Would Be Britain Able To Mount An Operation Similar To Faklands War Of 1982 ??

[overlander]

in my opinion abosolutely no, at least until they built the cvf,s, without the sea harriers, the harrier gr7 is for ground attack, without long range bombers like the vulcans and with the continuous reduction in the excort force by now only 25 ships from 64 available in 1982, and with only 2 small carriers and only 1 in active service in 2006 after withdrawl of invincible and refit of ark royal only illustrious is avalaible, for me britain will not to be able to mount a similar operation in the future, even i have serious doubts that they built the cvf.s due to budget pressure, even spaimn when the new 25000 tonnes LHD is complete and with the ability of this new ship to carry and operate at least 12 vstol fighters will have a similar capability to britain in carrier force.

 

[merocaine]

The british seem to be gearing them selfs towards intropoblity with the US and I'm pretty sure have stated that they only see themselfs acting in concert with larger coalitions. So I think your right, but never under estimate the british abilty to muddle through.

I think only the French out of all the european countries would have the ablity to mount a Falklands at the moment, :rwb, feel free to correct me thats a guess based on stratigic doctrine.

 

[Aussie Digger]

Well, Britain AFAIK will maintain 2x carriers in service operating with JFH GR-7 (A) and GR-9 (A) fighters, Sea King AWACS aircraft (which going by a famous quote in GW2 are able to see "EVERYTHING"!!!) Plus an aircraft carrier that is mothballed, but able to be re-activated "fairly" quickly.

Combine this with HMS Ocean (which is a level of capability Britain DIDN'T have in 1982) and the WAH-64 Apache attack helo's, plus the Tomahawk land strike capability of RN submarines and you get a pretty potent force available. This will be enhanced, as will general air defence when the Type 45's are in-service and obviously when (and if) the CVF/JSF combination is introduced into service.

A quick scan of available info about Argentina's available forces, shows little improvement over that available in 1982 to my reckoning, but the strike capacity of the UK has expanded tremendously. I accept that fleet air defence capacity has lessened due to the withdrawal of Sea Harrier's Blue Vixen/AMRAAM capacity, but GR-9(A) Harriers with HMS, ASRAAM (borderline BVR capable missile anyway) and internal IRST will be no slouch at air combat. When these are networked to the Type 23/42/45's and the Sea King AWAC's, they'll have a level of capability almost as great as they did before.

At any rate, this force will provide a potent air combat capability that far exceeds Britain's level of capability in 1982 (it had no BVR missile available then either) and when added to the greatly increased strike power of the RN, is not a force I'd dismiss lightly...

France might have a "conventional" carrier, that is next best thing to a USN carrier in the world, and carries a good complement of Rafale fighters and E-2C Hawkeye's, but it's only got one... Without that carrier, France doesn't stack up very well against the RN.

In my opinion, the RN is still the second most powerful navy in the world.

 

[merocaine]

An operation similair to the falklands, not refighting the Falklands, maybe some norwegian island against a more modern force mix would be a better test.

I think the French normally operate with two aircraft carriers, the present situation is an abnormality. Think the next carrier is being joint designed with the royal navy and is due to enter sevice 2015. Is'ent the charles de gualle a neuclear powered carrier though, quite a advantage when operating at the end of extended supply lines(althought the americans were never convinced in the point of small medium carrier). How old are those Royal navy carriers? how do the measure up against the latest american efforts?

 

[Magoo]

Well, Britain AFAIK will maintain 2x carriers in service operating with JFH GR-7 (A) and GR-9 (A) fighters, Sea King AWACS aircraft (which going by a famous quote in GW2 are able to see "EVERYTHING"!!!) Plus an aircraft carrier that is mothballed, but able to be re-activated "fairly" quickly.

Combine this with HMS Ocean (which is a level of capability Britain DIDN'T have in 1982) and the WAH-64 Apache attack helo's, plus the Tomahawk land strike capability of RN submarines and you get a pretty potent force available. This will be enhanced, as will general air defence when the Type 45's are in-service and obviously when (and if) the CVF/JSF combination is introduced into service.

A quick scan of available info about Argentina's available forces, shows little improvement over that available in 1982 to my reckoning, but the strike capacity of the UK has expanded tremendously. I accept that fleet air defence capacity has lessened due to the withdrawal of Sea Harrier's Blue Vixen/AMRAAM capacity, but GR-9(A) Harriers with HMS, ASRAAM (borderline BVR capable missile anyway) and internal IRST will be no slouch at air combat. When these are networked to the Type 23/42/45's and the Sea King AWAC's, they'll have a level of capability almost as great as they did before.

At any rate, this force will provide a potent air combat capability that far exceeds Britain's level of capability in 1982 (it had no BVR missile available then either) and when added to the greatly increased strike power of the RN, is not a force I'd dismiss lightly...

France might have a "conventional" carrier, that is next best thing to a USN carrier in the world, and carries a good complement of Rafale fighters and E-2C Hawkeye's, but it's only got one... Without that carrier, France doesn't stack up very well against the RN.

In my opinion, the RN is still the second most powerful navy in the world.

Adding to what AD said about SHar/BlueVixen/AMRAAM, this combination wasn't available to the RN in the Falklands. In 1982, the SHar had a very basic (by today's standards) radar and AIM-9 Limas only - the GR7/GR9/HMS/ASRAAM combination would be far more lethal.

Over at the Argentinian side, their Air Force still revolves around the Mirage III and Skyhawk as it did 24 years ago, the Navy has a small fleet of Super Etendards and a couple of old P-3Bs, but they will likely have bigger warstocks of AM39s than last time if they decide to make a play for 'Islas Malvinas' again. There is still no AWACS, and about half a dozen KC-130 tankers.

One must also consider the political will of the UK government to try to take back the Falklands if the Argies were to have another crack. Is it still there...?

Magoo

 

[Waylander]

I think it is.
And if the UK would ask I think the US and nearly every EU country would be with them.

 

[Miles]

Also remember that most British warships now have Phalanx/Goakeeper or Seawolf. Plus the Royal Marines finally have the amphibious ships they need (a helicopter carrier, 4 Bay Class landing ships, plus extra roll on roll off transports). Also the RN is modernising its Royal Fleet Auxillaries (very important if you are going to war 8,000 miles away!). And also the submaries in 1982 had basic weapons, nothing like Spearfish torpedoes and Sub-harpoon missiles, one SSN could sink the entire Argentinian invasion fleet. Finally, remember that although the RN has fewer warships now the ones they have are proper warships, whereas many of those in 1982 had only manually operated guns or manually aimed missiles like Seacat. In effect many (such as the type 12s) were not much more advanced than World War Two escorts. It would still be difficult, but certainly possible.

 

[Whiskyjack]

Adding to what AD said about SHar/BlueVixen/AMRAAM, this combination wasn't available to the RN in the Falklands. In 1982, the SHar had a very basic (by today's standards) radar and AIM-9 Limas only - the GR7/GR9/HMS/ASRAAM combination would be far more lethal.

Over at the Argentinian side, their Air Force still revolves around the Mirage III and Skyhawk as it did 24 years ago, the Navy has a small fleet of Super Etendards and a couple of old P-3Bs, but they will likely have bigger warstocks of AM39s than last time if they decide to make a play for 'Islas Malvinas' again. There is still no AWACS, and about half a dozen KC-130 tankers.

One must also consider the political will of the UK government to try to take back the Falklands if the Argies were to have another crack. Is it still there...?

Magoo

I generally agree that the UK has more fire power now than '82 while the Argentineans have remained for the most part static.

Also my understanding (happy for confirmation or correction) is that the new Nimrod is Storm Shadow capable, which allows for a long range airborne strike capability.

 

[Big-E]

Interesting question... let me ask another, do you think the IN centered around the refit Gorshkov could do a Falklands campaign?

 

[Whiskyjack]

Interesting question... let me ask another, do you think the IN centered around the refit Gorshkov could do a Falklands campaign?

Good question. My two cents.

Against a country with the same capabilities as the Argentineans, I am not sure that the institutional knowledge is there to co-ordinate such a campaign a 8,000 nm for India.

Also the lack of SSNs, a amphibious force (with experience) and finally the logistics to back it up. That is my assessment as of now. I think it would be the distance that would be the main obstacle.

 

[Sea Toby]

It depends on where and against whom? Indian interests near India or say Fiji? I bring up Fiji because half of the population of Fiji is of Indian descent, and there have been a few coups there recently.

Around India India is very strong capable of overtaking islands in the Indian Ocean. However most of the islands chains near India belong to India already. In the middle of the south Pacific India is not strong, but could dispatch a naval force to settle political issues in Fiji. I question whether India has the amphibious and support forces necessary to mettle in Fiji. Whether the Australians and the New Zealanders would allow India to mettle in Fiji is another story.

 

[Big-E]

Whether the Australians and the New Zealanders would allow India to mettle in Fiji is another story.

What can the NZDF do to stop them?

 

[gf0012-aust]

It depends on where and against whom? Indian interests near India or say Fiji? I bring up Fiji because half of the population of Fiji is of Indian descent, and there have been a few coups there recently.

I don't think India would try. The reason why Aust and NZ were responsible and picked up responsibility for any evacuees in the last 2 coups was because any Indian involvement could and most probably would have resulted in absolute violence against the Indian and Fijian Indian population. That has been made very very clear to the Indian Govt in the past.

The local Indians are absolutely loathed by the fijians - very very similar attitudes are present that are similar to the old Malaysian/Chinese problems of 20-30 years ago.

There literally would have been bloodshed visited upon any of the Indians if the radical Fijians of the time thought that India would intervene. Its not and is still not in Indias interest to take a military posture around micronesia.

Around India India is very strong capable of overtaking islands in the Indian Ocean. However most of the islands chains near India belong to India already. In the middle of the south Pacific India is not strong, but could dispatch a naval force to settle political issues in Fiji. I question whether India has the amphibious and support forces necessary to mettle in Fiji. Whether the Australians and the New Zealanders would allow India to mettle in Fiji is another story.

Its not a matter of Aust or NZ excluding India - the reality is stated as above. In addition the Fijians have strong military ties with Aust and NZ and some micronesian cultural affinity with the Maoris. Both Aust and Nz are better placed to influence Fijian attitudes. India would literally make it worse through no fault of their own.

 

[Sea Toby]

India is far more occupied with Pakistan to be bothered too much with Fiji. Yes it has the naval forces to send a light carrier task group, but I'm not sure they'll be able to sustain the task group with the lack of amphibious and replenishment ships. Fiji is a long distance from India. And it probably wouldn't be wise to send the force anyway.

But nearer to its shores, India could influence and overtake the Maldives easily with its forces at hand much easier than New Zealand can influence and overtake any of its neighboring South Pacific island nations. New Zealand couldn't do so without the aid and support of the Australians, with the Australians providing the bulk of the ships, aircraft, and land forces.

Both Australia and New Zealand have been preoccupied with events in the Solomon Islands. With just a little bit of their armed forces they were able to maintain the peace in the Solomons. Also notice that when the Australians did intervene with some peacekeeping forces along with the New Zealanders, some Fijian forces were also sent. By in large the South Pacific is stable, with no country interested in invading another, but I wonder whether some of these island states will stay calm and peaceful forever. There may be a time in the future when there will have to be larger number of peackeepers to keep the peace in these island nations.

In the past ten years there have been a number of coups in Fiji, unrest in the Solomon Islands, and a contested new state in East Timor. I wonder which island nation will be next?

 

[Jtimes2]

It would be much, much tougher without fixed-wing carrier planes, but it should be remembered that a lot of "force multipliers" have entered service since 1982; namely precision guided weapons, and better sensors. (for example, in 1982 Brit planes flew only with iron "dumb" bombs and Vietnam-era Shrike missiles donated by the USAF. And Belgrano was sent to the bottow with an old Mk8 WWII-style torpedo). Also, in 1982 the RN had cold war commitments; today Britain would certainly commit the entire fleet.

As a side note, the Argie fleet has rotted away much, much worse than the RN.

I'm trying to think of a similar scenario that could happen today. Perhaps a Mexican invasion of Belize (strong Brit ally with defense pacts) or perhaps a Brazilian attempt to sieze Ascension Island; which offers commanding coverage of the oil routes coming out of West Africa.

In any case, they'd probably have no trouble getting help from the EU or USA.

 

[Padman]

I very much doubt India would intervene in Fiji at more than a diplomatic level. NZ and Australia would intervene if any Indian military action occured. NZ could do little more than assist Aussies, but then again shortest route between India and Fiji is through seas that RAAF and RAN would own.

 

[gf0012-aust]

I very much doubt India would intervene in Fiji at more than a diplomatic level. NZ and Australia would intervene if any Indian military action occured. NZ could do little more than assist Aussies, but then again shortest route between India and Fiji is through seas that RAAF and RAN would own.

re Indian involvement, the issue is less military related but more of a societal impact.

the reason why India was discouraged from intervening, (starting from 1987) had nothing to do with military solutions, but everything to do with a volatile social environment.

It would have been sheer stupidity for an Indian military force to go into a country that has some very very significant anti-indian issues, and where the coups were revolving around that racial disconnection.

it would be akin to a bullfighter getting into the ring and wearing nothing but a big red cape - the "bull" would go bananas with anger.

There is very real and strong peristent anti-indian sentiment from the native fijians. It is very very similar to the anti-chinese attitudes in the early days of the Malaysian Federation.

They are the last military that should even consider going in as it would trigger a bloodbath against the Indian diaspora.

 

[Padman]

re Indian involvement, the issue is less military related but more of a societal impact.

the reason why India was discouraged from intervening, (starting from 1987) had nothing to do with military solutions, but everything to do with a volatile social environment.

It would have been sheer stupidity for an Indian military force to go into a country that has some very very significant anti-indian issues, and where the coups were revolving around that racial disconnection.

it would be akin to a bullfighter getting into the ring and wearing nothing but a big red cape - the "bull" would go bananas with anger.

There is very real and strong peristent anti-indian sentiment from the native fijians. It is very very similar to the anti-chinese attitudes in the early days of the Malaysian Federation.

They are the last military that should even consider going in as it would trigger a bloodbath against the Indian diaspora.

Good point! But anyway aren't we getting a little off topic? Thread started about whether RN could undertake Falklands style operation now. I think it could if it had to fight for Falklands again. RN is a far better force than it was 24 years ago, but Argentines aren't. They have some more modern frigates sure, but nothing RN couldn't handle. RN has addressed issues of AEW, amphib lift and interservice operations that dogged it last time. Sure one carrier less, but GR.9 has near BVR capability, surface combattants have better air defences. Also RN has Tomahawk, Argentines would be worried that Buenos Aires would get Baghdad treatment. Also islands defences are now better, and London would likely take any threat more seriously today and thus hopefully respond better. But would think that US and NATO would also lend a hand.

 

[alexsa]

Good point! But anyway aren't we getting a little off topic? Thread started about whether RN could undertake Falklands style operation now. I think it could if it had to fight for Falklands again. RN is a far better force than it was 24 years ago, but Argentines aren't. They have some more modern frigates sure, but nothing RN couldn't handle. RN has addressed issues of AEW, amphib lift and interservice operations that dogged it last time. Sure one carrier less, but GR.9 has near BVR capability, surface combattants have better air defences. Also RN has Tomahawk, Argentines would be worried that Buenos Aires would get Baghdad treatment. Also islands defences are now better, and London would likely take any threat more seriously today and thus hopefully respond better. But would think that US and NATO would also lend a hand.

In many ways the Falklands conflict ensured the RN would be better equipped for the subsquent conflicts it has been drawn inot than would otherwise be the case. If you look at the state of affairs in 1981 a number of major fleet assets were up for disposal (Invincible, Fearless and Intrepid as a case in point) and their ASMD was pretty woeful. The Falklands turned this around to a substancial degree as is evidenced by the CVF programme, HMS Ocean and the Bay class vessel was well as the warfighting capabiliyt of projected new vessels. It also taught some very valuable lessons in the process.

If the same antagonists were to lock horns today I suspect it wouel be quite a one sided arguement. Thsi does not mean the Argentinians could not do damage, any determined enermy has that potential, but the cost would be quite high.

 

[gf0012-aust]

If the same antagonists were to lock horns today I suspect it wouel be quite a one sided arguement. Thsi does not mean the Argentinians could not do damage, any determined enermy has that potential, but the cost would be quite high.

I have to say that I'm with Alexsa on this one.

The RN has a better capability across numerous areas:

• better sensors
• better weaponry available
• better airwarfare defence
• better subs and associated weaponry - far better weaponry than in 82
• a better trained and more regularly trained marine cadre compliments of their long standing cross training and cross working efforts with the Dutch Marines
• far better stand off capability.