Swap UK with France during the Falklands War.

[alejandrogrossi]

I don't remember this being asked before and haven't checked the thread to see if it has.

Does swapping France with the UK mean that the latter doesn't sell 2 Type 42 destroyers to Argentina and in their place the former sells 2 Masurca armed destroyers to Argentina instead?

Does it also mean that France doesn't sell Super Etendards, 3 A69 corvettes and Exocet missiles to Argentina? What do the British sell in their place. I was going to say Buccaneers and Martels in place of the Super Etendards and AM39 Exocets but I doubt that the Argentine aircraft carrier could cope with the Buccaneer.

NOMISRRUC
If the swap is UK with France
Why not the Our can not buy the Type 42 for the Navy.
Of course, we have not SUE or the A69, and Exocet.
See my post 41 / 64 and 71. There I do the changes in our aerial equipment, that demand this swap.

Should your second sentence be? Why can't Argentina buy the Type 42 for the Navy?
And the third sentence be? Of course we do not have SUE [Super Etendard] or the A69 and Exocet.

My thinking was that, as the thread is swap the UK with France as Argentina's opponent, should the British equipment that the Argentines had in the Falklands be substituted with French equipment as well? And vice versa, that is, should the French equipment that the Argentines used be substituted with British equipment?

That's:

• The pair of Type 42 destroyers ordered in 1970 plus the second-hand Canberras (that I didn't remember until writing this reply) from Britain.
• And the 3 A69 corvettes, 14 Super Etendards, Exocet missiles and the Mirage IIIs (you mentioned in Post 41 that I forgot about) from France.

I'm going to write separate posts about your Posts 41, 64 and 71.

Argentine Aircraft Carriers

The sale of Arromanches to Argentina to give them a second aircraft carrier has been suggested in this thread. Not by you or I. However, it's worth examining.

Arromanches was retired in 1974, which was 3 years after the Argentines scrapped Independencia, which (when it was HMS Warrior) was refitted to a similar standard to Arromanches. As far as I know they were in the same material condition in 1971 so the Argentines would have kept Independencia if they wanted a second carrier. The only way that I can see Argentina buying Arromanches is to provide a source of spare parts for Veinticinco de Mayo

Furthermore, if France was prepared to sell Arromanches to Argentina in this timeline other countries would have been prepared to sell their aircraft carriers to Argentina too.

The Canadians might have sold Bonaventure to Argentina instead of having it broken up in 1970. Unlike Arromanches and Independencia she had a steam catapult and had recently completed the 1960s version of a SLEP refit.

Though the best ships available (and by coincidence the ones that best fit the sprit of the timeline) are Centaur and Hermes.

• Centaur was paid off at the end of 1965 and used as an accommodation ship until 1970 but wasn't sold for scrap until 1972. It was newer, larger and faster than Karel Doorman. It also had 2 steam catapults to Karel Doorman's one. However, the Dutch ship's catapult had a longer shuttle run and may have been as powerful. Karel Doorman had a fully angled flight deck while Centaur only had a partially angled flight deck.
• Hermes was paid off in 1970 and converted to a commando carrier 1971-73 when it replaced Albion. It was a far superior ship to Arromanches on account of it being newer, larger and faster. Both ships had interim angled flight decks, but before her conversion to a commando carrier Hermes had 2 steam catapults that could launch Buccaneers instead of the single hydraulic catapult on Arromanches.

Therefore, the best alternative for Argentina would be to buy Centaur and Hermes in 1968 instead of Karel Doorman and the proposed purchase of Arromanches.

• Centaur would probably need a refit before it could be delivered to the Argentines. It's possible that this might include upgrading the ship to operate Buccaneers.
• In common with our timeline, Hermes would remain in service with the Royal Navy until 1970, but it would then be transferred to Argentina. Her place in the Royal Navy after 1973 would be taken by Albion which would be run on until paid off in 1984 (instead of 1973) and possibly be sold to India afterwards.

Jane's 1982-83 said Veinticinco de Mayo had an air group of 18 fixed wing aircraft (Skyhawks and Trackers) and 4 helicopters (Sea Kings). However, it's been pointed out on another thread that she couldn't have put to sea with a full-strength air group due to attrition.

• 11 Skyhawks were left out of the 16 purchased with 8 aboard the carrier and 3 ashore.
• Of 6 S-2E in service only 5 were operational with only 4 deploying on the carrier at any one time.
• Of 5 SH-3D in service in May 1982 only 3 were operational.

I think Centaur and Hermes could have carried 50% more aircraft of equivalent size to those operated by Veinticinco de Mayo and the Argentines would have bought 3 times as many aircraft to operate from them. However, attrition would have meant that these ships wouldn't have been able to put to sea with full-strength air groups either.

• 33 Skyhawks would have been left out of the 48 purchased with 24 aboard the carriers and 9 ashore.
• Of 18 S-2E in service only 15 would be operational with only 12 deploying on the carriers at any one time.
• Of 15 SH-3D in service in May 1982, only 9 would be operational.

Except that another source I have says that the Argentines bought 6 S-2E Trackers in the 1960s and the 6 S-2E Trackers were delivered in 1978 and at least 3 of the S-2As were left in 1982 because they were deployed to BAN Río Grande in Tierra del Fuego when the S-2Es replaced them aboard the carrier.

All other things being equal the Argentines would have acquired 18 S-2A Trackers in the 1960s and 18 S-2E Trackers in 1978. However, I think it would have been 12 S-2A Trackers & 6 E-1A Tracers in the 1960s and 12 S-2E Tracers & 6 E-1B Tracers in 1978. Therefore, the two Argentine carriers would have had an AEW capability that the real carrier lacked.

Except I think the Argentines would have bought new Buccaneers, second-hand Sea Vixens and second-hand AEW Gannets to operate from the ships instead of Skyhawks, Trackers and Tracers.

According to Marriott in RN Aircraft Carriers 1945-1990 Centaur's final air group in RN service was 24 aircraft (12 Sea Vixens, 8 ASW helicopters and 4 AEW Gannets). However, the refit that she would have had before delivery to Argentina might have included increasing her carrying capacity to that of Hermes as well as upgrading the ship to operate Buccaneers.

According to seaforces.org it Hermes had an air group of 30 aircraft 1966-70 made up of 7 Buccaneers, 12 Sea Vixens, 5 Gannets (4 AEW and one COD) and 6 helicopters. However, Ballance, Howard & Sturtivant say that her Buccaneer squadron had 8 aircraft from 1966 to 1970 except for August 1968 to April 1969 when it was increased to 12 and none of the other squadrons were reduced.

Therefore, I think the two ships in Argentine service would have air groups of 36 aircraft made up of 12 Sea Vixens, 12 Buccaneers, 6 Gannets (4-5 AEW and 1-2 COD) and 6 helicopters. Except that by 1982 attrition probably meant that there weren't enough aircraft for 2 full-strength air groups.

This is a long way from what the thread's Opening Post asked and is more like a Contrive the best possible Argentine Navy in 1982 thread.

NOMISYRRUC
I read all you posts. I´m speechless
Great work.
Some thoughts:
You choose the Lightnings (for MIII and Dagger) I choose the Sea Vixen (to replace the M-III), because I think (my opinion) it had more range, so you can reach and operate more time over the islands
Daggers: I choose the Bucc (one of my favorite britihs aircraft) becase the Dagger (in the war) do strike mission over the islands, more that fighter. My selection was base in the actual knowledge the the Dagger arrive to the islans with few fuel; and for that, they use the same route for in and out.
For your idea, about 2 carrier for our Navy.
By short time, we operated 2, (at the time of the withdraw of Independencia and the enter of service of the Veinticinco de Mayo) I don remeber how many time was that (2 carriers), but from of our historical budget , it´s not possible.
One of your choises (Centaur o Hermes ) i like it.
One question
Why not the Victorious ( I know about the fire), but we buy it and do the repairs in UK
here a Victorius with Ducht island, and SUE and A-4Q (of course the will be diferent)

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

You could twist the AU plot another way - Argentina could say "a pox on both your houses" and go cap in hand to Washington for MAP goodies.
Could have had F-104Gs or brand-new F-5Es for interception and some A-7s for strike roles alongside the Canberras. Plus that still enables the Navy to keep A-4s and Trackers and have some A-7s of its own for shore-based strike and maybe even some surplus F-8s. Maybe 6-7 Orions to replace the ageing Neptunes too. And if Washington had thrown some Harpoons into the sale then France's problems would be added too.

Which is not what the thread is about. What it is about a Falklands War be between Argentina and France instead of between Argentina and Britain with Argentina's British equipment swapped for the nearest French equivalent and its French equipment swapped for the nearest British equivalent.

This suggestion, which is what set me off on this tangent isn't within the scope of the thread either.

To give Argentina another carrier you could let them have Arromanches.

A separate thread should be created to discuss these "off topic" suggestions.

It will be impossible for Argentina acquire more arms from the USA because of the arms embargo. See this extract from Post 146 by @alejandrogrossi.

The date is perfect, because past 1976, we can´t do it, because the U.S. placed an embargo of spare parts in 1977 due to the Dirty War military dictatorship of Argentina from 1976 to 1983) backing the Humphrey-Kennedy amendment to the Foreign Assistance Act of 1976, the Carter administration placed an embargo on the sale of arms and spare parts to Argentina and on the training of its military personnel.

Having written that it didn't stop them receiving 6 refurbished S-2E Trackers in 1978.

Sadly 1982 is too soon to pick up any US frigate disposals (didn't start until 88-89) but on paper the German-built fleet is actually one of the most modern in South America and if it had been completed in its entirety would have been pretty potent.

According to Jane's 1980-81 the MEKO 360H2s were ordered on 11.12.78 with the first ship to be delivered in 38 months later, i.e. February 1982. This schedule wasn't met because Almirante Brown didn't commission until January 1983 and even if it was delivered on time it's unlikely that the ship would have been worked up in time to take part in the war.

 

[Hood]

Which is not what the thread is about. What it is about a Falklands War be between Argentina and France instead of between Argentina and Britain with Argentina's British equipment swapped for the nearest French equivalent and its French equipment swapped for the nearest British equivalent.

True but Zen nailed the whole sub-question in reply #4.
A British replacement for the Mirage III and Super Entendard (the only two types France had supplied) is either Lightning, Jaguar, Sea Vixen or Harrier/AV-8/Sea Harrier. There is nothing else.

Your naval analysis pretty well matches mine but you've done a much better job of logistical details.
Taken all around the French Navy is deficient in some areas and better in others. I still think there is a lack of decent escorts, support ships and amphibious lift. On the other hand there is ample naval aviation support capability even though embarked airwing numbers on the carriers are lower than optimal. There are ample Exocets aboard the escorts, certainly serious striking power if the Argentines dared to go in close. There is no timely French submarine support though - no SSNs to arrive ahead of the task force to scout. Some of the French escorts are quite short-ranged so a fair bit of refuelling capability would be used in topping off tanks on the way south.
And generally they have a full third less surface ships and sending everything means pretty much stripping the Atlantic and Med fleets bare. Its an all or nothing gamble.

Like you, I have some doubts over the radar capability and datalinking and I know nothing about French naval EW capabilities, their ESM equipment was probably decent plus Dagaie/Sagaie chaff/flare systems but not sure what dedicated missile-defence jammers they had (the RN having 'Cooky', Bexley' etc.).

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

NOMISYRRUC

I read all you posts. I´m speechless
Great work.
Some thoughts:
You choose the Lightnings (for MIII and Dagger) I choose the Sea Vixen (to replace the M-III), because I think (my opinion) it had more range, so you can reach and operate more time over the islands
Daggers: I choose the Bucc (one of my favourite British aircraft) because the Dagger (in the war) do strike mission over the islands, more that fighter. My selection was based on the actual knowledge the the Dagger arrive to the islands with few fuel; and for that, they use the same route for in and out.
For your idea, about 2 carrier for our Navy.
By short time, we operated 2, (at the time of the withdraw of Independencia and the enter of service of the Veinticinco de Mayo) I don't remember how many time was that (2 carriers), but from of our historical budget, it´s not possible.
One of your choices (Centaur or Hermes) I like it.
One question
Why not the Victorious (I know about the fire), but we buy it and do the repairs in UK
Here a Victorious with Dutch island, and SUE and A-4Q (of course the will be different)

You're welcome!

I thought the Opening Post of the thread meant swap the British equipment for the nearest French equivalent and vice versa.

I chose Lightning because it was the nearest British equivalent to Mirage III and Dagger. These aircraft were multi-role fighters not specialised attack aircraft like the Buccaneer.

As far as I know Argentina considers its "proper" enemies to be Brazil and Chile. For most of history Argentina and the UK were friends. The unpleasantness over the Falklands/Malvinas is an aberration and the Argentine Government only presses its claim to the islands when it needs to divert attention away from how badly its running the country. I think the FAA would have based its procurement decisions on the aircraft needed to fight wars against Brazil and Chile rather than the UK or in this timeline France because a war with Brazil or Chile was a lot more likely.

I think Lightnings would be better for fighting a war against Brazil and Chile than Buccaneers. It needs some fighters to protect the Skyhawks and to shoot down the enemy's attack aircraft. The Buccaneer may have been one of the best attack aircraft ever built, but it was no air superiority fighter. The FAA would have found itself in an extremely embarrassing situation if it had to fight the FAB or FAC with no fighters. So if you're going to buy some Buccaneers for the FAA, buy them instead of the Canberras.

Veinticinco de Mayo from Jane's Fighting Ships 1980-81

• 15.10.68 purchased
• 12.03.69 commissioned into the Argentine Navy
• 22.08.69 completed refit at Rotterdam
• 01.09.69 sailed for Argentina

All I can find on Independencia was that she went into reserve in 1970 and was scrapped in 1971. So the period when both carriers were operational at the same time was very brief.

The Argentine Navy had 30,930 personnel in 1982 according to Jane's Fighting Ships 1982-83.

Veinticinco de Mayo had a crew of 1,500 while Centaur and Hermes (as a strike carrier) had crews of 1,400 and 2,200 respectively. Except that I think the crew for Centaur is too small considering that they were half-sisters. Hermes had more advanced electronics and a larger air group, but I think that's not enough to account for the difference of 800 men. I think the 1960s editions of Jane's that the figures came from are quoting Centaur's crew when it completed in 1953 and that in Argentine service both would have crews of 2,200. That's a total of 4,400 which is an increase of over 3,000 and doesn't allow for the extra men that would be needed ashore to provide backing.

Large manpower hungry and expensive to run ships that could be sacrificed if Argentina wasn't rich enough to afford to run both carriers were Nueve de Julio paid off in 1978 and General Belgrano. The latter had a crew of 1,000 according to Jane's 1980-81. I was also going to suggest La Argentina because she was scrapped in 1974, but when I checked Conway's 1947-1995 discovered that she went into reserve in 1970.

I didn't think of Victorious, and now I have... no, because she doesn't carry many more aircraft than Hermes, she's older than Hermes, has a larger crew (2,400 v 2,200) and has shorter steam catapults than Hermes. It doesn't matter about the fire because Karel Doorman had one too.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

Was AMCA an area defence SAM?

Initial effort was 12km, but size indicates potential for much greater range.
A competitor to NMBR.11 possibly.

Cotral a misspelling of Crotale?

Yes

Was AMCA British or French?

French, cancelled 1958.

Edited correction it's ACAM
Link https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/acam-nord-aviation-5301-missile-1956.39312/

Ranges of the relevant Naval SAMs according to Gunston's Rockets and Missiles

​

12 km is about 7.5 miles which puts it between Tatar and Naval Crotale.

The French fitted the Mk 13 GMLS and 2 SPG-51 radars to 4 T47 destroyers 1962-65. As far as I know they fired Tatar initially and were later modified to fire Standard SM-1 MR missiles. Perhaps it could have been developed in time to be substituted for Tatar. However, I think stretching it to match Standard MR is too much to ask.

Also I think that if the money could have been made available to develop ACAM it would be better spent on "Masurca Junior" because there would be some standardisation with the standard Mascura missile which might reduce the R&D, production and operating costs of both.

 

[Archibald]

I've red the "missile debate" over the last pages and to me it seems that
- Crotale = Sea Cat, short range
- MASURCA = Sea Slug: long range big bulky inefficient early generation missile

BUT France Sea Dart "intermediate naval SAM " was Tartar on T-47s (and Cassards until today), so an American one. And since Uncle Sam won't budge over ARA Tartar frigates... I agree that some kind of "French Sea Dart" is indeed needed.

Hence you could either shrink MASURCA or stretch Crotale. Or try that intermediate thing.

Asking in passing: what's the difference between Sea Wolf and Sea Cat then ? Did one replaced the other ?

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

Time for another table. Most of this was from Jane's Fighting Ships 1982-83

​

• The Cassard (C70AA) in the table is not the same as the Cassard as built because a hangar for one Lynx helicopter replaced the aft 100mm gun.
• The Masurca armed ships had 48 missiles. The Tatar armed ships had 40 missiles. The Sea Dart armed ships had 22 missiles.
• All the guns in the second gun column are in twin mountings. E.g. Colbert's twelve 57mm were in 6 twin mountings.
• The Argentine A69s have a different armament. They have a twin 40mm instead of the AS mortar and 2 triple AS torpedo tube mountings instead of 4 fixed tubes.
• The Argentine destroyer Almirante Domecq Garcia had four 21" torpedo tubes in a quadruple mounting. I have put it in the SSM column in stead of adding a new column.

If there are any mistakes please contact me by PM so I can make the corrections.

 

[uk 75]

Seawolf was supposed to be able to replace Seacat using a similar launcher and director.
But the requirement to shoot down surface skimming missiles as well as aircraft seems to have led to a bigger launcher (6 instead of 4 ready to fire missiles). The guidance radars were also bigger.
Crotale with its 8 ready to fire missiles is closer to Seawolf in capability.
In passing it is worth noting that despite all its national missile systems the UK ended up using a French weapon for T45.
Tartar/Standard might have been a better buy for UK too. Though we did at one point have 3 Invincibles, 12 T42 and 1 Bristol armed with Seadart. And it was a UK T42 thst famously shot down a Silkworm heading for a US battlewagon.

 

[starviking]

Veinticinco de Mayo had a crew of 1,500 while Centaur and Hermes (as a strike carrier) had crews of 1,400 and 2,200 respectively. Except that I think the crew for Centaur is too small considering that they were half-sisters. Hermes had more advanced electronics and a larger air group, but I think that's not enough to account for the difference of 800 men. I think the 1960s editions of Jane's that the figures came from are quoting Centaur's crew when it completed in 1953 and that in Argentine service both would have crews of 2,200. That's a total of 4,400 which is an increase of over 3,000 and doesn't allow for the extra men that would be needed ashore to provide backing.

Hobbs’ British Aircraft Carriers has 1390 for Centaur (with steam cats) and Hermes at 2100, but as you write, there’s something off. Perhaps Centaur is without air group?

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.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

I've red the "missile debate" over the last pages and to me it seems that
- Crotale = Sea Cat, short range
- MASURCA = Sea Slug: long range big bulky inefficient early generation missile

BUT France Sea Dart "intermediate naval SAM " was Tartar on T-47s (and Cassards until today), so an American one. And since Uncle Sam won't budge over ARA Tartar frigates... I agree that some kind of "French Sea Dart" is indeed needed.

Hence you could either shrink MASURCA or stretch Crotale. Or try that intermediate thing.

Asking in passing: what's the difference between Sea Wolf and Sea Cat then ? Did one replaced the other ?

For what it's worth.

Crotale = Sea Sparrow, the Italian Aspide and Seaflash, which was a proposed naval version of Skyflash​

​

MASURCA = Standard SM-1/ER​

Also Crotale was developed about 10 years after Sea Cat.

Mascura and Standard ER look so much alike that I think the best way to tell the difference between the missiles is their launchers. Also Masurca (unlike Seaslug) was upgraded in the 1970s and 1980s.

 

[Archibald]

Standard was "improved son" of Tartar no ? so MASURCA was closer from Tartar than, say, Terrier or Talos ?

 

[zen]

Also I think that if the money could have been made available to develop ACAM it would be better spent on "Masurca Junior" because there would be some standardisation with the standard Mascura missile which might reduce the R&D, production and operating costs of both.

Not in this case.
To develop ACAM as an ACLOS system gives it the desired NMBR.11 capability for the early 60’s and later on the tripartite discussions on local area defence SAMs in the late 60's to early 70's.
If anything lighter and more compact than Tartar overall.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

Standard was "improved son" of Tartar no ? so MASURCA was closer from Tartar than, say, Terrier or Talos ?

I'm not an expert on that. However, if one compares pictures of Standard and Tatar missiles to pictures of Masurca missiles they look exceedingly similar.

Which is not surprising if this website's claim that Masurca was developed from Tatar is correct.

US Navy Surface-To-Air Missiles

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

The thread's opening post .

France had a colony in the Falklands in 1764, and referred the islands as Iles Malouines, from which the Spanish name Malvinas later derived from.
Eventually France left the islands due to pressure from Spain.

So in this scenario lets assume the following:
1. The islands remained French this whole time rather than British. This alternate colony is roughly the same size as what the British had there in reality at that time
2. Aside from that, the rest of history remained the same. Argentina split from Spain. WW1 and 2 happened
3. Rather than acquiring French aircraft such as Mirages and Super Entendards.. the Argentines bought British instead (also works with their carrier!). However the war still happens in 1982. Like how the French worked with the British, the British work with the French in this scenario.

so some questions are
1. What would the French response be? what would they send to reclaim the Falklands?
2. What kind of equipment would Argentina buy from the UK prior to the war before the UK stops in respect to France? Buccaneers instead of Super Entendards? Harriers? Lightning?
3. Would the outcome be different?

I'm doing some research on the number of Sea Dart and Sea Wolf armed ships that served in the Falklands so that the numbers can be compared and contrasted with the number of Crotale, Masurca and Standard MR available to the French.

I came across this paragraph from Page 100 of Modern Combat Ships 1 'Leander' class by Cdr C.J. Meyer OBE, RN, which I thought was worth posting in full.

On 2 April 1982 Argentine forces invaded the Falklands Islands and the next day, South Georgia. Two days later, 5 April, Hermes and Invincible left the UK to catch up with units already on their way, but having the dubious advantage of starting a little closer to their destination by being deployed straight from Gibraltar just before coming home from a routine deployment. Eventually over 110 ships were deployed ― 44 warships, 22 from RFA and 45 merchant ships. The object of their attention lay 8,000 miles from the UK and over 3,500 miles from the nearest possible forward operating base (Ascension Island) yet only 400 miles from Argentina. This was a task force of a size and composition not envisaged even when the "Leanders" first went to sea nearly 20 years earlier. They now became part of a force which within seven weeks assembled 28,000 men, sailed to the other end of the world, effectively neutralised the Argentine navy, fought off air attacks and finally put ashore 10,000 men, who marched across some of the most unpleasant ground in the world to seal the success of the operation.

I've underlined the sentence about the ships that were deployed.

44 RN Warships + 22 Royal Fleet Auxiliaries + 45 Merchant Ships = 111 Ships
​

 

[Deltafan]

Well I've red this very recently on this forum by one member who had read a recent book about the Mirage IVA. But for crap sake I can't find the post any more. We have to call the french musketeers to the rescue.
@Deltafan
@alanqua
@MIRAGE 4000
From the top of my head, it is one among those three gentleman...

Sorry for the late answer. But it's not me, alas.

 

[EwenS]

The thread's opening post .

France had a colony in the Falklands in 1764, and referred the islands as Iles Malouines, from which the Spanish name Malvinas later derived from.
Eventually France left the islands due to pressure from Spain.

So in this scenario lets assume the following:
1. The islands remained French this whole time rather than British. This alternate colony is roughly the same size as what the British had there in reality at that time
2. Aside from that, the rest of history remained the same. Argentina split from Spain. WW1 and 2 happened
3. Rather than acquiring French aircraft such as Mirages and Super Entendards.. the Argentines bought British instead (also works with their carrier!). However the war still happens in 1982. Like how the French worked with the British, the British work with the French in this scenario.

so some questions are
1. What would the French response be? what would they send to reclaim the Falklands?
2. What kind of equipment would Argentina buy from the UK prior to the war before the UK stops in respect to France? Buccaneers instead of Super Entendards? Harriers? Lightning?
3. Would the outcome be different?

I'm doing some research on the number of Sea Dart and Sea Wolf armed ships that served in the Falklands so that the numbers can be compared and contrasted with the number of Crotale, Masurca and Standard MR available to the French.

I came across this paragraph from Page 100 of Modern Combat Ships 1 'Leander' class by Cdr C.J. Meyer OBE, RN, which I thought was worth posting in full.

On 2 April 1982 Argentine forces invaded the Falklands Islands and the next day, South Georgia. Two days later, 5 April, Hermes and Invincible left the UK to catch up with units already on their way, but having the dubious advantage of starting a little closer to their destination by being deployed straight from Gibraltar just before coming home from a routine deployment. Eventually over 110 ships were deployed ― 44 warships, 22 from RFA and 45 merchant ships. The object of their attention lay 8,000 miles from the UK and over 3,500 miles from the nearest possible forward operating base (Ascension Island) yet only 400 miles from Argentina. This was a task force of a size and composition not envisaged even when the "Leanders" first went to sea nearly 20 years earlier. They now became part of a force which within seven weeks assembled 28,000 men, sailed to the other end of the world, effectively neutralised the Argentine navy, fought off air attacks and finally put ashore 10,000 men, who marched across some of the most unpleasant ground in the world to seal the success of the operation.

I've underlined the sentence about the ships that were deployed.

44 RN Warships + 22 Royal Fleet Auxiliaries + 45 Merchant Ships = 111 Ships
​

All part of the initial deployment unless otherwise noted.

Sea Wolf equipped
Brilliant
Broadsword
Andromeda (left Devonport 10/5/82 arrived off Falklands 25/5/82)

Sea Dart
Invincible
Bristol (Left Portsmouth 10/5/82 arrived off Falklands 25/5/82)
Cardiff (left Gibraltar 12/5/82 arrived off Falklands 26/5/82)
Coventry
Glasgow
Sheffield
Exeter (left Antigua 7/5/82 arrived off Falklands 21/5/82)

From Falklands Air War. It lists 41 surface warships and subs plus 5 STUFT commissioned as RN ships (trawlers as minesweepers), 22 RFA, 1 RMAS and 43 STUFT

Birmingham sailed from U.K. for the Falklands on 17th June 1982, after the surrender, having been in refit.
Newcastle was also in refit. This was hurriedly completed by Aug 1982 and she went south in the autumn.
Southampton, which had completed in Oct 1981, had an accident while working up to deploy south and had to be docked for repairs.
Liverpool didn’t complete until July 1982.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

An Analysis of the British and French Warships Armed with Surface-to-Air Missiles in April 1982​

French Warships Armed with Surface-to-Air Missiles in 1982

The French had 6 ships armed with area defence SAMs.

• Colbert, Duquesne and Suffren were armed with MASURCA.
• Du Chayla, Dupetit Thomas and Kersaint were armed with Standard SM-1/MR.

There were also 6 ships armed with the Crotale point defence SAM.

• The C67 destroyers De Grasse, Duguay-Trouin and Tourville
• The C70AS destroyers Dupleix, Georges Leygues and Montcalm.

Contemporary editions of Jane's Fighting Ships called the C67 and C70 classes destroyers, which is why I'm calling them destroyers.

British Warships Armed with Area Defence SAMs.

The British had 13 ships armed with area defence SAMs on 2nd April 1982.

• 10 ships armed with Sea Dart.
  • The aircraft carrier Invincible. (Type 1022 radar)
  • The Type 82 destroyer Bristol. (Type 965 AKE-2 radar)
  • 6 Type 42 Batch destroyers. (Type 965 AKE-2 radar)
  • 2 Type 42 Batch 2 destroyers. (Type 1022 radar)
• 3 County class Batch 2 destroyers armed with Seaslug Mk 2. (Type 965 AKE-2 radar)

However, only 9 out of 13 ships took part in the war.

• Southampton (Type 42 Batch 2) was working up and wasn't ready to sail until 18.06.82.
• Birmingham (Type 42 Batch 1) was refitting and wasn't ready to sail until 18.06.82.
• Newcastle (Type 42 Batch 1) was refitting and wasn't able to sail until 09.07.82.
• Fife (County class) was refitting until March 1983.

Two more Sea Dart armed ships (which also had Type 1022 radars) became available in 1982.

• Illustrious which sailed for the Falklands on 02.08.82.
• Liverpool (Type 42 Batch 3) which commissioned on 09.07.82 and she sailed for the Falklands on 08.11.82 with Antrim and two frigates.

Only 2 of the 9 area defence SAM armed ships that took part in the war had the Type 1022 radar. The other 7 had to make do with the less capable Type 965 AKE-2. Hermes and 4 Leander class frigates that took part in the war were fitted with the Type 965 AKE-1 radar.

British Warships Armed with the Sea Wolf Point Defence SAM

3 Type 22 Batch 1 ships (Broadsword, Battleaxe and Brilliant) and a Leander (Andromeda) were armed with this missile on 2nd April 1982.

However, only 3 out of 4 ships served in the war because Battleaxe...

"…was not one of the ships dispatched to the South Atlantic, but instead remained as part of the naval forces still required to fulfil the Navy's commitment to NATO. She was later earmarked as a close escort of the carrier Illustrious which was being rushed into service as a result of the Falklands War. In the event, the carrier was not ready until the fighting was finished and it was not until 2 August that she set sail for the Falklands with Battleaxe in company.

The quote is from Page 105 of Modern Combat Ships 4 Type 22 by Leo Marriott.

Marriott also wrote that Brazen (the fourth Type 22 Batch 1) was completed (3 months ahead of schedule) in June 1982 and early in October sailed from Devonport for the Falklands with Phoebe and Sirius, which were both Exocet Leanders.

Charybdis the second Sea Wolf Leander recommissioned on 16.07.82. She was one of the 2 frigates that sailed for the Falklands on 08.11.82 with Antrim and Liverpool. The other frigate was Ariadne an unconverted Leander Batch 3.

British Warships Armed with the Sea Cat Point Defence SAM

23 destroyers and frigates served in the Falklands. The 8 destroyers were 2 County class, one Type 82, 4 Type 42 Batch 1 and one Type 42 Batch 2. The 15 frigates were 6 Type 21, 2 Type 22 Batch 1, one Sea Wolf Leander, 3 Exocet Leanders, one unconverted Leander Batch 3 and 2 Rothesay class.

14 of these ships were armed with Sea Cat as follows:

• 3 Sea Cat - Exocet Leander (3 ships)
• 2 Sea Cat - County class (2 ships)
• 1 Sea Cat - Type 21 (6 ships)
• 1 Sea Cat - Unconverted Leander Batch 3 (one ship)
• 1 Sea Cat - Rothesay class (2 ships)

Hermes was fitted with 2 Sea Cats and the amphibious assault ships Fearless and Intrepid had 4 Sea Cats.

Summary

The British had 14 ships fitted with effective SAMs in April 1982 and 10 of them served in the Falklands War.

• 7 out of 10 ships armed with Sea Dart served in the Falklands War.
• 3 out of 4 ships armed with Sea Wolf served in the Falklands War.

At the same time the French had 12 ships armed with effective SAMs.

• 3 ships armed with MASCURA.
• 3 ships armed with Standard MR.
• 6 ships armed with the Crotale.

That doesn't look so bad.

Except that Montcalm (the third C70AS) didn't commission until 28th May 1982 and I don't know how many of the other ships were refitting.

 

[Stovepipe]

Think of the mental aspect of this war, if it was the French. They wouldnt hesitate to open fire; it never has in Africa and the fighting arena being South America wouldn't make a bit of difference. If it is in the interests of La Belle France, they'd blockade Buenos Aires with SSNs, sink anything heading for the islands, be it Naval or Argentinian STUFT, with or without American approval (which is what it boils down to in the end) and give the enemy garrison on the islands an ultimatum; surrender or die in your trenches. If the Argentinian local commander realises that he is cut off from sea or land resupply and that the FFL are massing outside his office.....

 

[Archibald]

​

Summary

The British had 14 ships fitted with effective SAMs in April 1982 and 10 of them served in the Falklands War.

• 7 out of 10 ships armed with Sea Dart served in the Falklands War.
• 3 out of 4 ships armed with Sea Wolf served in the Falklands War.

At the same time the French had 12 ships armed with effective SAMs.

• 3 ships armed with MASCURA.
• 3 ships armed with Standard MR.
• 6 ships armed with the Crotale.

That doesn't look so bad.

Except that Montcalm (the third C70AS) didn't commission until 28th May 1982 and I don't know how many of the other ships were refitting.

You are a bit unfair with the British. As far as raw (in)efficiency goes, MASURCA was as old, cumbersome, and inefficient as Sea Slug. It took a helluva amount of time to fire too few missiles, reload, and relaunch. Even the mod 2.

County-class destroyer - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Glamorgan and Antrim with their Sea Slugs are no better or worse than Suffren and Duquesne with MASURCA.

What I mean is, if you count Suffren, Duquesne and their MASURCA as "effective" then you have to count the two County & Sea Slug the british had (and paid a heavy toll: Glamorgan rear end was wrecked by an Exocet while Antrim, after her heroic actions at South Georgia, barely escaped a rain of bombs later, one of which penetrated but did not exploded).

By the way, the T-47s did not had Standar but Tartar - the upgrade was done when two out of four systems were lifted from the T-47s and integrated into the Cassards later in the 1980's.

So I would say instead...

The British had 14 ships fitted with effective SAMs in April 1982 and 10 of them served in the Falklands War.

• 2 out of 4 ships armed with Sea Slug served in the Falklands War.
• 3 out of 4 ships armed with Sea Wolf served in the Falklands War.
• 7 out of 10 ships armed with Sea Dart served in the Falklands War.

At the same time the French had 12 ships armed with effective SAMs.

• 3 ships armed with MASCURA.
• 3 ships armed with Tartar.
• 6 ships armed with the Crotale.

Doesn't change that much the numbers, incidentally; 3 &7 "efficient" for the british, 3 &6 for the french.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seaslug_(missile)#Mark_2_(GWS.2)

Masurca - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The two were broadly similar. The 500 - 1000 tons bulky missile system needed a 7000 tons ship essentially build around it. And that was pretty damn expensive. The French wanted six, cut that to three, then screwed one more to pay for 42 Crusaders instead; as I already said upthread, the third Masurca after losing the Suffren / Duquesne "around" it, was lucky enough to bounce twice, first off Jeanne d'Arc and then landing on the 12000 tons Colbert cruiser.

Note that De Grasse, Colbert and Jeanne d'Arc hulls were somewhat similar: they were the last three French cruisers ever. But unlike the Italians, France felt De Grasse pre-WWII hull was too old and cramped to ever get a MASURCA. De Grasse last decade before she joined Arromanches at the breaker same year( 1974) was singular. Most armement as removed and the ship was used as a floating command post at Moruroa, french Polynesia, for nuclear testing. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_cruiser_De_Grasse
At some point they wanted to ass that role to one of the Richelieu / Jean Bart twins, but of course they were way too big and expensive.

But imagine if they had sold De Grasse to the Argies and kept one of the battleships for nuclear testing as a command post. Or outfitted the twins with MASURCA.

Unlike the British the French had no more WWII cruisers, light or heavy, to modernize: the 1942 Toulon scuttling had screwed most of them, including the terrific Algerie. This spared the french navy any Tiger monstrosity at least.

 

[Hood]

they'd blockade Buenos Aires with SSNs,

They'd have a job doing that considering Rubis didn't commission until Feb 1983.
Given even the Agosta's only have a range of 8,500nm, just getting to the Falklands requires refuelling en-route. Even if they refuelling in French Guiana, that's 5,000nm worth of fuel burned up just getting there, that's over half the fuel capacity used.

But yes I agree that Paris would be less restricted by Washington's communiques, though in return they would lose the intel and technical support advantages that Britain had so its swings and roundabouts.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

You are a bit unfair with the British. As far as raw (in)efficiency goes, MASURCA was as old, cumbersome, and inefficient as Sea Slug. It took a helluva amount of time to fire too few missiles, reload, and relaunch. Even the mod 2.

What about Mod 3? That was the version in service in 1982.

A County class Batch 2.

• A twin launcher and 36 Seaslug Mk 2 missiles according to Jane's 1982-83 although I thought it was 30 missiles.
• One Type 901 guidance radar.
• One Type 965 AKE-2 air surveillance radar.
• ADAWS Mk 1.

Colbert, Duquesne and Suffren.

• A twin launcher and 48 MASCURA Mk 2 Mod 3 missiles.
• Two DRBR-51 guidance radars.
• One DRBI-23 air surveillance and target designation radar in Duquesne and Suffren.
• One DRBV-23C air surveillance radar in Colbert.
• SENIT-1.

At least the MASCURA armed ships could engage two targets at a time and I suspect that the DBRI-23 radars on Duquesne and Suffren were far superior to Type 965.

 

[Archibald]

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.

 

[Archibald]

they'd blockade Buenos Aires with SSNs,

They'd have a job doing that considering Rubis didn't commission until Feb 1983.
Given even the Agosta's only have a range of 8,500nm, just getting to the Falklands requires refuelling en-route. Even if they refuelling in French Guiana, that's 5,000nm worth of fuel burned up just getting there, that's over half the fuel capacity used.

But yes I agree that Paris would be less restricted by Washington's communiques, though in return they would lose the intel and technical support advantages that Britain had so its swings and roundabouts.

You british, courtesy of Five Eyes, got KH-11 and KH-9 and KH-8 spysats intelligence, and also ELINT / SIGINT from US satellites. "The space review" recently had a series of writtings on the matter.

https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-d&q=%22falklands%22+site%3A+https%3A%2F%2Fwww.thespacereview.com%2F

I don't think France would be so lucky, and SPOT-1 was still 4 years in the future.

History of the French reconnaissance system

France currently has a vigorous earth observation industry, which captures a large part of the export market for reconnaissance satellites. It has not always been this way: contrary to the USA or t…

satelliteobservation.net

Maybe the military SPOT, called SAMRO, would not get canned ? But reconnaissance over Port Stanely airstrip would have to be done by Etendard IVM and that would be quite risky.

 

[H_K]

Except that Montcalm (the third C70AS) didn't commission until 28th May 1982 and I don't know how many of the other ships were refitting

Montcalm was likely available early 1982.

Keep in mind that in France the « commissioning date » occurs around 1 year after first sea trials… and sometimes longer. This gives enough time for builders and acceptance trials, which marks the official delivery milestone (« livraison »), then operational work ups, and most importantly the « TLD » ie. long term deployment, which is a ~3 month deployment prior to being declared operational. Only after all this does commissioning occur… basically it means initial operational availability (IOC).

In this case, Montcalm’s TLD in early 1982 took her to the Caribbean and US coast with stops in Senegal outbound and Iceland return. She then deployed to Lebanon in June 82. So she would have been available in April/May despite being in pre-commissioning status.

A good rule of thumb is 2/3rds surge availability for operational tasking so that means 4 (of 6) Masurca/Tartar destroyers and 4 (of 6) Crotale destroyers could be sent to the Falklands, so a total of 8 ships with modern AAW defenses.

 

[Archibald]

Except that Montcalm (the third C70AS) didn't commission until 28th May 1982 and I don't know how many of the other ships were refitting

Montcalm was likely available early 1982.

Keep in mind that in France the « commissioning date » occurs around 1 year after first sea trials… and sometimes longer. This gives enough time for builders and acceptance trials, which marks the official « delivery milestone », then operational work ups, and most importantly the « TLD » ie. long term deployment, which is a ~3 month deployment prior to being declared operational. Only after all this does commissioning occur… basically it means initial operational availability (IOC).

In this case, Montcalm’s TLD in early 1982 took her to the Caribbean and US coast with stops in Senegal outbound and Iceland return. She then deployed to Lebanon in June 82. So she would have been available in April/May despite being in pre-commissioning status.

A good rule of thumb is 2/3rds surge availability for operational tasking so that means 4 (of 6) Masurca/Tartar destroyers and 4 (of 6) Crotale destroyers could be sent to the Falklands, so a total of 8 ships with modern AAW defenses.

Do you think this "rule" could be applied to the Rubis SSN ?

Rubis-class submarine - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Pennant no.	Name	Laid down	Launched	Commissioned	Decommissioned	Homeport
S601	Rubis	11 December 1976	7 July 1979	23 February 1983		Toulon

Drats, didn't realized it had been launched as early as JULY 1979 !

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

Except that Montcalm (the third C70AS) didn't commission until 28th May 1982 and I don't know how many of the other ships were refitting

Montcalm was likely available early 1982.

Keep in mind that in France the « commissioning date » occurs around 1 year after first sea trials… and sometimes longer. This gives enough time for builders and acceptance trials, which marks the official « delivery milestone », then operational work ups, and most importantly the « TLD » ie. long term deployment, which is a ~3 month deployment prior to being declared operational. Only after all this does commissioning occur… basically it means initial operational availability (IOC).

In this case, Montcalm’s TLD in early 1982 took her to the Caribbean and US coast with stops in Senegal outbound and Iceland return. She then deployed to Lebanon in June 82. So she would have been available in April/May despite being in pre-commissioning status.

A good rule of thumb is 2/3rds surge availability for operational tasking so that means 4 (of 6) Masurca/Tartar destroyers and 4 (of 6) Crotale destroyers could be sent to the Falklands, so a total of 8 ships with modern AAW defenses.

The only concrete information on refits that Jane's had was:

• Clememceau's last big refit was in 1978
• Foch began its version of her sister's big refit in July 1980 and she returned to service at the end of November 1981.
• Jeanne d'Arc was in refit from April 1982 but that would be cancelled/abandoned in this timeline.
• Colbert was in refit from mid-1981 to mid-1982. Do you have more detailed information on her movements in 1982?

For what it's worth I use the two thirds rule too. On that basis they'd be able to send about 13 out of 20 cruisers, destroyers and large frigates.

The RN had to hold some of its frigates back to meet it's NATO commitments. Were there any similar constraints on the MN?

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

Except that Montcalm (the third C70AS) didn't commission until 28th May 1982 and I don't know how many of the other ships were refitting

Montcalm was likely available early 1982.

Keep in mind that in France the « commissioning date » occurs around 1 year after first sea trials… and sometimes longer. This gives enough time for builders and acceptance trials, which marks the official « delivery milestone », then operational work ups, and most importantly the « TLD » ie. long term deployment, which is a ~3 month deployment prior to being declared operational. Only after all this does commissioning occur… basically it means initial operational availability (IOC).

In this case, Montcalm’s TLD in early 1982 took her to the Caribbean and US coast with stops in Senegal outbound and Iceland return. She then deployed to Lebanon in June 82. So she would have been available in April/May despite being in pre-commissioning status.

A good rule of thumb is 2/3rds surge availability for operational tasking so that means 4 (of 6) Masurca/Tartar destroyers and 4 (of 6) Crotale destroyers could be sent to the Falklands, so a total of 8 ships with modern AAW defenses.

Do you think this "rule" could be applied to the Rubis SSN ?

Rubis-class submarine - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Pennant no.	Name	Laid down	Launched	Commissioned	Decommissioned	Homeport
S601	Rubis	11 December 1976	7 July 1979	23 February 1983		Toulon

Drats, didn't realized it had been launched as early as JULY 1979 !

According to Jane's 1982-83 Rubis began sea trials on 28th July 1981.

 

[H_K]

According to Jane's 1982-83 Rubis began sea trials on 28th July 1981.

Yes. Builders trials started 23 July 1981, followed by operational and weapons trials in Sept-Oct 1981. From Nov. 81-Mar 82 Rubis was in dock for post-trials work. Final acceptance trials in April-May 82, following which Rubis was officially delivered and finally cleared to leave Cherbourg for Toulon around June-July 82. Which is when her operational work ups really started prior to her shakedown cruise.

Hard to know if she could have been deployed in April/May 1982… not impossible, but that would have required cutting a lot of corners with a very fresh crew and completing some trials en route.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

By the way, the T-47s did not had Standar but Tartar - the upgrade was done when two out of four systems were lifted from the T-47s and integrated into the Cassards later in the 1980's.

Standard MR is often confused with Tartar in the same way that Standard ER is confused with Terrier.

For example Jane's 1982-83 says that the 3 surviving T47AA had.

• One Mk 13 single launcher and 40 Tartar SM-1 or SM-1A missiles.
• Two SPG-51B guidance radars.
• One SPS-39 A or B three-dimensional radar or Tartar search.
• One DRBV-22 air search radar, except for Kersaint that had DBRV-20A.
• SENIT-2.

The entry on C70AA says.

• One Mk 13 single launcher and 40 Standard SM-1 MR missiles.
• Two SPG-51C guidance radars.
• One DRBJ-11 three-dimensional radar.
• One DRBV-26 air surveillance radar. This is also the radar that C67 and C70AS had.
• SENIT-6

I admit that it does say Tartar for the T47AA, but I think Tartar is a typo for Standard because it also says SM-1.

 

[H_K]

• Jeanne d'Arc was in refit from April 1982 but that would be cancelled/abandoned in this timeline.
• Colbert was in refit from mid-1981 to mid-1982. Do you have more detailed information on her movements in 1982?

Jeanne d’Arc returned from her training cruise 31 March 1982 so her refit wouldn’t have started in earnest and she would have been available.

Colbert was in dock from Sep 1981 to Nov 1982, followed by work ups in early 1983. Very unlikely that she could have been made available right in the middle of her big 14 month refit.

 

[Archibald]

You are not the only one confused about the Tartar / Standard varied upgrades.

Caractéristiques

T47 Tartar

Chers amis, je travaille à un scénario Harpoon dans le Golfe Persique en 1988, et une question me tarabuste : quel modèle exacte de missile utilisait le lanceur

forummarine-forumactif-com.translate.goog

From memory, it is the RIM-66B SM1MR

the RIM-66E arriving later on the Cassard and Jean Bart

The Tartar system that I practiced on 2 BLM T47 consisted (roughly)
- of a single ramp placed above a 40-cell cylinder (GLMS Mk13 Mod0)
- of two AN/SPG-51C firing lines with each on the same dish a tracking radar and an illuminator, wide and narrow beam radar transmitter

I actually practiced three missiles
- the RIM-24C, aka Improved Tartar Retrofit (ITR)
http://www.designation-systems .net/dusrm/m-24.html
- the RIM-66A with bar load
- the RIM-66B with directional load
http://www.designation-systems.net/dusrm/m-66.html
these last two known under the name of SM-1.
The first was used only for practice shooting. I only fired a RIM-66A in exercise.

 

[Archibald]

• Jeanne d'Arc was in refit from April 1982 but that would be cancelled/abandoned in this timeline.
• Colbert was in refit from mid-1981 to mid-1982. Do you have more detailed information on her movements in 1982?

Jeanne d’Arc returned from her training cruise 31 March 1982 so her refit wouldn’t have started in earnest and she would have been available.

Colbert was in dock from Sep 1981 to Nov 1982, followed by work ups in early 1983. Very unlikely that she could have been made available right in the middle of her big 14 month refit.

So that's one MASURCA ship gone. As if one T47 lost wasn't enough. Luckily, there are the Crotale ships...

TBH, Colbert wasn't that useful. There are two other ships with MASURCA, smaller and much less fuel hogs. And the Jeanne d'Arc is a far more useful cruiser, with all the helicopters on her deck.

I can see Jeanne d'Arc, perhaps escorted by one MASURCA frigate, taking Antrim role in the reconquest of South Georgia (if South Georgia fate follows that of the Falklands ITTL of course).

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

According to Jane's 1982-83 Rubis began sea trials on 28th July 1981.

Yes. Builders trials started 23 July 1981, followed by operational and weapons trials in Sept-Oct 1981. From Nov. 81-Mar 82 Rubis was in dock for post-trials work. Final acceptance trials in April-May 82, following which Rubis was officially delivered and finally cleared to leave Cherbourg for Toulon around June-July 82. Which is when her operational work ups really started prior to her shakedown cruise.

Hard to know if she could have been deployed in April/May 1982… not impossible, but that would have required cutting a lot of corners with a very fresh crew and completing some trials en route.

Jane's also says that her launch was delayed by a strike until 7th July 1979 when her hull was launched without a bow section, but it doesn't say for how long. Do you have any more information?

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

Link to Post 180.

Link to Post 184.

The above were the French Fleet Dispositions (not including refits) according to Jane's Fighting Ships 1982-83.

This is them consolidated into one list.

Mediterranean Fleet: Colbert (Flag) 2 aircraft carriers, 12 submarines, 6 destroyers, 7 frigates, 4 large patrol craft, 6 MCMV, 3 survey ships and 4 support ships.

Atlantic Fleet: 12 destroyers, 4 frigates, 4 SSBN, one SSN, 6 submarines and one tanker.

Training Squadron: Doudart de Lagrée [E59 frigate]

West Indies: 2 ships [it didn't say what they were].

Indian Ocean: La Charente (Flag) 2 destroyers, 2 frigates, 5 patrol craft and one tanker

Pacific: 3 frigates, 1 LSD, 4 LST, 1 Fast Attack Craft (Missile) and one tug.

And I've put the information into this chart.

​

 

[H_K]

The above were the French Fleet Dispositions (not including refits) according to Jane's Fighting Ships 1982-83.

Good info. I also found the ship locations in the French Navy magazine Cols Bleus, as of early April 82, mid April, early May and mid-May (always on page 17).

That should give a pretty good idea of which ships were at sea and operational… see pics attached.

Cols bleus : hebdomadaire de la Marine française | 1982-05-01 | Gallica

Based on that, I would assume the following dispositions for a Falklands scenario:

CARRIERS
1 of 2 aircraft carriers (Foch, as Clemenceau is in refit)
26 fighters (Crusader + Super Etendard mix) + 4 tanker/recon (Etendard IVP) + 6 ASW/AEW patrol (Alizé)

ESCORTS
4 of 6 AAW escorts (2 Masurca + 2 Tartar… we know Colbert is in refit) (66%)
4 of 6 ASW destroyers (2 Lynx + Crotale each) (66%)
4 of 8 older ASW destroyers (Malafon + 2x 100mm each) (50%)
4 of 9 GP frigates (avisos escorteurs w/ 2x 100mm) (45%)

This allows for 16 escorts to cover the 2 main task forces (vs. 23 RN escorts historically).

SUBMARINES
5 of 10 oceanic SSKs (Narval + Agosta classes) (50%)
0 of 10 coastal SSKs (Daphne class + Argonaute)
! Wildcard: Rubis SSN deploys and completes her acceptance trials en route

AMPHIBS
1 commando carrier (Jeanne d’Arc - not mentioned in your list)
2 of 2 LSDs (Orage class - both missing from your list)
3 of 5 LSTs

OTHERS
3 of 13 ASW corvettes (A69 class) to cover the supply routes off West Africa (25%)


The remaining Malafon destroyers and A69 corvettes (~10 ships) will have to cover the French approaches while the main fleet is deployed. There should also be 3 avisos escorteurs left to cover the Indian Ocean and Pacific.

 

[Archibald]

Historique

Clemenceau 1982 year in short

1982
January 10 to 18 : Helicopter exercise Agriates in Corsica, with twenty-five Puma helicopters from ALAT and Super Frelon.
February 1 : Entry into IPER.
June 28 to July 13 : Sea trials after IPER.July 14 : Participation in a naval review in Toulon in the presence of Mr François Mitterrand, President of the Republic. Aircraft carrier maintained at PA2 strength (helicopter carrier).
15 to 19 November : Continuation of the IPER, then sea trials from 25 October. Moved to PA1 strength on November 19 .
November 21 to December 6: Release of the aircraft carrier group in the Atlantic with the Foch (Operation Thiof). Air group of thirty five aircraft. Stopover in Casablanca from November 27 to December 2 .

Which mean: it was in a small to medium IPER and could be put back in service quickly, except as a PA2 that is with a mostly helicopter air group.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

Part of Post 315

The above were the French Fleet Dispositions (not including refits) according to Jane's Fighting Ships 1982-83.

Good info. I also found the ship locations in the French Navy magazine Cols Bleus, as of early April 82, mid April, early May and mid-May (always on page 17).

My table should only be used as a rough guide.

That's because Jane's 1982-83 was published in the second half of 1982 and contains some information that was wrong. E.g.

• Rubis is in the list because according to Jane's she commissioned in July 1982 but she actually commissioned on 23rd February 1983.
• Jeanne d' Arc isn't in the list because according to Jane's she was in refit from April 1982.
• Colbert is in the list because it said she completed her refit in mid-1982. In Post 314 you said she was in dock from September 1981 to November 1982, which I have no reason to doubt.
• The Fleet Disposition List has a total of 20 destroyers, but I counted 19 comprising 3 C70AS, 2 FLE60, 3 F67, one T56, one T53, 3 T47AA, 5 T47AS and one C65.
• And if the number of destroyers in the table is too high, the number of frigates in the table is too low.
  • It's 17 if the 2 ships in the West Indies aren't counted as frigates and 19 if they are.
  • Except that Jane's said that there'd be 9 E59 and 15 A69 at the end of 1982 (compared to 9 E59 and 12 A69 at the end of 1981).
  • Jane's figures are reasonably close to Wikipedia which says 12 A69 at the end of 1981, 14 at the end of 1982 and the fifteenth commissioning in March 1983.
  • Some of the discrepancy could be because the Fleet Dispositions table doesn't include ships in the English Channel. E.g. the section on the A69s say their deployment was Mediterranean 3, Atlantic 3, Cherbourg 3 and "detachments" to the Indian Ocean.

AMPHIBS

1 commando carrier (Jeanne d’Arc - not mentioned in your list)
2 of 2 LSDs (Orage class - both missing from your list)
3 of 5 LSTs

I've already explained why Jeanne d'Arc is missing from the list. However, I do agree that she would have been available in the first half of 1982.

However, one of the LSDs isn't missing from the list. It's on the list in the Pacific with 4 LSTs. The main entry on the Ouragan class says that Orage was allocated to the Pacific Nuclear Experimental Centre. It doesn't say where Ouragan was.

The main entries on the LSTs and the BATRAL type LSMs/large LCT's don't say where they were, but by skimming through the netmarine.net (many thanks to @Archibald for providing this source) it was something like.

• LST Argens - Mediterranean
• LST Bidassoa - Mediterranean
• LST Blavet - Pacific
• LST Dives - Pacific
• LST Trieux - Pacific Nuclear Test Centre - she was replaced by the BTS Bougainville
• LSM Champlain - don't know - but I suspect it was the Pacific as that would bring the total of LST/LSM type ships in the Pacific to 4 which matches the Fleet Dispositions List in Jane's 1982-83.
• LSM Francis Garnier - West Indies (Martinique) she may be one of the two ships I counted as a frigate in the table.
• LSM Dumont d'Urville - Jane's 1982-83 has this ship commissioning during 1982. However, netmarine.net says she commissioned on 05.02.83 and "Arriving in Tahiti on June 13, 1983 , the Dumont d'Urville has spent most of her career in French Polynesia."
• LSM Jacques Cartier - Jane's 1982-83 doesn't have a projected completion date for this ship, but netmarine.net says she commissioned on 28.09.83 and according to that source seems to have spent most of her career in the Pacific.

So one LSD, 3 LST and one LSM out of 2 LSD, 5 LST and 2 LSM available in the first half of 1982 were in the Pacific and the other LSM was in the West Indies.

Which brings me onto this.

If the Falkland Islands and its Dependencies had been French it's probable that the MN would have maintained a small force of warships in the South Atlantic which would occasionally be reinforced by ships in transit to and from the Indian Ocean and Pacific.

This force would probably consist of an equivalent to the British Endurance, one or two E59 avisos or A69 corvettes (both classed as frigates in the Fleet Dispositions table) and one or two landing vessels of the BATRAL or EDIC type. There might be a larger garrison than the 60-odd Royal Marines that were there in April 1982.

It's been suggested up thread that the French would react more aggressively to an invasion of the Islands than the British which suggests that they'd take more precautionary measures than the British during the Falklands Crisis that preceded the Falklands Conflict. Such measures could include concentrating the Indian Ocean squadron at Réunion or sending an carrier battle group on a good will trip to Dakar.

It's also been suggested that the French would have built an airport that aircraft flying from Dakar could have used. If that had been the case they'd probably have used it to fly in reinforcements in March 1982. As far as I know the British Government didn't build a better airport before the war because it didn't want to provoke the Argentine Government. Not wanting to provoke the Argentines was why it didn't develop the economy of the Falklands as much as possible before the war and I think that wouldn't be as much of a concern to the French Government. Therefore, the Iles Malouines of late March 1982 would have have been more developed economically and have had a much larger population than the Falklands.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

A question for @Archibald.

Would the Iles Malouines and its dependencies have been an overseas département or an overseas territory?

The overseas département with the smallest population in 1982 was Saint Pierre and Miquelon (1982 estimate 6,300).

From the same source (Encyclopaedia Britannica Book of the Year 1982) the Colony of the Falkland Islands and its Dependencies wasn't self-governing and had a about 30% of Saint Pierre and Miquelon's population (1980 estimate 1,800).

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

When I was looking through Jane's 1982-83 to find a publication date I found this in the Addenda section.

​

 

[Archibald]

Aconit was a standalone, failed ugly duck: C65 / F65 before the C/F67s and C/F70s. It never had any SAM nor helicopter.
Among french frigates it was our HMS Bristol standalone.