Swap UK with France during the Falklands War.

[Archibald]

I went through similar "brain bleeding" trying to guess the Clems crew complement. Most sources says 1850 men. I wanted to compare that to Essex and Victorious and Hermes.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

I went through similar "brain bleeding" trying to guess the Clems crew complement. Most sources says 1850 men. I wanted to compare that to Essex and Victorious and Hermes.

Clemenceau and Foch

Their crews varied over time.

According to the notes I made from the copies of Jane's on Internet Archive and at one of my local libraries it was:

• 2,700 in the early 1960s;
• 2,150 in the late 1960s, which according to Jane's were "officially revised figures"
• 2,239 (179 officers and 2,060 men) in the middle 1970s.
• 1,228 (65 officers, 1,163 men) according to Jane's 1976-77 and 1977-78.

At the time were discussing it was:

• 1,338 (64 officers, 1,274 men) when operating as a fixed-wing aircraft carrier.
• 984 (45 officers, 939 men) when operating as a helicopter carrier.

That's according to Jane's 1978-79, 1979-80 and 1980-81. I think the copy of Jane's 1982-83 on Internet Archive says the same.

Jordan also says 1,338.

Hermes and Victorious

As I wrote in an earlier post Hermes had a crew of 2,100 as a fixed-wing aircraft carrier. That's according to every edition of Jane's for the period 1959-71 that I've been able to look at.

Victorious had a crew of 2,200 according to editions of Jane's from the early 1960s and 2,400 according to editions of Jane's from the late 1960s. I haven't been able to see what the middle 1960's editions say.

Essex class CVA from P.359 of Jane's 1968-69

Complement: 2,000 (100 officers, approx 1,900 enlisted men) plus approx 1,500 assigned to attack air wig for a total of 3,500 per ship.

Essex class CVS from P.360 of Jane's 1968-69

Complement: 1,517 (87 officers, approx 1,430 enlisted men) plus approx 800 assigned to ASW air group for a total of 2,300 per ship.

Essex class LPH from P.419 of Jane's 1968-69

Complement: approx 1,000 Troops: approx 1,500.

Essex class AVT from P.458 of Jane's 1968-69

As aircraft carriers their designed wartime complement was 3,448 (360 officers; 3,088 enlisted men); peacetime complement was 1,500 to 2,000 depending upon role.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

Link to Post 287 which included a table showing the armaments of Argentine and French warships.

Link to Post 297 which was "An Analysis of the British and French Warships Armed with Surface-to-Air Missiles in April 1982".

We've Analysed The SAM's Of British And French Warships - Now It's Time To Analyse Their Guns

This Is The Table From Post 287
Most Of The Information Is From Jane's 1982-83

​

All the 100mm guns on the French ships are in single mountings and all the 57mm guns on French ships are in twin mountings.

Of the 23 British destroyers and frigates that fought in the war:

• 5 were armed with two 4.5" guns in one twin mounting. (2 County class, one Leander class and 2 Rothesay class)
• 12 were armed with one 4.5" gun in a single mounting. (6 Type 21, 5 Type 42 and one Type 82)
• 6 didn't have any guns. (2 Type 22 and 4 Leander class)

On the other side of "La Manche"

• 17 out of 20 cruiser and destroyer size warships available in April 1982 had one or two single 100 mm guns and the rest had six 57mm in 3 twin mountings.
• The 9 E59 class light frigates carried had two single 100 mm guns.
• The 12-15 A69 class corvettes that were available in April 1982 were armed with one 100 mm gun.
• Not in the list are Clemenceau and Foch which were armed with eight 100mm guns and Jeanne d'Arc which had four.

I'm assuming that the 100mm gun wasn't as good as the British 4.5" in the shore bombardment role and was a much better AA weapon. I'm also assuming that the British and French fire controls systems were of equal quality. Are my assumptions correct?

If my assumptions are correct the MN "had the edge" over the RN in close range AA defence in both qualitative and quantitative terms.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

Part of Post 289

As for Centaur rebuilds to Hermes standards, I think that’s been covered recently in another thread - Hermes virtually went through a full reconstruction during it’s long journey from laying-down to launch, so a Centaur upgrade to Hermes standard would be a massive enterprise.

I didn't suggest that in Post 287 which was the post you were replying to. However, this is the link to the reconstruction that was proposed in another thread.

Link to Post 131 on Page 4 of the thread "Larger British light fleet carriers?"

The suggestion I made (in Post 277) was that the Argentines would have upgraded Centaur to operate Buccaneers.

However, that doesn't necessarily require refitting the ship to "Full Hermes" standard. The ship might have been able to operate Buccaneers in the first place and if it wasn't the modifications required to make Centaur "Buccaneer Capable" might not be as extensive (and therefore as expensive) as a "Full Hermes" refit or the refit proposed by @BlackBat242.

I intend to write another post to explain why I think so.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

Part of Post 289

As for Centaur rebuilds to Hermes standards, I think that’s been covered recently in another thread - Hermes virtually went through a full reconstruction during it’s long journey from laying-down to launch, so a Centaur upgrade to Hermes standard would be a massive enterprise.

I didn't suggest that in Post 287 which was the post you were replying to. However, this is the link to the reconstruction that was proposed in another thread.

Link to Post 131 on Page 4 of the thread "Larger British light fleet carriers?"

The suggestion I made (in Post 277) was that the Argentines would have upgraded Centaur to operate Buccaneers.

However, that doesn't necessarily require refitting the ship to "Full Hermes" standard. The ship might have been able to operate Buccaneers in the first place and if it wasn't the modifications required to make Centaur "Buccaneer Capable" might not be as extensive (and therefore as expensive) as a "Full Hermes" refit or the refit proposed by @BlackBat242.

I intend to write another post to explain why I think so.

This is Part One of What is Intended to be a Two-Part Response​

These are the dimensions of the Centaur class aircraft carriers according to Jane's 1962-63.

​

Externally...

• Centaur and Hermes have the same p.p. length and waterline beam.
• The difference between the overall beam is because:
  • Centaur centre line lifts and a 5½ degree angled flight deck.
  • Hermes had one centre line lift aft, one deck edge lift forward and a 6½ degree angled flight deck.
• The lifts were of the same size and capacity.
  • Centaur:
    • Forward 54ft long x 44ft wide, 37,000lb.
    • Aft 54ft long x 44ft wide, 40,000lb.
  • Hermes:
    • Side-lift forward 54ft long x 34ft wide.
    • Centreline aft 54ft long x 44ft wide.
    • Both 40,000lb.

The other important external difference was the steam catapults. According to Hobbs the capacities of the BS.4 steam catapults fitted to British warships were.

​

However, Hermes was completed with a pair of 151ft stroke BS.4s. The port unit had its stroke increased to 175ft during its 1964-66 refit. As noted in the comments Hobbs didn't say what the performance of Ark Royals BS.4 catapults was and I've assumed that they were the same as the 151ft BS.4s fitted to Hermes.

Internally:

• According to Hobbs, Hermes had a much bigger hangar than Centaur:
  • Centaur: 274 x 62 x 17½ feet (area 16,988 square feet and volume 297,290 square feet). Plus a 55 x 52 x 17½ foot extension forward of the forward lift (area 3,410 square feet and volume 56,675 cubic feet). The combined length of the two hangars was 329 feet.
  • Hermes: 356 x 62 x 17½ feet (area 22,072 square feet and volume 386,260 square feet). No extension.
• Hermes had superior electrical and electronic systems.
  • Centaur had a 220 Volt Direct Current electrical system.
  • Hermes had 440 Volts three-phase AC at 60 Hertz.
  • Centaur had radars Type 960 (one), 982 (two) and 983 (one) until her 1963 refit when the Types 960 and one Type 982 were replaced by a Type 965 with an AKE-1 aerial.
  • Hermes had a Type 984 3-D radar backed up by a Comprehensive Display System (CDS) and Direct Plot Transmission (DPT).
• Both ships had the same machinery.

Hermes was refitted 1964-66. According to Marriott on Page 95 of Royal Navy Aircraft Carriers 1945-1990:

• All the 40mm guns were removed and replaced by 2 quadruple Sea Cat launchers and directors, which were installed aft on sponsons to port and starboard;
• The flight deck was widened on the port side aft in order to increase parking area and also outboard of the island to provide an access way for vehicles;
• The Type 293Q radar on the lattice mast was replaced by the more up-to-date Type 993, and a DLPS was fitted instead of the original mirror landing sight;
• Finally, flight deck equipment was uprated to cope with Buccaneer strike aircraft which were replacing the Scimitars in front-line service.

Costs:

• £10,500,000 Centaur (1953) according to Marriott (P.94). "Centaur cost £10,434,000 excluding guns, aircraft and equipment," according to Jane's 1954-55 and 1955-56.
• £37,500,000 Hermes (1959) according to Marriott (P.101) and £10,000 for the 1964-66 refit (P.96). However, this isn't a like-for-like comparison because it does include armament, aircraft and equipment. Her actual cost in 1959 was approximately £18 million (Source: https://api.parliament.uk/historic-hansard/commons/1959/nov/25/hms-hermes)

In the next part I'll discuss whether Centaur & Hermes could have operated Buccaneers in their 1958 & 1959 conditions and speculate upon what need to be done to Centaur to make her "Buccaneer Capable" if she wasn't.

 

[EwenS]

The particulars for the BS4 from “Farnborough and the Fleet Air Arm”

1953 - first installation 40,000lb at 78 knots
Upgraded to 50,000lb at 94 knots
Upgraded to 50,000lb at 105 knots.
No dates given for the upgrades.

Ark Royal’s cats were 151ft stroke.
Ark completed in Feb 1955 as the first carrier fitted with all 3 new inventions: steam catapults, angled deck and optical landing sight. She was followed by USS Forrestal in Sept and HMAS Melbourne in Oct 1955.

 

[Archibald]

Already mentioned many times
Clems BS-5: 171 ft, 17 tons to 105 kt (from memory).

 

[Archibald]

0.5 inch = 1.27 cm
1 inch = 2.54 cm (rounded to 2.55)
2 inch = 5.1 cm
100 mm = 10 cm
4 inch = 11.2 cm
4.5 inch = 12.9 cm, rounded: 130 mm

No surprise british naval guns are more efficients...

EDIT: imperial units, how I hate you. With such a name, you are the metric system's Darth Vader.

 

[H_K]

I'm assuming that the 100mm gun wasn't as good as the British 4.5" in the shore bombardment role and was a much better AA weapon.

Depends on the target set I imagine.

The British 4.5” shell is 50% heavier than the French 100mm. In theory that should make it more effective against fortifications and well dug trenches.

On the other hand, the French 100mm has 3x the rate of fire as a single 4.5” and 2x are the rate of fire as a twin 4.5”. And the French ships that would have been tasked with shore bombardment all had 2x 100mm, so effectively 4x to 6x the RoF of a British ship. So for unprotected area targets such as Stanley airfield the 100mm should have been far superior to the 4.5”.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

I'm assuming that the 100mm gun wasn't as good as the British 4.5" in the shore bombardment role and was a much better AA weapon.

Depends on the target set I imagine.

The British 4.5” shell is 50% heavier than the French 100mm. In theory that should make it more effective against fortifications and well dug trenches.

On the other hand, the French 100mm has 3x the rate of fire as a single 4.5” and 2x are the rate of fire as a twin 4.5”. And the French ships that would have been tasked with shore bombardment all had 2x 100mm, so effectively 4x to 6x the RoF of a British ship. So for unprotected area targets such as Stanley airfield the 100mm should have been far superior to the 4.5”.

Do you know if the MN used proximity fused ammunition for shore bombardment?

I ask the question because I remember listening to a BBC Radio play made to commemorate the 30th anniversary of the Falklands in which the RN was using proximity fuses for shore bombardment.

The play was written from the point of view of two Argentine conscripts who were captured at San Carlos or Goose Green. If I remember correctly they were part of a party of prisoners that was ordered to move some captured ammunition and they set off a booby trap set by their own officers that killed them.

Do you agree with my assumption the the 100mm was the better AA weapon?

That brings me onto a point that I forgot to make in previous posts about gun armaments. The MN might be regretting that they had removed the third 100mm gun from their E59 avisios/light frigates and replaced it with four MM39 Exocets. These are the ships that are most likely to be escorting the amphibious group, auxiliaries and providing close support for the landings. The two-gun FLE60s and C67s probably couldn't be spared from the carrier group. That leaves the E59s and the T47AS, T53 and T56 destroyers.

The A69s only carry one gun, but I think they're shallower draught vessels than the other ships, which if true might allow them to "get up close and personal" so the fewer guns might be offset by closer proximity to the targets and possibly better communications with the troops ashore.

Any thoughts?

 

[Hood]

The other factor is how reliable the 100mm is firing for prolonged periods.
The 4.5in Mk 8 seemed to be prone to breaking during the bombardment missions.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

Post 365

Part of Post 289

As for Centaur rebuilds to Hermes standards, I think that’s been covered recently in another thread - Hermes virtually went through a full reconstruction during it’s long journey from laying-down to launch, so a Centaur upgrade to Hermes standard would be a massive enterprise.

I didn't suggest that in Post 287 which was the post you were replying to. However, this is the link to the reconstruction that was proposed in another thread.

Link to Post 131 on Page 4 of the thread "Larger British light fleet carriers?"

The suggestion I made (in Post 277) was that the Argentines would have upgraded Centaur to operate Buccaneers.

However, that doesn't necessarily require refitting the ship to "Full Hermes" standard. The ship might have been able to operate Buccaneers in the first place and if it wasn't the modifications required to make Centaur "Buccaneer Capable" might not be as extensive (and therefore as expensive) as a "Full Hermes" refit or the refit proposed by @BlackBat242.

I intend to write another post to explain why I think so.

This is Part One of What is Intended to be a Two-Part Response​

These are the dimensions of the Centaur class aircraft carriers according to Jane's 1962-63.

View attachment 679898​

Externally...

• Centaur and Hermes have the same p.p. length and waterline beam.
• The difference between the overall beam is because:
  • Centaur centre line lifts and a 5½ degree angled flight deck.
  • Hermes had one centre line lift aft, one deck edge lift forward and a 6½ degree angled flight deck.
• The lifts were of the same size and capacity.
  • Centaur:
    • Forward 54ft long x 44ft wide, 37,000lb.
    • Aft 54ft long x 44ft wide, 40,000lb.
  • Hermes:
    • Side-lift forward 54ft long x 34ft wide.
    • Centreline aft 54ft long x 44ft wide.
    • Both 40,000lb.

The other important external difference was the steam catapults. According to Hobbs the capacities of the BS.4 steam catapults fitted to British warships were.

View attachment 679945​

However, Hermes was completed with a pair of 151ft stroke BS.4s. The port unit had its stroke increased to 175ft during its 1964-66 refit. As noted in the comments Hobbs didn't say what the performance of Ark Royals BS.4 catapults was and I've assumed that they were the same as the 151ft BS.4s fitted to Hermes.

Internally:

• According to Hobbs, Hermes had a much bigger hangar than Centaur:
  • Centaur: 274 x 62 x 17½ feet (area 16,988 square feet and volume 297,290 square feet). Plus a 55 x 52 x 17½ foot extension forward of the forward lift (area 3,410 square feet and volume 56,675 cubic feet). The combined length of the two hangars was 329 feet.
  • Hermes: 356 x 62 x 17½ feet (area 22,072 square feet and volume 386,260 square feet). No extension.
• Hermes had superior electrical and electronic systems.
  • Centaur had a 220 Volt Direct Current electrical system.
  • Hermes had 440 Volts three-phase AC at 60 Hertz.
  • Centaur had radars Type 960 (one), 982 (two) and 983 (one) until her 1963 refit when the Types 960 and one Type 982 were replaced by a Type 965 with an AKE-1 aerial.
  • Hermes had a Type 984 3-D radar backed up by a Comprehensive Display System (CDS) and Direct Plot Transmission (DPT).
• Both ships had the same machinery.

Hermes was refitted 1964-66. According to Marriott on Page 95 of Royal Navy Aircraft Carriers 1945-1990:

• All the 40mm guns were removed and replaced by 2 quadruple Sea Cat launchers and directors, which were installed aft on sponsons to port and starboard;
• The flight deck was widened on the port side aft in order to increase parking area and also outboard of the island to provide an access way for vehicles;
• The Type 293Q radar on the lattice mast was replaced by the more up-to-date Type 993, and a DLPS was fitted instead of the original mirror landing sight;
• Finally, flight deck equipment was uprated to cope with Buccaneer strike aircraft which were replacing the Scimitars in front-line service.

Costs:

• £10,500,000 Centaur (1953) according to Marriott (P.94). "Centaur cost £10,434,000 excluding guns, aircraft and equipment," according to Jane's 1954-55 and 1955-56.
• £37,500,000 Hermes (1959) according to Marriott (P.101) and £10,000 for the 1964-66 refit (P.96). However, this isn't a like-for-like comparison because it does include armament, aircraft and equipment. Her actual cost in 1959 was approximately £18 million (Source: https://api.parliament.uk/historic-hansard/commons/1959/nov/25/hms-hermes)

In the next part I'll discuss whether Centaur & Hermes could have operated Buccaneers in their 1958 & 1959 conditions and speculate upon what need to be done to Centaur to make her "Buccaneer Capable" if she wasn't.

This is Part Two of What is will now be a Three-Part Response​

156 Buccaneers were ordered for the Fleet Air Arm and 144 were built.

• 20 prototypes and pre-production aircraft with De Havilland Gyron Junior engines.
• 40 Buccaneer S. Mk 1 with De Havilland Gyron Junior engines.
• 84 Buccaneer S. Mk 2 with Rolls Royce Spey engines out of 96 that were ordered.

In the Royal Navy first-line squadrons are usually given "number plates" in the series 800-899 and second-line squadrons are usually given "number plates" in the series 700-799.

This a timeline of the Fleet Air Arm's Buccaneer and Scimitar squadrons with "number plates" in the series 800-899

​

Of the four 800 series Buccaneer squadrons that were formed:

1. 801 reformed on the Buccaneer S.1 in July 1962 and after a short spell on Ark Royal (from February to March 1963) was on Victorious from August 1963 until the squadron disbanded in July 1965. The squadron re-formed on Buccaneer S.2s in October 1965. The squadron was aboard Victorious from May 1966 until mid-1968 when it transferred to Hermes and was that ship's Buccaneer squadron until it disbanded in July 1970.
2. 809 reformed on the Buccaneer S.1 in January 1963 as the Buccaneer Operational Flying Training Squadron. It was downgraded to second-line status as 736 Squadron in March 1965. The squadron proper never operated from an aircraft carrier. However, a detachments were aboard Victorious in 1963 and Ark Royal in 1964. It reformed again in January 1966 with 6 Buccaneer S.2 (later increased to 8). The squadron served on Hermes until mid-1968 and after a spell ashore was Ark Royal's Buccaneer squadron from 1970 until it disbanded in December 1978.
3. 800 reformed on the Buccaneer S.1 in March 1964 for service in Eagle. It embarked in December 1964. The squadron re-equipped with the Buccaneer S.2 in late 1966. It continued to serve aboard Eagle until it disbanded in February 1972. (The associated but separate 800B Squadron existed from September 1964 to August 1966 and operated Scimitars from Eagle in the air-to-air refuelling role.)
4. 803 reformed on the Buccaneer S.2 in July 1967 as the Buccaneer Headquarters Squadron and disbanded in December 1969. The squadron proper never served aboard an aircraft carrier. However a detachment of 4 aircraft served aboard Hermes from August 1968 to April 1969.

Marriott wrote that Centaur couldn't operate Buccaneers and Hermes couldn't operate them until after her 1964-66 refit, but I'm not sure that this was true. I think that the more likely explanation is that there weren't enough Buccaneers to go around until 1966 by which time Centaur had been paid off and Hermes had been refitted.

The first squadron to embark a Buccaneer S.1 squadron was Victorious (in August 1963) which had 145ft stroke steam catapults that were shorter than Hermes' (both 151ft 1959-66) and not much longer than Centaur. According to the table in Post 365 the steam catapults in Hermes were were just as powerful as those in Victorious and Centaur's were 80% as powerful. As far as I know the arrester gear of all three ships in 1958-59 was just as powerful and their flight decks were stressed to take aircraft of the same weights.

According to Lewis in British Naval Aircraft since 1912 the loaded weight of both marks of Buccaneer was about 45,000lb and the loaded weight of a Scimitar was 34,200lb.

So I think that my claim that Hermes could have operated Buccaneers in her 1959-64 configuration is correct.

However, it looks like I'm wrong about Centaur. If Hobbs data was right her steam catapults weren't powerful enough to launch a Buccaneer. On the other hand it seems strange that Centaur a ship with machinery that was as powerful as her half-sister's wasn't given catapults as powerful as Hermes' during during her 1956-58 refit. Plus Buccaneer was under development at the time of the refit and it seems strange that they weren't made powerful enough to operate that aircraft.

Part three will be about the modifications that may be needed to make Centaur "Buccaneer Capable" if I'm wrong. I'll also discuss how long the modifications might take and how much they might cost.

 

[zen]

0.5 inch = 1.27 cm
1 inch = 2.54 cm (rounded to 2.55)
2 inch = 5.1 cm
100 mm = 10 cm
4 inch = 11.2 cm
4.5 inch = 12.9 cm, rounded: 130 mm

No surprise british naval guns are more efficients...

EDIT: imperial units, how I hate you. With such a name, you are the metric system's Darth Vader.

And yet Imperial is a very human system. A foot a thumb width, a stride....a cup, etc....
Metric doesn't match close to anything human.

It's why I made my fictional Empire use natively defined Cubits (Ell) and have the metric equivalent 450mm. A quick of the average native limb length ratio.

 

[Archibald]

Nah, Imperial is the Darth Vader system, or Palpatin. It's all in the name.

 

[EwenS]

From Hobbs "The British Carrier Strike Fleet After 1945"

" ...The [Buccaneer] S1 certainly proved to be underpowered in service and even with catapult launch its maximum all-up weight was restricted, especially in the high temperatures encountered in the Far East. The problem was alleviated in Eagle by embarking a specialised Scimitar tanker unit, 800B NAS, which allowed armed Buccaneer S1 to be launched with weapons but a low fuel state and then 'filled up' once safely airborne. Victorious lacked the space to embark a tamnker unit and had to achieve a compromise between fuel and weapons with a number of Buccaneers fitted as tankers; the Commander Far East Fleet (COMFEF), urged the Admiralty to hasten the type's clearance to carry 500lb bombs as a more practical weapon than the 1,000lb bomb. The S2 entered operational service with 801 NAS in Victorious in 1966 and proved to be the outstanding strike aircraft of its generation."

Elsewhere the Gyron Junior thrust was described as "marginal when all the services were running".

There were 14 pre-production S1 followed by 40 production aircraft. The production aircraft first flew between 23 Jan 1962 and Dec 1963.

A pre-production S1 XK526 underwent a delayed conversion with the Spey engines between Nov 1962 and April 1963. The final 10 S1 on order were reworked on the production line to S2 standard a number of these then joined the S2 test programme. Service entry of the S2 was 9 April 1965 with 736B the IFTU and then Nov 1965 with 801.

The next S2 contract was dated 5 May 1964 for 20, with follow on orders for 17 (25 Oct 1965), 30 (12 April 1966)and finally 15 (27 June 1967) with the latter to be Martel equipped.

 

[Archibald]

Admittedly, MASURCA was SARH when Sea Slug stuck with beam riding until the end. Which guidance was the best / more practical, I have no idea.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masurca

Seaslug (missile) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

They were quite similar, including a weight of 4000 pounds, no less.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

Admittedly, MASURCA was SARH when Sea Slug stuck with beam riding until the end. Which guidance was the best / more practical, I have no idea.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masurca

Seaslug (missile) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

They were quite similar, including a weight of 4000 pounds, no less.

What will it take to convince you that comparing MASCURA & the FLE60 class to Seaslug & the County class is exactly like comparing apples to pears? That is there's no comparison!

The correct analogues to MASCURA and the FLE60 class are Terrier (upon which MASCURA was based) and the Guided Missile Frigates (DLG) that the USN built in the 1960s & re-designated Guided Missile Destroyers (DDG) or Guided Missile Cruisers (CG) in 1975.

E.g. The Belknap class, FLE60 and County class Batch 2 which were completed at about the same time.

• Magazine capacities.
  • Belknap had a magazine capacity of 60 missiles which were a mix Terrier (later replaced by Standard ER) and ASROC.
  • FLE 60 carried 48 MASCURA missiles of equal performance to Terrier and 13 Malafon anti-submarine missiles for a grand total of 61.
  • The Counties could only carry 30 to 36 depending on the source.
• Air surveillance radar.
  • Belknap had SPS-48.
  • FLE60 had DBRI-23.
  • Both of which were far superior to the Type 965 AKE-2 on the Batch 2 County.
• Guidance radars.
  • Belknap two (SPS-55).
  • FLE60 two (DRBR-51 respectively).
  • The County only carried one (designate Type 901).
• The only things that I can say in defence of Seaslug are that it had a faster reaction time than 1960s Terrier and that one of the reasons for the low magazine capacity relative to MASURCA and Terrier was that the missiles were fully assembled for a faster rate of fire. However, the American rate of fire wasn't much slower in practice because they discovered that final assembly was relatively quick and easy. Or I think that's what Friedman wrote in The Postwar Naval Revolution. I haven't got the book out and checked.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

Admittedly, MASURCA was SARH when Sea Slug stuck with beam riding until the end. Which guidance was the best / more practical, I have no idea.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masurca

Seaslug (missile) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

They were quite similar, including a weight of 4000 pounds, no less.

What are its dimensions and weights in comparison to late 1960s Terrier and Standard ER missiles? I suspect that the missiles are rather similar and the boosters are different.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

Admittedly, MASURCA was SARH when Sea Slug stuck with beam riding until the end. Which guidance was the best / more practical, I have no idea.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masurca

Seaslug (missile) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

They were quite similar, including a weight of 4000 pounds, no less.

Veuillez les examiner très attentivement.

A Seaslug Missile



Terrier Homing Refit 1963



Standard Missile-1 (ER) 1965



MASURCA 1967

​

 

[Archibald]

They all look like missiles to me ?

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

They all look like missiles to me ?

Bangs head against the wall like Yosser Hughes in Boys from the Blackstuff.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

This is a link to a recent thread about the MASCURA Mk 1 which was abandoned in favour of the Tatar-derived MASCURA Mk 2.

https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/maruca-missile-the-french-butterfly.39345/

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

I've just added this to the equivalent thread on Alternatehistory.com, so I thought I'd add it here.

This is the French naval aviation order of battle according to Jane's 1981-82.

​

The accompanying notes say:

• (a) On 1 January 1979 Squadron 11F received the first 17 Super Étendard in place of Etendard IVM. During 1979 Squadron 14F was supplied with Super Étendard in place of F-8E Crusader which were transferred to Squadron 12F. The eventual total of Super Étendards will be 80, all equipped to launch AN52 nuclear weapons.
• (b) 71 Super Étendard are due to be delivered by 1981.
• (c) A total of 36 Lynx helicopters (with 4 more planned) has been delivered or is on order. These will be for ship, SAR, communications and training.
• (d) Alizés are being modernised to last the lifetime of Clemenceau and Foch.
• (e) All Br.1150 Atlantiques and P-2H Neptune are to be replaced by Atlantique N.G. (total 42) from 1984.

The order of battle in Jane's 1982-83 is exactly the same. However, the accompanying notes say.

• (a) On 1 January 1979 Squadron 11F received the first 17 Super Étendard in place of Etendard IVM. During 1979 Squadron 14F was supplied with Super Étendard in place of F-8E Crusader which were transferred to Squadron 12F. The eventual total of Super Étendards will be 80, all equipped to launch AN52 nuclear weapons.
• (b) A total of 36 Lynx helicopters (with 4 more planned) has been delivered or is on order. These will be for ship, SAR, communications and training.
• (c) Alizés are being modernised to last the lifetime of Clemenceau and Foch.
• (d) All Br.1150 Atlantiques and P-2H Neptune are to be replaced by Atlantique N.G. (total 42) from 1985 except for the Neptunes at La Tontouta (New Caledonia) which will be replaced by five Guardians ordered in 1980 for delivery in 1983.
• (e) By 1984 the following aircraft will have been delivered: 71 Super Étendard, 28 Modernised Alizé, 40 Lynx, 16 Embraer Xingu (multi-engined trainers), 12 IV 262 trainers, 5 Guardians.

 

[EwenS]

The Aeronavale originally wanted 100 SE. The initial contract was for 60 with an option on another 20. But due to aircraft cost increases and budget cuts only 11 of the 20 option aircraft were taken up with the last deliveries in 1983.

The first 5 Argentinian SE were delivered to Landivisiau in France, where the Argentinian pilots were training, between 18 March and 1 April 1981. They were loaded aboard an Argentinian Navy transport in Oct and arrived at Puerto Belgrano on 18 Nov 1981. The remaining 9 from the Argentinian order were shipped from France in late Nov / early Dec 1982 arriving in two batches on 6 & 21 Dec 1982.

5 SE were loaned to Iraq in 1983, the first arriving there on 8 Oct 1983. First mission was March 1984. The surviving 4 were returned to France in June 1985 as the Mirage F1EQ with Exocet became operational that year.

 

[Archibald]

I have created a new account at AH.com. As I regularly do since 2017 when I was banned by the asshole moderators there.

 

[H_K]

By 1984 the following aircraft will have been delivered: 71 Super Étendard, 28 Modernised Alizé, 40 Lynx

Good recap of the French fleet here: https://www.senat.fr/rap/1982-1983/i1982_1983_0098_08.pdf

As of September 1st, 1982, the French fleet was comprised of:

• 5 SSBNs
• 1 SSN on sea trials
• 19 SSKs
• 2 aircraft carriers
• 1 helicopter carrier
• 6 anti-aircraft escorts: 1 cruiser, 2 F65 frigates, 3 T47/T53 destroyers
• 14 anti-submarine escorts: 3 F67 frigates, 1 F65 corvette, 3 F70 corvettes , 7 T47/T53 destroyers
• 9 escort sloops (Cdt Riviere class aviso escorteur)
• 12 anti-submarine corvettes (A69 avisos)
• Support vessels including 4 AORs, 3 AOs, 1 repair ship and 4 smaller logistics ships
• Amphibs: 2 LPDs, 5 large LSTs, 2 small LSTs
• 28 mine hunters
• 26 smaller patrol vessels

• 159 carrier aircraft (Crusader, Super Etendard, Etendard IVM/IVP & Alize)
• 43 combat helicopters (Super-Frelon & Lynx)
• 49 support helicopters (Alouette II/III)

In addition, a few details on actual fleet sizes (from French Senate reports). As of year end.

Super Etendard
1979: 35
1980: 49
1981: 57
1982: 67

Crusader
1983: 27

Etendard IVM
1983: 25

Etendard IVP
1982: 14

Alize:
1983: 27 (incl. 16 upgraded to ALM standard)

Lynx
1979: 21
1980: 25
1981: 25
1982: 24

Super Frelon:
1984: 20

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

Good recap of the French fleet here: https://www.senat.fr/rap/1982-1983/i1982_1983_0098_08.pdf

View attachment 758482
In addition, a few details on actual fleet sizes (from French Senate reports). As of year end.

Super Etendard
1979: 35
1980: 49
1981: 57
1982: 67

Crusader
1983: 27

Etendard IVM
1983: 25

Etendard IVP
1982: 14

Alize:
1983: 27 (incl. 16 upgraded to ALM standard)

Lynx
1979: 21
1980: 25
1981: 25
1982: 24

Super Frelon:
1984: 20

From earlier in the thread.

This is the addenda from Jane's 1982-83 that I uploaded into Post 319.

​

Edit: the "total of the total" is 402 aircraft of which 351 were active.​

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

In the interest of balance this is the Fleet Air Arm's order of battle according to Janes 1981-82.
First-line squadrons are normally given numberd in the sequnce 800-899.
Second-line squadrons are normally given numbers in the sequence 700-799.
RNR Squadrons are numbered in the sequence 1800-1899.




​

My Notes:

1. The number of Sea Harries is too large as only 34 were ordered before the Falklands War. The total might include Harrier T.4N trainers.​
2. The number of Sea Kings ordered to date was 60 HAS.1 (survivors converted to HAS.2), 21 HAS.2, 15 HC.4 and 17 HAS.5 for a total of 113. The difference will be aircraft not delivered and aircraft written off.​
3. The number of Lynx HAS.2 seems too high. "British Warships and Auxiliaries 1981" says that 65 were on order.​
4. "British Warships and Auxiliaries 1981" says that 150 Wessex were in service too.​
5. "British Warships and Auxiliaries 1981" says that 72 Wasps were in service.​
6. "British Warships and Auxiliaries 1981" says that 28 Gazelles were in service.​
7. It didn't mention 3 Commando Brigade Air Squadron (3CBAS) of the Royal Marines, which according to its Wikipeida entry went to the Falklands with 6 Scout AH.1 and 9 Gazelle AH.1 helicopters.​
8. The Nimrods also equipped 236 Operational Conversion Unit (OCU) which was also No. 38 (Reserve) Squadron. 46 Nimrod MR.1 were built of which one had been written off, 34 were being converted to MR.2s and 11 were being converted to AEW.3s.​
9. The list doesn't include the 12 Shackleton AEW.2s of No. 8 Squadron, RAF, which were due to begin being replaced by the Nimrod AEW.3 in 1982.​
10. The list doesn't include the RAF's pair of Maritime Fighter squadrons: No. 43 Squadrons which formed in 1969 with the FG.1s (F-4K) that were to have equipped Eagle's Phantom squadron; No. 29 Squadron with FGR.2s (F-4M) that became a Maritime Squadron on 01.03.80 and replaced Ark Royal's Phantom squadron. The plan had been to form a new Phantom squadron with the redundant FG.1s, but instead they were used to re-equip No. 111 the "normal" Fighter Squadron at RAF Leuchars to standardise with No. 43 Squadron which was also based there and its redundant FGR.2s were rotated around the remaining F-4M squadrons.​
11. The list doesn't include the RAF's sole Maritime Strike squadron, No. 12 with Buccaneer S.2s, which would be joined by No. 208 Squadron in July 1982. No. 216 Squadron did re-form in July 1979 as a Maritime Strike squadron (taking the place of Ark Royal's Buccaneer squadron) but it disbanded in August 1980 due to the Buccaneer's metal fatigue issues.​
12. And while I'm at it I should mention the RAF's 3 Search & Rescue Squadrons, Nos. 22, 84 & 202. No. 22 was in the UK with Wessex HAR.2s, No. 202 was in the UK with Sea King HAR.3s (15 built so far) and No. 84 on Cyprus which was a mixed SAR & transport squadron with Wessex HC.2s & HAR.2s.​

 

[H_K]

Thanks @NOMISYRRUC. The RN clearly had no shortage of helicopters, but an acute shortage of carrier capable jets.

No air launched anti ship missiles either, whereas the Super Etendard / Exocet combo would likely have kept the Argentine navy in port just as well as RN SSNs did historically.

The other issue I see with the RN’s helicopter fleet is the lack of ship platforms for ASW Sea Kings, meaning they had to compete with jets for precious space aboard Hermes & Invincible. Whereas the MN had dunking sonar on their Lynxes, which could operate easily from lots of escorts.

 

[Archibald]

I wonder whether France may take Etendard IVM out of storage to create additional naval squadrons. But this would ran counter to Super Etendard procurement...

On the helicopter front, you can be sure that the Armée de Terre would provide a lot of Pumas for assault and transport, and Gazelles / Alouette IIIs for attack. In roles similar to the Wasps and Wessex, notably during the battle for South Georgia.

That's the difference between the RN & MN. The MN lacked assault helicopters (Frelon was too big and expensive) so the plan, as done in GW1, was to borrow Pumas from the Army. Which had a crapton of them.

 

[timmymagic]

The other issue I see with the RN’s helicopter fleet is the lack of ship platforms for ASW Sea Kings, meaning they had to compete with jets for precious space aboard Hermes & Invincible. Whereas the MN had dunking sonar on their Lynxes, which could operate easily from lots of escorts.

Have a look at the RFA flight decks...particularly the OL Class, Tide and Fort Class, plus Engadine. Lots of other decks capable of landing the big helos and refuelling.

Dunking sonar on a Lynx is a terrible idea...endurance is not going to be good....particularly if you attempt to carry a torp and/or DC at the same time....any attempt at running a screen is going to far, far harder....dunking is best left for the big boys...

On the helicopter front, you can be sure that the Armée de Terre would provide a lot of Pumas for assault and transport, and Gazelles / Alouette IIIs for attack. In roles similar to the Wasps and Wessex, notably during the battle for South Georgia.

That's the difference between the RN & MN. The MN lacked assault helicopters (Frelon was too big and expensive) so the plan, as done in GW1, was to borrow Pumas from the Army. Which had a crapton of them.

They'd have struggled massively with helicopter lift, particularly resupplying the guns with ammo. Puma could only undersling around 400lbs more than Wessex (4,000lbs). Sea King HC.4 almost doubled that to 7,500lbs....but the UK was still enormously reliant on the sole surviving CH-47 which could undersling around 25,000lbs...to be frank it would make me wonder if logistically they could have supported the move from San Carlos to Port Stanley and subsequent battles. The UK had far more cargo lift and struggled....

Also how well will Puma, which the UK for example doesn't use on ships due to its CoG, have performed in the South Atlantic...it would be ok when ashore (the Argentinians had them after all)...but flight ops on way down and offshore, plus lack of marinisation would have caused some issues....

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

I wonder whether France may take Etendard IVM out of storage to create additional naval squadrons. But this would ran counter to Super Etendard procurement...

This again.

I think Étendard NP is a typo for Étendard IVP.​

We've already established that the MN had enough Alizés, Crusaders, Étendard IVPs and Super Étendard to give both aircraft carriers full-strength air groups of 10 Crusaders, 16 Super Étendards, 4 Étendard IVPs, 2 Super Frelons & 2 Alouette III for a total of 40 fixed-wing aircraft and 4 helicopters.

I think the problem is, where would the extra trained aircrew and groundcrew come from? My guess is that they would find them in the second-line units.

On the helicopter front, you can be sure that the Armée de Terre would provide a lot of Pumas for assault and transport, and Gazelles / Alouette IIIs for attack. In roles similar to the Wasps and Wessex, notably during the battle for South Georgia.

That's the difference between the RN & MN. The MN lacked assault helicopters (Frelon was too big and expensive) so the plan, as done in GW1, was to borrow Pumas from the Army. Which had a crapton of them.

That was established earlier in the thread too. Although, IOTL the RN's helicopter force was augmented with machines from the AAC & RAF too.

FWIW the tables show that RN had 2 assault helicopter squadrons with Wessex HU.5s & a flight of Sea King HC.4s while the MN had one assault squadron with Super Frelons. So the difference in peacetime wasn't that big. However, the RN enlarged it's force by mobilising the training squadrons that were equipped with the HU.5 and by commissioning a scratch squadron of Sea King HAS.2s that had been converted to transport helicopters. @EwenS provided fuller details recently, either here or in another thread.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

Ninjad by @timmymagic.

The other issue I see with the RN’s helicopter fleet is the lack of ship platforms for ASW Sea Kings, meaning they had to compete with jets for precious space aboard Hermes & Invincible.

In addition to Hermes & Invincible there were:

• Fearless & Intrepid didn't have hangars, but did have other facilities for 5 Wessex or 4 Sea King helicopters.
• 3 "Ol" class tankers - each with facilities for 3 Wessex.
• 2 Tide class tankers - each with facilities for 3 Wessex.
• 2 Fort class ammunition & store ships - each with facilities for 4 Sea Kings.
• 2 Regent class ammunition & store ships - had one Wessex helicopter in 1981 and were the only RFA ships with an RN helicopter permanently embarked. However, my guess is that in common with the "Ol" and Tide classes (which were also built in the 1960s) they could carry up to 3 Wessex.
• The helicopter training ship RFA Engadine with facilities for up to 6 helicopters. Marriott wrote that it was 4 Wessex or 2 Sea Kings and 2 Wasp/Lynx.

Whereas the MN had dunking sonar on their Lynxes, which could operate easily from lots of escorts.

The MN didn't have lots of escorts that could carry helicopters.

• 3 Tourville class that could carry 2 Lynx.
• 3 Georges Leygues that could carry 2 Lynx. That's including the Montcalm which IOTL commissioned on 28.05.82.
• 1 Type 56 destroyer (La Galissonnière) that could carry one Lynx.

Other aviation capable ships were:

• Jeanne d'Arc which according to Jane's 1986-87 carried 4 Lynx in peacetime as a training ship and 8 in wartime.
• The LPHs Ouragan and Orage which according to Jane's 1986-87 could carry 3 Super Frelons or 10 Alouette IIIs on their main deck.
• 2 Durance class AOR which according to Jane's 1986-87 could carry one Lynx. However, it also says that their sister ship HMAS Success in the RAN could carry a Wessex and the 2 Durance class in the Saudi Navy could carry 2 Dauphin helicopters.

Edit: I forgot about the older tankers Isère and La Charente that were still in service in 1982. Jane's 1981-82 says the former had a flight deck & hangar for helicopters, but didn't say how many or of what type. Isère didn't have facilities for helicopters. Isère was replaced by the third Durcance class tanker and La Charente was replaced by the fourth Durance.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

The other issue I see with the RN’s helicopter fleet is the lack of ship platforms for ASW Sea Kings, meaning they had to compete with jets for precious space aboard Hermes & Invincible.

As far as I can remember Hermes and Invincible were able to carry all the Sea Harriers the RN could send and they were augmented by Harrier GR.1s from No. 1 Squadron, RAF. Again. @EwenS provided full details recently, either in this thread or another one. If I remember correctly Hermes was carrying 37 aircraft by the end of the war.

That's not to say that more ships capable of carrying Sea King size helicopters wouldn't have been useful. E.g. if they'd been able to get Blake & Tiger out of reserve in time to take part in the war. (Once again @EwenS has told the full story.) The RN was unlucky that Bulwark had the fires in 1980 that resulted in her being paid off in 1981. Otherwise (and in spite of the 1981 Defence Review) I think she'd still have been in commission at the end of March 1982.

Edit: They were Harrier GR.3s, not GR.1s, which is a typo by me that I failed to spot before @timmymagic did.

 

[timmymagic]

As far as I can remember Hermes and Invincible were able to carry all the Sea Harriers the RN could send and they were augmented by Harrier GR.1s from No. 1 Squadron, RAF. Again. @EwenS provided full details recently, either in this thread or another one. If I remember correctly Hermes was carrying 37 aircraft by the end of the war.

That's not to say that more ships capable of carrying Sea King size helicopters wouldn't have been useful. E.g. if they'd been able to get Blake & Tiger out of reserve in time to take part in the war. (Once again @EwenS has told the full story.) The RN was unlucky that Bulwark had the fires in 1980 that resulted in her being paid off in 1981. Otherwise (and in spite of the 1981 Defence Review) I think she'd still have been in commission at the end of March 1982.

All Sea Harriers that had been built....

No Harrier GR.1 though...all had been upgraded to GR.3 standard by that point.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

All Sea Harriers that had been built....

No a few hadn't been delivered.

No Harrier GR.1 though...all had been upgraded to GR.3 standard by that point.

Yes, you are quite right, that's an unforgivably stupid error by me, especially on account on the large amount of fact checking that I did for these posts. I'll go and clean my revolver.

 

[EwenS]

Sea Harrier FRS.1
3 development aircraft XZ438-440 (all engaged in various A&AEE/RAE/BAe trials in Spring 1982 so otherwise non operational)
21 Production aircraft XZ450-460, XZ491-500
10 Production aircraft ZA174-177, ZA190-195
Total 34 ordered to April 1982

ZA194 was delivered to 809 squadron at Yeovilton on 28 April 1982 just before that unit flew south. The final aircraft of that batch first flew on 9 Sept 1982 and began life as a trials aircraft. Deliveries of the next batch began in 1985.

XZ454 lost 1980. XZ497 was moving around between trials, 809 & 899 in April 1982 and didn't deploy south. By the end of April 899 had just a single Sea Harrier FRS.1.

So 34 less 3 development aircraft, less 1 lost & 1 drifting around Yeovilton and 1 still in build = 28 which were all deployed to the Falklands. 6 were lost during the Campaign.

It was 1983 before the 4x T.4 (ex RAF) & 3xT.4N began to be received.

809 squadron
Was formed 6 April 1982 on a rush basis to reinforce the Task Force. By month end they had accumulated 8 FRS.1 to fly south. Split equally between 800 on Hermes and 801 on Invincible on arrival in Falklands waters, at which point they were absorbed into the other squadrons, so 809 temporarily ceased to exist as a separate unit on 19 May 1982. Its aircraft and pilots travelled back to the UK on Hermes and officially reformed at Yeovilton on 5 July 1982. After a couple of detachments embarked on Illustrious in July for training, it went South on Illustrious on 2 Aug. By then its aircraft had been modified with larger drop tanks and twin sidewinder mounts. It was dibanded on its return to the UK on 17 Dec 1982.

So there were only a few months when there were 3 front line Sea Harrier squadrons in existence, while 899 virtually ceased to exist except on paper, until aircraft started returning from the South Atlantic and could be shuffled about.

Sea King (ASW)
Hermes sailed south with 9 HAS.5 (826 squadron) & Invincible with 11 HAS.5 (820 squadron). Invincible transferred 2 x HAS.5 to Hermes in mid-May to cover losses. Hermes then transferred 4 to Fort Austin (see below). So they ended the Campaign with 9 and 5 aboard respectively.

Then we have the detachments on the RFAs.
Olmeda - 2 x HAS.2A from 824 A flight
Fort Grange - 3 x HAS.2A from 824 C flight (left UK on 14 May. arrived Falklands 3 June)
Fort Austin - 4 x HAS.5 from 826 squadron on Hermes. (She took a number of Lynx with the latest kit south and then on 17 May switched those for a flight of SK HAS.5 moved off Hermes to make room for the extra Sea Harriers & Harrier GR.3 coming in from Atlantic Conveyor)

824 B flight was at Gibraltar
824 D flight reformed in June 1982 with SK AEW.2 and embarked on Illustrious between Aug & Dec 1982.
819 squadron was shore based at Prestwick (HMS Gannet) with 9 HAS.2 covering the Clyde Sub Base and providing SAR cover for the west of Scotland.
814 at the time of the Falklands was preparing to convert from SK HAS.2 to HAS.5. It deployed south on Illustrious in Aug 1982.

Another 10 HAS.2A were stripped of their AS gear for use as transports and issued to a reformed 825 squadron. 8 went south on Atlantic Causeway and 2 on QE2. Another odd HAS.2A went south on Contender Bezant in charge of Naval Party 2050.

Lynx
While the RN Lynx HAS.2 may not have had sonar they were perfectly good for prosecuting targets detected on ships' sonars. They dropped torpedoes or depth charges on possible targets on at least 4 occasions during the campaign.

The Falklands War was of course the first time that the Lynx used the Sea Skua missile, and very successful it was too. At least 6 hits from 8 launches.

Nimrod
IIRC work to equip this aircraft with Harpoon was begun during the Falklands War but had not been completed by the end.

 

[Scott Kenny]

Pardon me, binged the thread.

I wonder if the submarine could cut short it trials and make its TLD, to the Falklands ? In a case of absolute emergency ?

Yes, but they'd be doing sea trials en route and praying that everything worked as advertised.

Would France have had an equivalent of the AIM9L Sidewinder for its Crusaders and Etendards? 2 Matra 530 was the original Crusader fit. Had it got M550 Magic by 1982?

Why not just AIM9Ls for the Crusaders? They were still wired for Sidewinders.

A French task force would not have been able to keep the Argentine fleet in port. The RN needed three SSN to do that. Rubis on its own might have managed to sink Belgrano or DeMayo though. Not sure about conventional subs

Conventional subs could still do it, they'd need more luck and/or more aggressive captains, going to a place the Belgrano or DelMayo had to be.

Would the consequences of this see the second CdG class carrier?

Very very likely, IMO.

Before I look at the invasion force, let’s do a digression and look at the submarine force logistics.

Deployed submarines
- 3 Narwal oceanic SSKs (of 6 in service)
- 2 Agosta SSKs (of 4 in service)
I’m assuming the 10 smaller Daphnés aren’t deployed and Rubis SSN (in sea trials) deploys too late.

Resupply needs
The Narwals have 20,000nm range and 90 days supply. Can stage pretty autonomously from French Guyana or (preferably) the naval base at Fort de France in Martinique.

The Agostas have ~8,500nm range and 45 days supply so will need support from a submarine tender.

Submarine tender
Luckily a tender exists: BSM Rhone. It can provide living space for 2 spare sub crews, 3x sets of torpedo reloads, and numerous workshops. I imagine that at sea replenishment could be done in calm seas around the Equator or South Atlantic high... if not then maybe 4 Narwals can be sent instead of 3 Narwals + 2 Agostas.

4-5 subs deployed means 3-4 on station at most times. So… while not as effective as the RN’s SSN force, a decent submarine presence could be maintained.

The problem is deployment rotations.

The USN and UKRN operate on a "1 ship out at sea for every 3 ships you have" model. One ship at sea, one just back from sea in shipyard refitting, and one ship getting ready to go out to sea. It's possible but not recommended to "surge" the ships getting ready to go to sea, but you're doing that at the expense of their readiness.

The RN reckoned (and still do) that you needed a minimum of 10 Sea Kings to provide a 24/7 ASW screen around a Task Force.

The USN agree with that while using SH60s, typically having a dozen Seahawks per carrier group. Some on carrier, some based on the escorts.

The French used VDS active towed sonar instead of helicopters. Different approach, but apparently effective enough for them to remove dunking sonar from their Super Frelons and repurpose their heavy ASW helicopters for other missions… so it can’t have been half bad.

I doubt that any sub captain would sniff at 6-7 escorts with VDS sonar (of which 5-6 with Malafon), 10 Lynx, and 6 Alizés dropping sonobuoys.

That would not be a fun day.

It might be doable in a nuke boat, it'd be a nightmare in a diesel when you can't do 20 knots for long.

@H_K The British task force only had capacity for 2600 troops on their amphibious ships. The British had to requisition two ocean liners and a number of car ferries to carry the majority of their troops.

I'm sure France could hire a few as well.

You guys seem to have fun. While looking for something else in the same period, I saw that the Frenchs could have other things available in the "pantry" so here is my attempt.

During this period, Ariane 1 was still in the test phase, so perhaps an "accident" can be organized to pass a message.

The MSBS S-2 and SSBS M-2 were also in a replacement process or already been, so they could therefore be available for use with a makeshift conventional warhead. Using Kourou Spaceport or Gymnote (S655) along the coast of French Guyana as launch sites.

Crud, just dropping an inert warhead while sending a message of "The next one won't be inert" via diplomatic channels would probably make the Argentine forces leave really quickly!

Can a boomer be used as a SSN ?

Potentially, BUT.

1) how many torpedoes does the boomer have in the torpedo room? Ohios had stows for 8-13 weapons not in tubes, plus 4 tubes to work with. The George Washington class had a full sized torpedo room, since the GW herself was literally a Skipjack-class (6x tubes, 24x stows) sawed in half with a missile compartment added in the middle. The other SSBNs went down to 4 tubes and ~12 stows, since they were designed from the ground up as SSBNs and used some of the Permit-class design features. But yes if you're only chasing a few ships and you actually trust your modern homing torpedoes an SSBN probably carries enough torpedoes to go hunting skimmers.

2) While that SSBN is out chasing skimmer targets, it isn't covering the strategic targets.

3) what happens if the enemy gets super lucky and sinks it?

(Edit: removed a word that didn't make any sense)

The Rubis could eventually be rushed into service, depending about its shakedown cruise (traversée longue durée) which was done from June 1982 to the fall, before IOC indeed in February 1983.
I think the french navy simply could not resist testing its first SSN at war, even briefly.

I think they would quietly tweak the Rubis TLD / shakedown cruise into a (secret) trip to the Falklands - and would only reveal that decades later.

Again, they could, but this would require everything working as advertised and nothing breaking. Or else their brand new and very expensive submarine is 5000nmi from home.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

Link to Post 397.

Thank you. I was about to start writing a post about that. You saved me a lot of time.

All that I can add is that according to Aeromilitaria Magazine the 34 Sea Harriers were ordered in two batches:

• 24 on 17.09.75 to Contract K/A9a/045. This includes the 3 development aircraft.
  • And.
• 10 on 24.05.78 to contract K/A9a/110.

A third batch of 10 aircraft (which would have increased the total to 44 aircraft) was planned before the 1981 Defence Review (announced on 20.01.82). When would they have to be ordered in order to be delivered in the spring of 1982?

 

[Scott Kenny]

A third batch of 10 aircraft (which would have increased the total to 44 aircraft) was planned before the 1981 Defence Review (announced on 20.01.82). When would they have to be ordered in order to be delivered in the spring of 1982?

It sounds like the production rate was relatively slow. I mean, there were what, 30 airframes delivered by the time of the fighting? And 28 airframes were in the war.

So the third batch would have had to be ordered around the same time as the second batch, and with expedited delivery, in order to have all 44 birds delivered in time.