Falklands War 40 years ago (1 Viewer)

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

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are frustrating, and are to get CAMM missiles as an addition to their existing Aster outfit) and 12 (Monmouth was withdrawn from service last year) ageing (entered service 1991-2002) Type 23 frigates now outfitted with the latest radars, missiles and ASW systems.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?
 
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.


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.
 
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
 
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"

 
Last edited:
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.
 
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.


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.
 
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"



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.
 
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.


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.


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
 
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.
 
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
 
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.
 
And these bad boys change everything
27_83eag-official-20210310-051-070.jpg
 
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.

51400180507_2ba039cbcd_b.jpg
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.

49836360253_8a8d92cbe7_b.jpg
General Belgrano
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back