# Falklands War 40 years ago



## nuuumannn (Mar 31, 2022)

As above, on 2 April 1982, Argentine forces invaded the Falklands. General information here:









1982 invasion of the Falkland Islands - Wikipedia







en.wikipedia.org









Mirage

Looks like there is a series of events to mark the occasion.






About


Falklands War - 40th Anniversary




falklands.gov.fk













Memorial events to mark Falklands 40th anniversary take shape


Veterans of the Falklands campaign have until the end of April to register their interest in one of this year’s key 40th anniversary events.




www.royalnavy.mod.uk













Events planned to mark 40th anniversary of Falklands conflict


One ceremony in the UK will see veterans formally presented with the Freedom of the Falkland Islands by a link to the capital Stanley.




www.forces.net

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## wlewisiii (Mar 31, 2022)

In the end, really, the only ones who would prosper from this conflict would be the penguins.





The ones that nested in the Falklands were too light to detonate the mines and the old minefields that were too difficult to clear became de facto nature preserves. Go Go Penguin!

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Like Like:
2 | Agree Agree:
1 | Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 31, 2022)



Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Winner Winner:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## nuuumannn (Apr 1, 2022)

Another musical interlude. This is "Six months in a leaky boat" by New Zealand band Split Enz, which was released in May 1982 and became a hit in the UK. It didn't reach so high in the charts though, as it was interpreted by some (the gu'mmint) in the UK as being criticism of the Falklands War, but it was really about lead singer Tim Finn's struggles with depression. Nevertheless, I heard once apon a time that the song got extensive airplay among the British task force ships down in the South Atlantic...

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Winner Winner:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Gnomey (Apr 2, 2022)

Nice shots guys!


----------



## Admiral Beez (Apr 2, 2022)

nuuumannn said:


> As above, on 2 April 1982, Argentine forces invaded the Falklands. General information here:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


40 years ago today. Casualties aside, the RN and much of the British military should be grateful for Argentina justifying their expansion (edit, I should have written “their current capabilities”, rather than expansion, of which there’s been little). Would the RN have the Queen Elizabeth class carriers had the Falklands not occurred? iDK.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Useful Useful:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (Apr 2, 2022)

Admiral Beez said:


> 40 years ago today. Casualties aside, the RN and much of the British military should be grateful for Argentina justifying their expansion. Would the RN have the Queen Elizabeth class carriers had the Falklands not occurred? iDK.



Food for thought.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## cvairwerks (Apr 2, 2022)

Always get a cold feeling in the back when the Falklands comes up. Was working for ABC News at the time and was supposed to get embedded with the British Fleet. Due to various timing problems, ended up in London for the duration of the war. ....Our ride down south was supposed to be the HMS Sheffield....

Reactions: Like Like:
4 | Winner Winner:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## SaparotRob (Apr 2, 2022)

And I do mean “winner”.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## swampyankee (Apr 2, 2022)

nuuumannn said:


> As above, on 2 April 1982, Argentine forces invaded the Falklands. General information here:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


One wonders what would have had happened were Galtieri and his regime waited until Thatcher's (Nott's) taken effect.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Admiral Beez (Apr 3, 2022)

swampyankee said:


> One wonders what would have had happened were Galtieri and his regime waited until Thatcher's (Nott's) taken effect.


It is ironic that for her reputation as an iron lady Thatcher intended on ripping HM’s armed forces to shreds. And she still did, reducing frigates from 45 to 33 by the time she exited as PM in 1990, beginning an avalanche of naval cuts by her successors.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## EwenS (Apr 3, 2022)

Admiral Beez said:


> It is ironic that for her reputation as an iron lady Thatcher intended on ripping HM’s armed forces to shreds. And she still did, reducing frigates from 45 to 33 by the time she exited as PM in 1990, beginning an avalanche of naval cuts by her successors.
> 
> View attachment 663490


I'm really not convinced that your accusation that Thatcher "intended on ripping HM's armed forces to shreds" is accurate. The planned pain in the Nott 1981 Defence Review would have hit the RN hard but the rest of the services would have escaped lightly. Without trying to defend the 1981 Nott review it is worthwhile remembering the financial state of the UK in 1979 and then looking behind the ship numbers and looking at what ships were actually in the fleet in 1980.





1981 Defence White Paper - Wikipedia







en.wikipedia.org





For the RN the 1980s was a period of transition from old legacy warships of the 1950s and 1960s to more modern equipment. Ark Royal IV only went to the breakers yard in 1980 and Bulwark, Tiger & Blake were still languishing in reserve and were very briefly looked at when the Falklands War blew up. And also remember that virtually no navy, not even the USN, was replacing ships on a one for one basis because no one could afford it with technological inflation far outstripping even the high consumer inflation rates.

Submarines
60% of the sub fleet (16 boats) were diesel-electric Porpoise & Oberon classes completed between 1958 and 1967. There were plans for a new class of 12 diesel electric subs of the unsuccessful Upholder class, the design of which began after the 1979 General Election and began building from 1983. Ultimately the class was capped at 4 when a Peace Dividend Defence Review in 1992 decided to concentrate on nuclear boats resulting in their sale to Canada. Given the problems with those subs we were well shot of them.

There were only 10 nuclear boats in the fleet. 1980 saw the retirement of Britains first nuclear sub, Dreadnought. The last of the Swiftsure and first of the Trafalgar class were building, with more following as the 1980s went on.

Frigates
I'm not clear about exactly how that figure of 45 is made up but I assume it is ships in the active fleet. The core were the Leander class, whose original build programme had gone on far too long as part of a job creation exercise for the British shipyards in the late 1960s and early 1970s. The last gun Leander completed in Feb 1973 and the first Ikara conversion had completed the month before. 1980 saw 8 Ikara conversions in the fleet plus the first five Exocet / Seacat conversions and work underway on another 2. There were also 5 Exocet / Seawolf conversions underway. Ultimately the last programme, for another 5 ships, had to be cancelled due to escalating costs. The last gun Leander, Ariadne, cost £6.6m. The Seawolf conversions cost £60-80m each! That at a time when the new and much more capable Type 22 Batch 1 were costing £68-112m.

The other new elements in 1980 were the 8 Type 21 and the first Type 22.

During the 1980s the 9 Rothesay class were removed from the fleet. They had completed in 1960/61 and had been modernised once already. Some of the old Type 81 Tribal class were still in service in the early 1980s, complete with their open backed WW2 vintage 4.5" guns. Designed for a policing role in the Middle East that the RN was no longer concerned with.

On the other side of the equation the 1980s saw 12 new Type 22 frigates join the fleet plus one in build and the first 3 of an eventual 16 Type 23 in build.

With the events of the last 30 years the burden of the Defence cuts seems to have fallen on the RN and especially the escort numbers which is regretable. But with the end of the Cold War and the need in this century to fight land campaigns in Afghanistan and Iraq it was probably inevitable that the RN would suffer most.

Other services
In Jan 1982 there were still 6 squadrons of Vulcans in service all well past their sell by date. By the end of the year that had reduced to just one flying a handful of tanker versions produced to boost the RAF Victor tanker fleet as a result of the Falklands. The Black Buck sorties to the Falklands really were their swan song.

Tornado GR1only reached its first operational squadron in June 1982, with two more following in 1983 and it didn't begin to replace Jaguars in RAF Germany until 1984. Ultimately by the end of the decade 10 (edit - 11) squadrons were equipped with them.

The Army got its new Challenger I tanks from 1983.


Canadian Navy
It is worth looking at your own navy for a moment. In 1980 it had 16 DE dating from the 1950s and 1960s which it gave a second (DELEX) modernisation to in the early 1980s plus 4 Iroquois class destroyers from the 1970s which were given a TRUMP refit in the late 1980s. Their replacements were the 12 Halifax class frigates building from 1987 that began to enter service in the early 1990s. By 2012 your total escort fleet numbered 15 ships.

Dutch Navy
In 1980 the Dutch had 7 Friesland class gun destroyers (one had been scrapped in 1979 and the others sold to Peru between 1980 & 1982), 6 Van Speijk (Leander) class (which they sold to Indonesia in the 1980s), 2 Tromp class and 2 Kortenaer class frigates. They added 8 more Kortenaer class between 1980 and 1983, plus 2 Jacob van Heemskerk AA versions in 1986. By 2012 it was reduced to 6 frigates and 1 patrol vessel and had another 3 patrol vessels building for service entry the next year.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## nuuumannn (Apr 3, 2022)

Admiral Beez said:


> Would the RN have the Queen Elizabeth class carriers had the Falklands not occurred? iDK.




Of greater pertinence, had Argentina not launched the invasion when it did, the RN might have been without HMS Invincible, which was at the time earmarked for sale to Australia.


swampyankee said:


> One wonders what would have had happened were Galtieri and his regime waited until Thatcher's (Nott's) taken effect.



While I was in Argentina a number of years ago, I met with some Ejercito (Army) personnel and spoke openly with them about the war, The chap I was talking to was too young to have fought in the war, but he said his commanding officer had. He said to me that he had no animosity toward the British for what they did, but that Argentinians hated Thatcher, when I explained that the feeling was mutual among a lot of Brits, he was surprised. I explained how unpopular Thatcher was and stated that had Argentina not attempted to retake the Malvinas, being careful to name the islands by their Argentine name, Thatcher would most likely have lost the elections later that year. The Argentines were surprised by that. they had no idea she was unpopular in Britain.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## nuuumannn (Apr 3, 2022)

EwenS said:


> In Jan 1982 there were still 6 squadrons of Vulcans in service all well past their sell by date. By the end of the year that had reduced to just one flying a handful of tanker versions produced to boost the RAF Victor tanker fleet as a result of the Falklands. The Black Buck sorties to the Falklands really were their swan song.



Very much so. The aircraft selected for the Black Buck raids were among the last operating handful and none of the crews were current on in-flight refuelling (IFR) at the time. During the Black Buck raids they had to carry a sixth crewmember to visually aid in IFR.

This is a formation flight of Vulcans taken in 1984 shortly before their final retirement that took them around their former bases in the UK. In the foreground is XM597, which was the Vulcan that broke its refuelling probe on its Black Buck raid against BAM Malvinas (Stanley Airport) air defence radars and landed at Rio de Janeiro.




Vulcans

Reactions: Like Like:
5 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Alex Smart (Apr 4, 2022)

What amazes me was the realisation that it was 40 years ago, doesn't seem that long ago.
Whatever the prose and cons of the war or the politics of the time, we must always remember those who never came home to their families and friends, from both nations.🇦🇷🇫🇰🙏🙏🙏🕯🕯🕯🏴󠁧󠁢󠁥󠁮󠁧󠁿🏴󠁧󠁢󠁳󠁣󠁴󠁿🏴󠁧󠁢󠁷󠁬󠁳󠁿

Reactions: Like Like:
5 | Like List reactions


----------



## Admiral Beez (Apr 4, 2022)

EwenS said:


> I'm really not convinced that your accusation that Thatcher "intended on ripping HM's armed forces to shreds" is accurate. The planned pain in the Nott 1981 Defence Review would have hit the RN hard but the rest of the services would have escaped lightly. Without trying to defend the 1981 Nott review it is worthwhile remembering the financial state of the UK in 1979 and then looking behind the ship numbers and looking at what ships were actually in the fleet in 1980.


A fair point. The UK’s financial shape in 2022 is vastly better than 1979, but the fleet, especially the surface force has never been smaller. What’s their excuse now?


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (Apr 4, 2022)

nuuumannn said:


> Very much so. The aircraft selected for the Black Buck raids were among the last operating handful and none of the crews were current on in-flight refuelling (IFR) at the time. During the Black Buck raids they had to carry a sixth crewmember to visually aid in IFR.
> 
> This is a formation flight of Vulcans taken in 1984 shortly before their final retirement that took them around their former bases in the UK. In the foreground is XM597, which was the Vulcan that broke its refuelling probe on its Black Buck raid against BAM Malvinas (Stanley Airport) air defence radars and landed at Rio de Janeiro.
> 
> ...



Man, those things look spooooooky.


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (Apr 4, 2022)

Admiral Beez said:


> A fair point. The UK’s financial shape in 2022 is vastly better than 1979, but the fleet, especially the surface force has never been smaller. What’s their excuse now?



Larger population requiring more draw upon available funds for promised services like NIH etc?

Of course, they did manage to build the two carriers, which should remain handy for the next four decades or so.

Reactions: Optimistic Optimistic:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 4, 2022)

Admiral Beez said:


> A fair point. The UK’s financial shape in 2022 is vastly better than 1979, but the fleet, especially the surface force has never been smaller. What’s their excuse now?


Technology?


----------



## Admiral Beez (Apr 4, 2022)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Technology?


IDK, the focus seems to be on the Type 32 frigates, intentionally designed to be low cost and low capability, akin to modern day Type 21s.


----------



## Admiral Beez (Apr 4, 2022)

Thumpalumpacus said:


> Of course, they did manage to build the two carriers, which should remain handy for the next four decades or so.


I am optimistically hopeful on that last bit.


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (Apr 4, 2022)

Admiral Beez said:


> I am optimistically hopeful on that last bit.



Maintenance will suck up money from building newer support ships, to be sure.


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (Apr 4, 2022)

Admiral Beez said:


> I am optimistically hopeful on that last bit.



I am too. The Brits know how to take care of a ship, it's just whether Parliament releases the funding or gets penny-pinching. I think after Ukraine we'll see purse-strings loosened not just in Germany.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## EwenS (Apr 5, 2022)

Admiral Beez said:


> IDK, the focus seems to be on the Type 32 frigates, intentionally designed to be low cost and low capability, akin to modern day Type 21s.


It would be nice if you looked at the full picture that has been announced to date and didn’t muddle the various ship designations that have been announced.

Today the RN has 6 Type 45 AAW destroyers (now finally getting their PIP refits, yes the delays are frustrating, and are to get CAMM missiles as an addition to their existing Aster outfit) and 12 (Monmouth was withdrawn from service last year) ageing (entered service 1991-2002) Type 23 frigates now outfitted with the latest radars, missiles and ASW systems.

Type 26 - 3 Batch 1 ships building at BAe on the Clyde and another 5 Batch 2 announced but still to be contracted for. Lead ship due for delivery in 2024 but service entry now said to be 2027. By way of comparison the first Type 23 took 18 months for first of class trials and work up to an operational level.

Type 31 - 5 ships to be called the “Inspiration” class to be built by Babcock at Rosyth. First one in build with launch next year and service entry in 2027.

Type 32 - announced 11/20 with “up to 5” to be procured. Design concept is being developed but seen as a platform for autonomous systems for minesweeping and ASW (which we don’t know what shape these will take). These were announced as being in addition to Type 26/31 so expanding destroyer / frigate numbers from 19 to 24. Currently planned as a follow on build to the Type 31 at Rosyth.

Type 83 - announced 3/21 as the replacement for the Type 45 from the late 2030s. So to be developed with concept phase starting 2022.

The Type 26 was designed as a high end anti submarine warfare vessel whose main role is seen as anti sub protection of the nuclear deterrent and carrier groups. Many of the roles that the RN is asked to perform these days does not require that level of specialisation. Hence the Type 31. 

And the RN also has the 8 River class patrol boats, all of which are being retained contrary to what was previously planned and which are undertaking duties that back in the day were often carried out by frigates / destroyers and doing so at significantly reduced cost. 3 batch 1 on fishery protection, Forth is Falkland Is guardship, Medway is in the Caribbean and Trent is permanently based at Gibraltar. The other pair are now forward based in the Indo-Pacific region for the next 5-10 years. Their armament may be criticised but they seem to be adequate for the tasks that they are being asked to perform.

And some other highlights from around the world.

USA - proposing removal of another 8-10 of its Freedom class Littoral Combat Ships from the fleet despite the oldest being only 7 years old. A real success programme that with a version of the FREMM frigate now to be acquired. Zumwalt class destroyer procurement planned for 22 ships cancelled with 3 built. Gap to be plugged with more Arleigh Burke versions. Problems with the Ford class CVN electromagnetic catapults, new arrester system and weapons elevators that are taking forever to fix but are delaying her entry into service.

Canada - version of the Type 26 frigate has grown by 900 tons and 10% in cost before any steel has been cut. F-35 finally chosen (assuming the contract actually gets signed) as the F-18 replacement at what is it, the third attempt over 25 years.

Australia - also has its problems with weight growth on its version of the Type 26. Collins sub replacement? Enough said. Problems with Eurocopter helicopters leading to their early replacement.

Is there any country in the world that has anything close to a reasonable, let alone perfect, defence procurement system?

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Admiral Beez (Apr 5, 2022)

EwenS said:


> Is there any country in the world that has anything close to a reasonable, let alone perfect, defence procurement system?


No, and that wasn't a claim I was making certainly. My point is that the RN is now too small for its potential tasks, especially if a conventional war breaks out with Russia. 









Royal Navy now has more admirals than warships


The MOD has said there 34 serving Admirals, Vice Admirals and Rear Admirals and 75 ships - but only 19 of these are operational warships




www.plymouthherald.co.uk





I'm not qualified to suggest the ideal size and makeup of the RN fleet, but for a surface fleet, six destroyers and twelve frigates does seem light, especially since at best a little over half of these would be active, not in refit, repair or rotation.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Macandy (Apr 5, 2022)

The RN only had 3 effective missile armed warships in the Falklands War,
HMS Exeter, HMS Brilliant, HMS Broadsword.

HMS Exeter could engage a maximum of two aircraft out to 20nm
HMS Brilliant and Broadsword could engage a maximum of 4 aircraft out to 5nm

Today, the RN has 
6 x T45 Destroyers - each able to engage 48 targets simultaneously to in excess of 80nm
13 x T23 Frigates - each able to engage 32 targets simultaneously to in excess of 25nm

A single T23 Frigate now provides more and better air defence than the entire TF had in 1982

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Admiral Beez (Apr 5, 2022)

Macandy said:


> A single T23 Frigate now provides more and better air defence than the entire TF had in 1982


An excellent, well conveyed point. I imagine the accountants in the Exchequer make that very argument when the RN asks for more ships. But your single T23 can only be in one place.

There's an excellent article in WarshipsIFR, titled "THE ROYAL NAVY'S LETHALITY PROBLEM – The British fleet is under-armed, but how to fix it?". I can't seem to find it electronically, but as I subscribe to the print issue I may be able to screen grab it. The article covers how the RN's destroyers and frigates have very limited long range ground attack capability, as well as other armament deficits. The article focuses on the findings of the below report:

"We're going to need a bigger Navy"


https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm5802/cmselect/cmdfence/168/report.html

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## EwenS (Apr 5, 2022)

Admiral Beez said:


> No, and that wasn't a claim I was making certainly. My point is that the RN is now too small for its potential tasks, especially if a conventional war breaks out with Russia.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Unfortunately it seems to be a disease that all nations have including your own.








Number of Canadian military generals, admirals growing at faster rate than soldiers, sailors


There were 130 generals and admirals in January 2018 compared with 81 during same month in 2003 — a 60-per-cent increase over a period in which the rest of the military grew by less than 2 per cent.




www.thestar.com

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Admiral Beez (Apr 5, 2022)

EwenS said:


> Unfortunately it seems to be a disease that all nations have including your own.


Indeed....

One of the things Covid and the greater independence and initiative of employees in the private sector has demonstrated is the great career risk that managers are now under. 



https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2021/07/work-from-home-benefits/619597/



Military is not the private sector, but I have to wonder what all those lower level Admirals do all day. Of course in Canada much of their time is probably spent in #metoo and diversity training seminars and investigations.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Macandy (Apr 5, 2022)

Admiral Beez said:


> An excellent, well conveyed point. I imagine the accountants in the Exchequer make that very argument when the RN asks for more ships. But your single T23 can only be in one place.
> 
> There's an excellent article in WarshipsIFR, titled "THE ROYAL NAVY'S LETHALITY PROBLEM – The British fleet is under-armed, but how to fix it?". I can't seem to find it electronically, but as I subscribe to the print issue I may be able to screen grab it. The article covers how the RN's destroyers and frigates have very limited long range ground attack capability, as well as other armament deficits. The article focuses on the findings of the below report:
> 
> ...




The RN's surface combatants are not its land strikers. Thats the job of the submarines and carriers.

The Destroyers are purpose designed AAW ships and even the USN regard them as peerless at that role.
The Frigates and purpose designed ASW ships and more than capable of defending themselves or anything within their air umbrella.

The T45's will now land their short range Sea Vipers, and uprated to 48 long range Sea Vipers and get an extra 24 Sea Ceptor Missiles - that's 72 long range active homing Anti Air Missiles - as many as, and often more than the much over touted Arleigh Burkes carry.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Macandy (Apr 5, 2022)

Admiral Beez said:


> No, and that wasn't a claim I was making certainly. My point is that the RN is now too small for its potential tasks, especially if a conventional war breaks out with Russia.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




A conventional war with the joke Russian 'fleet' of Cold War rust buckets?
They haven't built a single major surface combatant in nearly 40 years - they are a small brown water Navy on museum pieces

'Seems light'? Yet this Navy was able to send a 73,000 tonne aircraft carrier on a 40,000 mile maiden deployment along with two Destroyers, two Frigates, an SSN, two RFA's - along with two allied warships.
Thats a capability beyond any other Navy on Earth bar the USN.
The much over vaunted Russian navy dropped a harbour crane on its ancient rust bucket carrier and set it on fire in its last attempted refit


----------



## SaparotRob (Apr 5, 2022)

Didn’t the HIRMS Kamchatka have a similar experience?


----------



## Macandy (Apr 5, 2022)

Tōgō Heihachirō - Today I sank the Russian Navy!





Dogger Bank Voyage of the Damned

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## nuuumannn (Apr 11, 2022)

The political and military climate has changed since 1982. Firstly, Argentina is in no position materially to launch an invasion of the islands and hold on to them. Argentina has a squadron of A-4AR Fighting Hawks and the COAN has its Super Etendards as the country's sole combat jets (even then, the SE are being retired this year - just found out) and a handful of Pampas and Tucanos as training types that could be used for COIN duties and that's it (it has Korean built fighters under order). No Mirages, no Daggers, Canberras or a large number of A-4s as bomb trucks. It doesn't have the strike capability or the reach that it used to. The Armada is a shadow of its former self and does not have the capability to sustain a lengthy operation, let alone a seaborne invasion force.

Secondly, since the war, the British have constructed RAF Mt Pleasant, which is a very big base and Typhoons are regularly sent down there for detachment. It's worth remembering that while the navy might not have the same number of ships as it did in 1982, capability-wise it is in a better place, with a far more advanced electronic warfare capability. Also, the British armed forces are a mobile force and with Mt Pleasant, the RAF would send strike fighters there at a moment's notice. In 1982 the RAF's Harrier GR.3s were flown from the UK to Ascension Island and taken south aboard the Atlantic Conveyor and operated from the British carriers. Today the navy has F-35s operating from two modern carriers, Typhoons that can be deployed from Mt Pleasant. That's even before we look at the logistics of sending troops south. It's arguable that such a thing might not even be necessary and that the war could be won by airpower alone.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Macandy (Apr 12, 2022)

nuuumannn said:


> The political and military climate has changed since 1982. Firstly, Argentina is in no position materially to launch an invasion of the islands and hold on to them. Argentina has a squadron of A-4AR Fighting Hawks and the COAN has its Super Etendards as the country's sole combat jets (even then, the SE are being retired this year - just found out) and a handful of Pampas and Tucanos as training types that could be used for COIN duties and that's it (it has Korean built fighters under order). No Mirages, no Daggers, Canberras or a large number of A-4s as bomb trucks. It doesn't have the strike capability or the reach that it used to. The Armada is a shadow of its former self and does not have the capability to sustain a lengthy operation, let alone a seaborne invasion force.
> 
> Secondly, since the war, the British have constructed RAF Mt Pleasant, which is a very big base and Typhoons are regularly sent down there for detachment. It's worth remembering that while the navy might not have the same number of ships as it did in 1982, capability-wise it is in a better place, with a far more advanced electronic warfare capability. Also, the British armed forces are a mobile force and with Mt Pleasant, the RAF would send strike fighters there at a moment's notice. In 1982 the RAF's Harrier GR.3s were flown from the UK to Ascension Island and taken south aboard the Atlantic Conveyor and operated from the British carriers. Today the navy has F-35s operating from two modern carriers, Typhoons that can be deployed from Mt Pleasant. That's even before we look at the logistics of sending troops south. It's arguable that such a thing might not even be necessary and that the war could be won by airpower alone.




There are always 4 Typhoons kept at MPA and the island now has Sky Sabre SAM batteries for air defence.
MPA is a veritable fortress, it would take a large and very well equipped landing force to try and take it - its sighted were it is for very good tactical reasons.

The RAF has also demonstrated the ability to reinforce MPA within 24 hours. When the 4 Typhoons are due to rotate out, their replacements are flown in direct from the UK - It takes 17 hours

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## nuuumannn (Apr 12, 2022)

Macandy said:


> MPA is a veritable fortress, it would take a large and very well equipped landing force to try and take it



A capability that Argentina simply does not have. The Malvinas is always present in Argentine society, its on their money, street signs, monuments, billboards on highways, everywhere. Former President Christina Kirchner opened a new Museo Malvinas on the grounds of the ESMA torture camp, which details the geographical and social claim to the islands, but militarily, Argentina has nothing. I spoke with an Ejercito Major when I was there at length about the war, whilst visiting the Ejercito museum and he was ambivalent about it and was aware of Argentina's precarious position. I highlighted that possession was 9/10ths and he agreed.


----------



## Macandy (Apr 13, 2022)

And these bad boys change everything

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## nuuumannn (May 5, 2022)

Forty years ago on 1st May, Two Avro Vulcans took off from Ascension Island along with a supporting Victor tankers for the first of the Black Buck raids. XM598 was primary, but a pressurisation failure after take off meant that the secondary, XM607 continued on its way.

XM598 on display at the RAF Museum Cosford.




DSC_0357 

On 2 May 1982 the Brooklyn Class cruiser ARA General Belgrano was sunk by the submarine HMS Conqueror, resulting in the deaths of 323 aboard, the single greatest personnel loss of the war.

A model of the General Belgrano at the Museo Naval de la Nacion, Tigre.




General Belgrano

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## nuuumannn (May 5, 2022)

On this day 40 years ago, the Type 42 destroyer HMS Sheffield was struck by an Exocet anti-ship missile fired from a COAN (Argentine naval aviation) Super Etendard. 20 crewmembers died and another 26 were injured in the attack.




DSC_9916

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## syscom3 (May 26, 2022)

Members of Support Company HQ, 2 PARA, listening to the BBC World News, Sussex Mountain, Falklands, 22-26 May 1982.

Reactions: Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## syscom3 (May 26, 2022)

On this day 40 years ago. May 26 1982

British troops are poised for a drive across East Falkland Island toward Argentine forces in Stanley despite the loss of two ships in Tuesday's air strikes, Defense Minister John Nott announced. He said that 24 men had been killed aboard the two vessels and that about 25 had been wounded. Addressing a grim House of Commons, Mr. Nott said that the destroyer Coventry had capsized after being bombed and strafed and that the container ship Atlantic Conveyor, being used as a makeshift aircraft carrier, had been crippled by two Exocet missiles.

The first report of key ground contact in the Falkland war was reported by Argentina's military command. It said its forces had engaged British units operating from their beachhead and had shot down two helicopters and damaged two. It was not clear which side had initiated the clash.

Britain assumed a stiffer position on any cease-fire, saying it would no longer accept a mutual withdrawal of forces around the Falklands, but only a pullout of Argentine troops. The United Nations Security Council asked Secretary General Javier Perez de Cuellar to resume peace efforts, but he called the Council's instructions too vague to be helpful.

The United States has begun supplying Britain with sophisticated missiles, ammunition, and replacements for other war material being rapidly expended in the Falkland Islands against unexpectedly effective Argentine air strikes, Administration officials said today The equipment, being carried by British transports from U.S stockpiles in Europe, ranges from perforated steel planking to be used to construct landing strips on the Falklands for Britain's Sea Harrier jets to the sophisticated and highly accurate Sidewinder AIM-9L air-to-air missile carried by the Harriers. Within weeks after the Falklands crisis erupted, Administration officials told the British that the United States would provide Britain with virtually whatever it needs to carry its Falklands campaign to a successful conclusion.


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (May 26, 2022)

syscom3 said:


> Members of Support Company HQ, 2 PARA, listening to the BBC World News, Sussex Mountain, Falklands, 22-26 May 1982.










Damn, that dude's phone is huuuuge!

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## nuuumannn (May 26, 2022)

syscom3 said:


> Within weeks after the Falklands crisis erupted, Administration officials told the British that the United States would provide Britain with virtually whatever it needs to carry its Falklands campaign to a successful conclusion.



The US also supplied fuel at Ascension to be stored in massive bladders, Perhaps their biggest and most important contribution to the war.

Much is made of the Nine Lima and its use by the Sea Harriers, but the reality was that the majority of the 21 missile kills by the type were made from the rear aspect, which didn't fully utilise the Nine Lima's all aspect seeker head. RAF Harrier GR.3s were wired to carry AIM-9Gs as the intent was that they were originally going to be attrition replacements, but the Sea Harriers successes and lower than expected attrition rates meant they were not solely applied as interceptors.

AGM-45A Shrike missiles were supplied to the RAF and used by a Vulcan (XM597) against Argentine radars at BAM Malvinas, one of which ended up in Brazil. On its last Black Buck raid, the Vulcan had to divert to Rio de Janeiro owing to fuel shortage due to its fuel probe fracturing during IFR. They tried jettisoning the missile but it refused to leave the pylon. On arrival at Galeao, the British told the Brazilians it was a "Sidewinder" to disguise the aircraft's original intent and a part of the condition of the aircraft's release was that the Brazilians keep the "Sidewinder"...

The Brazilian flag and two mission symbols on XM597's nose.




MoF 155

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## syscom3 (May 27, 2022)

Lieutenant Commander Dante Camilette of the Argentine Marines under arrest, 27 May 1982. He had been found observing British warship movements from a concealed position above San Carlos Water.


----------



## syscom3 (May 27, 2022)

Thursday, May 27, 1982

Britain opened an offensive from its beachhead at San Carlos Bay against the Argentine troops in the Falklands, Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher announced in the House of Commons. Unofficial reports in London said that paratroopers were moving south toward the Darwin area and that marines were advancing east toward Stanley, the main island settlement.

Argentina reported ground clashes and a series of British air raids on the Falklands and said that one British plane had been shot down.

Argentina denounced Washington for backing Britain in the Falkland conflict, asserting that the United States was encouraging "aggression" and jeopardizing its future relations with Latin America. The attack, made by Foreign Minister Nicanor Costa Mendez at the opening of an emergency meeting of the Organization of American States, was greeted with long applause and a standing ovation by Latin American delegates.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## syscom3 (May 27, 2022)

Royal Navy sailors and survivors of the destroyer HMS Sheffield, attacked and eventually sunk by Argentinian forces during the Falklands War, arrive back home on a RAF VC10 aircraft at RAF Brize Norton in Oxfordshire on 27th May 1982.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## syscom3 (May 30, 2022)

Sunday, May 30, 1982

Men of 3rd Battalion, the Parachute Regiment advance across open country from Teal Inlet towards Estancia House on 30 May 1982.
3 Para had secured Teal Inlet the previous day and now continued their advance on Stanley, the capital of the Falkland Islands. 

The loss of 12 British troops and the wounding of 31 Friday at Goose Green in the Falklands, the biggest battle so far in the war with 
Argentina, was announced by the Ministry of Defense in London. The ministry officially confirmed that another British force, operating along the north coast of East Falkland Island had captured without fighting two settlements about 30 miles from Stanley, the islands' capital. A battalion of Royal Marine commandos
reportedly took Douglas and a battalion of paratroopers took Teal Inlet.

Argentina's military asserted that its warplanes attacked and put out of commission a British aircraft carrier, hitting it with bombs
and an Exocet missile. A spokesman said pilots suspected that the carrier Invincible had been hit. In London, the British Ministry of
Defense denied that the carrier had been hit.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## syscom3 (May 30, 2022)

May 30 1982

A Rapier FSB 1 surface to air missile battery operator defending task force ships in San Carlos Water keeps watch for Argentine 
aircraft, June 1982. Twelve Rapier FSB1 launchers were deployed during the Falklands War but saw very poor performance against 
low-flying aircraft flying away from the launcher. Fourteen kills were claimed, but later reports revealed just one confirmed aircraft 
was shot down in the whole war.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## syscom3 (Jun 1, 2022)

Tuesday, June 1, 1982

Photograph: British soldiers of 5 Infantry Brigade disembark at a jetty from one of HMS Intrepid's landing craft at San Carlos Water in the Falkland Islands, 1 June 1982.

Further British advances in the Falklands were reported by military sources in London. They said that Royal Marines and paratroopers had seized vital high ground about 10 miles west of the capital of Stanley after only moderate fighting. The sources disclosed the ouster of Argentine soldiers manning small outposts from the summits of 1,504-foot Mount Kent and adjacent hills, from which Stanley is clearly visible in good weather.

Argentina said fighting was heavy during the British seizure of strategic hilltops west of Stanley.

Argentines are apparently being prepared for a military defeat in the Falklands. The shift was reflected in statements by the government, press and television.

With British troops holding the high ground to the west, a British force reportedly landing on the north shore and the Royal Navy and jets bombarding the Stanley garrison and airfield, the position of the Argentine commander in the Falkland Islands appears to be untenable, defense experts in London said today. There was speculation in London tonight that the commander, General Mario Benjamin Menendez, might be offered the possibility of an "honorable surrender" before the British forces press the final attack against the garrison. Sources at Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher's office said that any decision to offer a surrender will be left in the hands of the overall task-force commander, Rear Admiral John Woodward, or one of his ground-force commanders in the area of Stanley, the Falklands capital. However, sources close to the prime minister said there could be no surrender, or cease-fire, unless the Argentines are prepared to lay down all their weapons and be evacuated from the islands.

A United Nations role in the Falklands after the probable collapse of Argentine forces is being considered by Secretary General Javier Perez de Cuellar, according to his aides. They said he had been exploring what forces might replace the British troops, the creation of a United Nations administration and the conduct of peace negotiations.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## nuuumannn (Jun 4, 2022)

syscom3 said:


> Argentina's military asserted that its warplanes attacked and put out of commission a British aircraft carrier, hitting it with bombs
> and an Exocet missile. A spokesman said pilots suspected that the carrier Invincible had been hit. In London, the British Ministry of
> Defense denied that the carrier had been hit.



A rare joint exercise by COAN and FAA units and one of the only times during the war that the two services worked in conjunction with one another, employing Exocet carrying Super Etendards of 3 Escuadrilla and A-4Cs of IV Brigada Aerea. This particular aircraft, A-4C C-322 took part in the raid.




Skyhawk 

Argentine A-4 pilots to this day swear they struck the Invincible. 1st​ Lts Alférez Gerardo Isaac in C-318 and Ernesto Ureta in C-321 state with no uncertainty that they hit the carrier that day. Both A-4s were decorated with silhouettes celebrating their mission on their return to base. Sea Harriers intercepted and shot down two A-4s during the raid, their pilots killed.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## nuuumannn (Jun 4, 2022)

4 June 1982, Avro Vulcan B.2 XM597 operating on a SEAD operation against Argentine radar defences at BAM Malvinas diverted to Rio de Janeiro after its refueling probe broke during a routine fueling operation on its way back to Widewawake airfield, Ascension Island. The following comes from an article I wrote, with the assistance of Flt Lt Dave Castle, XM597's Nav Radar operator during the Black Buck raids, whom I interviewed some years back.

Black Buck 6 the night before: This time four AGM-45A Shrike ARMs were carried; each under-wing pylon was fitted with a cradle to carry two missiles each. Two of the missiles were optimised for attacking Westinghouse TPS-43 radars, with the other two programmed for targets of opportunity, such as the Sky Guard fire control radars aiding the Oerlikon Anti-Aircraft Artillery (AAA).

During this raid, the Argentine radar operators were alerted to the presence of the Vulcan, and they switched off their search radars when the aircraft was on approach to the islands. After 'loitering' overhead for forty minutes unsuccessfully attempting to entice the TPS-43 into action, Sqn Ldr MacDougall decided to take a risk by descending from the safe altitude of 16,000 feet to within range of the Oerlikon AAA. This ploy worked and the Vulcan was illuminated by a Sky Guard unit. Two Shrikes were fired, and the radar was destroyed. Four Argentine radar operators were killed.

After further unsuccessful taunting of the TPS-43 into activity, XM597 then made a hasty departure for the refuelling point that would take the aircraft home, as its fuel situation was critical. An RAF Nimrod supplied guidance for rendezvous with the Victor tanker for the last refuelling before reaching Ascension Island. On the first prod of the Vulcan's probe into the Victor's trailing basket, a loud bang was heard from the cockpit and fuel sprayed all over the windshield until dispersed by the slipstream. The tip of the probe had fractured, preventing further reception of fuel by the Vulcan.

The hapless crew found themselves in dire straits, as there wasn't enough aboard for the journey back to Ascension. Realising their predicament, Flg Off Chris Lackman did some hasty calculations and recommended that they fly at an altitude of 43,000 feet for more economic fuel consumption by the thirsty Olympus engines.

Flt Lt Castle recalled:

"…There were no pre-arranged or recognised diversions and the crew's brief was to ditch the aircraft should the final refuelling RV fail. Reluctant to ditch XM597 in the South Atlantic the crew elected to climb to 43 000ft for best range/endurance performance and headed west towards South America (and Brazil). Before entering Brazilian airspace, the unused Shrikes had to be jettisoned to prevent any potential embarrassment to the British Government and Brazilian authorities should land-fall be made. Unfortunately, one missile 'hung up', which was to create additional problems later. Before the aircraft could resume heading for the Brazilian coast, the Vulcan was then turned onto a southerly heading to avoid a small fishing fleet, exacerbating further the fuel dilemma."

"After de-pressurising at 43,000ft and jettisoning secret documents and film through the crew escape hatch, XM597 then descended to around 20,000ft. Fortunately, XM597 was able to unwittingly evade a pair of Força Aérea Brasileira F-5s that had been scrambled to intercept it."

A serious problem arose when sensitive documents were put in a canvas hold-all and hurled out the underside door; on closing, the door refused to seal, preventing full pressurization of the cabin and forcing the occupants to breathe pure oxygen. This had the effect of making the crew's voices (in the words of Sqn Ldr McDougall) "…sound like Donald Ducks!", which made communication with Brazilian Air Traffic Controllers considerably difficult! Contact was made with Rio de Janeiro 250 nautical miles out on a VHF distress frequency.

"With insufficient fuel for a procedural instrument approach into Rio's Galeão International Airport, XM597 was flown to the overhead where it commenced a spiral descent and visual approach. The aircraft was landed with only 2,000 lbs of fuel remaining in the tanks, insufficient for a missed approach procedure and visual circuit in a Vulcan."

On landing at Galeão Airport, the wayward Vulcan was immediately impounded by the Brazilian authorities. The crew was given the option to leave, but they decided to remain, although they were not allowed to leave the airbase without escort, as they had no passports or documentation with them.

The next day, news of the Vulcan's internment in Brazil had reached the front page of newspapers around the world, causing much embarrassment to the British government as the aircraft was still carrying live ammunition; the Shrike missile that refused to jettison from its pylon. On landing, the aircrew hung their anoraks over the missile to shield it from press photographers, who appeared en-masse shortly after the aircraft's arrival. 

One of the conditions of the release of the aircraft and its crew was that it was not to take any further part in Operation Corporate; the Brazilians also stipulated that the Shrike missile was to remain in Brazil. Initially, the Brazilians incorrectly identified it as a "Sidewinder", and to hide the aircraft's true operational role, the British crew played along with this. One Brazilian newspaper article reporting the incident showed a photograph of the Vulcan with the weapon on the pylon circled and identified in the caption as a "míssil ar-ar Sidewinder".

The aircraft and crew remained with their Brazilian hosts for seven days before returning to Ascension on 9 June, the Shrike missile staying behind as requested. Three days later XM597 departed Wideawake Airfield for RAF Waddington, its brief part in the Falklands War over. For his sterling leadership during the Black Buck raids, Sqn Ldr MacDougall was awarded the Distinguished Flying Cross.

XM597's nose with the two Shrike missile mission symbols and the Brazilian flag.




MoF 155

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Admiral Beez (Jun 13, 2022)

IA Pucara in British colours.


----------



## syscom3 (Jun 13, 2022)

June 13 1982

The Battle of Mount Tumbledown begins. The British launched an assault on Mount Tumbledown, one of the highest points near the town of Stanley, the capital, and succeeded over the night and next morning in driving Argentinian forces from the mountain.

Britain's success in retaking the Falklands has been assured by the weekend's fighting, according to Defense Secretary John Nott. But he said that a light cruiser carrying a crew of 471 had been hit by Argentine fire, killing nine British sailors and injuring 17. Nonetheless, he reported that the ship was still fit for battle.

Argentina said its warplanes had attacked British positions on a mountain west of Stanley. The military command said the attack occurred as British forces in the area were regrouping for a second assault on the Falkland capital.

Photo credit, IWM

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## EwenS (Jun 14, 2022)

syscom3 said:


> June 13 1982
> Britain's success in retaking the Falklands has been assured by the weekend's fighting, according to Defense Secretary John Nott. But he said that a light cruiser carrying a crew of 471 had been hit by Argentine fire, killing nine British sailors and injuring 17. Nonetheless, he reported that the ship was still fit for battle.


That was the County class Guided Missile Destroyer Glamorgan. Hit by an Exocet from an improvised shore based launcher. Total death toll was eventually 14 plus more wounded.








THE FALKLANDS CONFLICT, APRIL - JUNE 1982


Damage to the port side and helicopter hangar of the destroyer HMS GLAMORGAN caused by an Argentine MM.40 land based Exocet missile. The missile was launched from a mobile launcher near Port Stanley, some 18 miles away, on 12 June 1982.




www.iwm.org.uk













HMS Glamorgan (D19) - Wikipedia







en.m.wikipedia.org


----------



## MikeMeech (Jun 15, 2022)

EwenS said:


> That was the County class Guided Missile Destroyer Glamorgan. Hit by an Exocet from an improvised shore based launcher. Total death toll was eventually 14 plus more wounded.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Hi

Image of HMS Glamorgan under repair at Portsmouth during Navy Days later in 1982. Many ships that had served in the Falklands were present in various stages of repair/refit and upgrading. Also HMS Invincible, fitted with Phalanx system, and HMS Hermes (both not sunk or seriously damaged). Members of the public on board looking round.





Mike

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Winner Winner:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## nuuumannn (Jun 27, 2022)

The Glamorgan "The Glamorous Organ" was struck by an MM.38 ship launched Exocet on a truck mounted launcher, which was known as the ITB. The launcher in particular came from the ARA Segui, formerly the Sumner Class destroyer USS Hank, the Argentine FRAM II converted destroyers had four launchers each and Segui's were delivered to the islands aboard a C-130 and put on a truck.









USS Hank - Wikipedia







en.wikipedia.org





What's interesting about the Glamorgan being hit is that damage would have most likely been much worse and could have resulted in the loss of the ship if it weren't for the quick thinking of her captain, who ordered the firing of a Sea Cat SAM once the missile had been spotted by HMS Avenger. The Sea Cat struck the approaching Exocet and deflected it upwards, which meant it hit the ship's hangar, rather than its hull. True story...

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------

