an integral part of the national territory' and that they're still prepared to engage in sabre ratling over this kind of implies the issue is still important to somebody!

[TDHM]

Like I said above, I don't think the Argentinians could do it right now, but then, the Israelis didn't think that the Egyptians could cross the Canal in '73... Awaiting for tensions to rise before reinforcing give the Argentinians a time margin to put in place a well thought out plan, remember that in '82 they managed to pull it off by surprise under the cover of naval maneuvers with Uruguay.

 

I don't remember the size of the buffer zone around the Falklands but I imagine "Hercules" at 30 knots can cover the distance faster than reinforcements can be flown in. In regards to sub patrols, if there's only one SSN, there's a lot of sea to cover and the TR1700 SSKs should be able to slip away since their endurance runs up to 70 days, so given time they could get through.

 

Taking MPA couldn't be done with Commandoes IMO, but if the garrison is just an infantry company it wouldn't be an unsurmountable difficulty for the Argentinian Marines, even in the reduced state of today.

 

Again, a lot pivots on what's "tension", Argie politicians will return to the Malvinas issue time and again and do nothing in the meantime, and that will lull a state of inatentiveness in those charged with the defence so tension might not be recognised as such. It wasn't in 1982.

 

The good that comes out of this is that the basic worthlessness of the islands is nowadays reckoned by all, so another conflict is improbable IMO.

 

The amount of Armed Forces personel varies between 1000-2000. Falkislands.com has it at 1700 personel.

 

http://www.falklandislands.com/about_us/faq.asp#q15

 

Given the relative issues they had dealing with a Platoon in 1982, I just don't see it happening.

[Sardaukar]

Aye, considering conventional wisdom still says 3-1 superiority when facing *similar quality* troops, I cannot see Argentinians landing a force to defeat 1700, for example. And I have hard time belive Argentinian troop quality being better than British nowadays....so they actually might need 5-1 or more.

[RETAC21]

Aye, considering conventional wisdom still says 3-1 superiority when facing *similar quality* troops, I cannot see Argentinians landing a force to defeat 1700, for example. And I have hard time belive Argentinian troop quality being better than British nowadays....so they actually might need 5-1 or more.

 

But the 1700 will include a subtantial number of REMF. I suppose upfront strength will be a battalion. In any case, it pretty pointless, since even if they take the islands they couldn't hold them.

[LeoTanker]

It would have to be a very efficient commando raid. Got to avoid detection before landing (trawlers are chased unless licenced), trek inland over rough & boggy country undetected, hit the right 4 of 16 dispersed aircraft shelters or all 16, either avoiding detection until they reach the shelters or overpowering the guards. Hmm. How many commandos did you say you'd use?

 

Why attack the airfields at all? Well, if the Tornados are parked right out in the open I guess some Carl Gustavs would do the trick, but I doubt the Brits are that stupid. Better to have the commandos hide in terrain nearby and engage the fighters as they take off (or land) with MANPADS. How you land them? Let them paddle ashore from a sub or a thrawler some 1-2 weeks before the actual atack. (Shouldnt be any pesky RN subs around by then. Or would it?).

 

By the way, I agree with the rest of you. The Argentinians are way weeker today than they were back in 82, and the Brits are stronger (no Vulcans this time though). No way they culd pull this off sucesfully.

 

Sorry for going OT, but just out of couriosity (and complete ignorance): Does todays Sea Hariers have any BVR capability? How would they stack up to the Kfirs etc?

[FlyingCanOpener]

Sorry for going OT, but just out of couriosity (and complete ignorance): Does todays Sea Hariers have any BVR capability? How would they stack up to the Kfirs etc?

 

Well, the Royal Navy doesn't use Sea Harriers (and hasn't had any for a couple of years now) anymore, but the current Harrier Gr.9s deployed with Joint Force Harrier are WVR only.

 

Like I've said previously, the Argentine AF has even fewer aircraft and fewer pilots with fewer hours than they did in 1982, whilst the British actually have a credible (if not small) force on the islands nowadays.

[swerve]

Why attack the airfields at all? Well, if the Tornados are parked right out in the open I guess some Carl Gustavs would do the trick, but I doubt the Brits are that stupid. Better to have the commandos hide in terrain nearby and engage the fighters as they take off (or land) with MANPADS. ...

 

Poor terrain for hiding in. Rather open. A little bit of scrub, but mostly grass (a lot of it boggy) & rock.

 

The fighters are kept in shelters. Needed for weather protection: the climate is vile.

[Sardaukar]

I dont know, keeping a group of elite commandos in a hide at the end of a runway for 2 weeks in a period of escalating tension strikes me as being on a bit of a hiding to nothing. The RAF Regiment might have a reputation for stupidity, but they are not THAT stupid. Besides, getting something as bulky as a manpad ashore, set it up without anything being noticed and then engaging a high performance aircraft, well lets just say I dont see it working.

 

It is not impossible, with modern camouflage netting you can hide even in very clear ground..and Falklands is not steppes etc. Plus you do not have to be right next to runway, within 2 km of runway end would suffice, less the closer the troops would be to flightpath.

 

MANPADS are not bulky per se (at least not Soviet ones)...they are not called MANPortableAirDefenceSystems for nothing, after all...

 

I bet 22nd SAS or SBS could do it, if Argies could do it...I doubt. Problem is insertion, after that, well-trained SF force would rarely be compromised except by accident.

[DB]

Would have thought that you'd need a bit more than camo netting to avoid detection for long, with modern sensors.

 

The fact remains that there's enough personnel on the Islands at the moment that even a successful commando raid that knocked out the full flight of AD aircraft wouldn't be enough.

 

The airfield could be sanitised and new aircraft could be flown in.

[harryRIEDL]

Why C-17s?

 

I believe you are wrong about the amount of tanker support needed. Mount Pleasant can take airliners which do not refuel en route, & which could fly in any additional troops & equipment. I believe Nimrods & E-3 can also fly from Ascension to the Falklands unrefuelled. Tankers are only needed to support any Typhoons flying down there.

i thought they fly down the planes in C17 these days as it much less hassle for the crew they take off the wings and carry the planes in the C17 with tornado F3s.

there is also a Tristar tanker in Mont Plesence

[FirstOfFoot]

Would have thought that you'd need a bit more than camo netting to avoid detection for long, with modern sensors.

 

Nope.

 

Depends how long you've got to build your hide. Given an hour or two, and a suitable patch of gorse or heather, it's surprisingly easy - you build a sandbag wall in the direction of threat, and reduce your IR signature. You won't be moving, so no radar or ground sensor signature. You'll be invisible to the naked eye from more than a few meters away. The major threat is being overlooked by someone with an IR sensor.

 

Given longer, the hide is subsurface. Now, you are truly invisible (against IR/radar/visible from any angle), and are only limited by the amount of food and water you carried in. The biggest problem is carrying away and hiding all of the spoil you've just excavated.

 

One of the instructors on my recce course had spent time in an OP on the Falklands during the war. As he told it, they were tasked for a 7-day OP, so they took 3 days' food. They got extended on task, without any replen. By the time two weeks were up, they had all lost a stone or two in weight, and their progress to the pick-up point was measured in hours per kilometer, not kilometers per hour...

[FirstOfFoot]

On the other hand, how long could they expect to survive in that hide if they started plinking away with Blowpipe?

 

Why bother? Far better to destroy them on the ground. Sneak up to each aircraft, pound of PE on every nosewheel assembly, *bang* *crunch*. Lots of bent/broken fighter aircraft.

 

Failing that, give them a laser target marker and a satphone. Mr. Tomahawk or Mr. Paveway can come for a visit during refuelling and rearming. Even calling in the time that a strike package takes off is useful for the people at the receiving end.

[Tomas Hoting]

Why bother? Far better to destroy them on the ground. Sneak up to each aircraft, pound of PE on every nosewheel assembly, *bang* *crunch*. Lots of bent/broken fighter aircraft.

 

Failing that, give them a laser target marker and a satphone. Mr. Tomahawk or Mr. Paveway can come for a visit during refuelling and rearming. Even calling in the time that a strike package takes off is useful for the people at the receiving end.

 

Wouldn't anti-materiel rifles, using a HE round like the South African 20mm NTW, also make sense to disable the aircraft in such a situation? More than 1km range, no need to sneak up to the shelter (unless the aircraft are parked in a shelter)?

[RETAC21]

I accept that would work for the British army, but the context I was talking about was in reply to someone who suggested it was doable by the Argentinians. I dont see them having those kind of capabilities. On the other hand, you raise another excellent point about why an Argentinian invasion of the Falklands would be a non starter.

 

Why not? what so special about training some guys to sneak undetected, walk a bit in the dark, hole up and observe the activity (so they would know which HAS to hit or wait until the door opens) and then use a light mortar, AT missile, heavy rifle to disable the 4 aircraft? Those are not precisely high tech capabilites and are within reach of anyone, given time to train.

 

The "commandos" deployed by the Argies in '82 were a hodgepodge force of disparate guys who had done a commando course, not a unit trained to any standard, the 20 years in between certainly have given them time enough to have those capabilities. The Argentine Army site shows 2 commando companies and they now have a volunteer army rather than conscript. So certainly they have the potential, what's unknown is if they have the capability.

[RETAC21]

I was actually refering to the ability to deliver Paveway and Tomahawk. As for their commandos, Im sure they are very good, but Im doubtful if they have the recent combat experience of the SAS or the SBS. Again, it still doesnt explain how they are able to insert in sufficient numbers into the Falklands during a conflict to be able to do any good.

 

Sub insertion using the TR1700 subs, plus some walking.

 

The technological imbalance is only going to grow over the next few years and Argentina lacks the resources and the will to match improvements such as the JSF or the new carriers, so even if they could overcome the tripwire force that garrisons the islands, they couldn't keep them.

[swerve]

Why not? what so special about training some guys to sneak undetected, walk a bit in the dark, hole up and observe the activity (so they would know which HAS to hit or wait until the door opens) and then use a light mortar, AT missile, heavy rifle to disable the 4 aircraft? Those are not precisely high tech capabilites and are within reach of anyone, given time to train. ...

 

Each shelter is for one aircraft, & the doors face in different directions, & mostly inwards, away from anyone outside the perimeter. Not accidental . . . . Unless you waited until all the aircraft were clear, you'd only get a shot at one. BTW, I'm not sure if they ever bring them all out together: I've not found any pictures of more than two out in the open at once.

 

Probably easiest to observe until you know which shelters the aircraft are in, and attack them inside the shelters. AFAIK they're not hardened: I think they're mainly for weather protection. But they're protected by pretty hefty-looking berms, some of which look as if they'd make it difficult to get a clear shot at anything emerging. Someone has actually thought about the layout.

 

Some angles are covered by the rest of the airfield, so your options for where to hide & have a chance of a good shot at any of the shelters are quite limited. I can't see how anyone could get a good shot at more than a few from one position, except with mortars.

 

BTW, there are excellent pictures of RAF Mount Pleasant on Google Earth.

Edited April 17, 2008 by swerve