Can't get a US supercarrier down there in 72 hours!
How to pull off Para drop at Falklands
- Thread starter Admiral Beez
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Thumpalumpacus
Captain
Chilean C-130s being used necessarily involves Chile in the impending conflict. They've got a long frontier with Argentina. Do you really think they want to court that trouble?
I'm sure the Argentinians would give it a pass and take no action, then. It's not like those C-130s would have to overfly Argentina on the way ... oh, wait. They would indeed have to overfly.
swampyankee
Chief Master Sergeant
- 3,954
- Jun 25, 2013
Like it not, by providing passage they are involved. Also, how does one travel from Chile to the Falklands without overflying Argentina?
The Basket
Senior Master Sergeant
- 3,712
- Jun 27, 2007
Punta Arenas. You can't fly over it you can't fly under it but you can fly arounds it.
Whether the Chileans want to get involved depends on this large bag of cash. It's a large bag of cash. Plenty of cash is the issue.
- Thread starter
- #25
Admiral Beez
Captain
Britain helped keep Pinochet out of The Hague. That's a thank you of great value.
Thumpalumpacus
Captain
That's 2000 miles one way from Santiago -- which was your original starting point -- to the Falklands via Punta Arenas. Five hours from Santiago to Punta, another two to the islands, and then where's the airplanes gonna go? You've already maxed out the C-130's range, they're landing at the Falklands or ditching nearby. Ask the Germans how landing on a hostile airfield goes.
It's not like the Argentinians are going to not notice the 130s headed out over the Atlantic, either. You're still going to have to address the political fallout for that reason.
25 de Mayo would already be at sea too, right?
Color me skeptical.
The Basket
Senior Master Sergeant
- 3,712
- Jun 27, 2007
C-130 would land and refuel at Punta Arenas airport. And land back at Punta Arenas.
I am not saying this is realistic or even happening but it is possible or in the realms of possiblity.
Plus British forces could be in Belize or North America so it may be possible to build a scratch force of troops from them guys.
Again feasible no idea and equipment will have to be lifted from the Chilean army. Coz you ain't carrying grenade on a civilian flight.
So can you get British troops to Port Stanley in 72 hours. Yes. It is theoretically possible.
It is feasible or reality.... probably no but that's not the query. It can be done.
I am not saying this is realistic or even happening but it is possible or in the realms of possiblity.
Plus British forces could be in Belize or North America so it may be possible to build a scratch force of troops from them guys.
Again feasible no idea and equipment will have to be lifted from the Chilean army. Coz you ain't carrying grenade on a civilian flight.
So can you get British troops to Port Stanley in 72 hours. Yes. It is theoretically possible.
It is feasible or reality.... probably no but that's not the query. It can be done.
- Thread starter
- #28
Admiral Beez
Captain
My idea was the air drop was always a one way mission.
Thumpalumpacus
Captain
Thumpalumpacus
Captain
Logistically yes, politically no.
ThomasP
Senior Master Sergeant
I think "borrowing" USAF/USMC C-130s and painting them in UK colours within 24 hrs is doable. Whether the tankers that refuel them are RAF or USAF would not be knowable at the time. Aircraft enthusiasts around the world would be saying "Those tricky British, keeping the IFR capability of their Hercules C Mk.1s a secret all this time" . . . at least until someone leaks the confidential info years later.
- Thread starter
- #32
Admiral Beez
Captain
IIRC the Victor tankers used a boom system incompatible with the USAF system. It really was British negligence that the Stanley airfield wasn't lengthened to accept commercial transatlantic aircraft. How much would that have cost?
Reading up on the invasion I think the fifty-seven Royal Marines put up a spirited defence that must have brought a degree of worry to the hundreds of Argentine conscripts - knowing that several thousand more will be coming soon. The conscripts are just lucky the garrison wasn't made up of Gurkhas, reputed to rarely surrender.
Thumpalumpacus
Captain
Oddly enough, this op-ed showed up in one of my go-to news sources today:
This year marks the 40th anniversary of the Falklands War. Argentine forces invaded the Falkland Islands, a British Crown Colony, on April 2, 1982. The Argentines overwhelmed the small British military contingent on Port Stanley, the islands' capital, and took the town without inflicting any casualties. The next day, Argentine marines seized South Georgia Island, a British Overseas Territory about 1,120 miles from the Falklands. By the end of April there were more than 10,000 Argentine troops on the islands.
The challenge for Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher's government seemed overwhelming, given the more than 8,000-mile distance between Britain and the islands. In fact, the British outpost in the South Atlantic that was closest to the Falklands, Ascension Island, was just under 4,000 miles away. Nevertheless, backed by the Reagan administration's strong and timely political, materiel and intelligence support, and despite some naval losses, Britain was able to retake the islands in a matter of just over two months.
Argentina has never come to terms with British control of the islands, which dates to 1833 (they became a Crown Colony eight years later). There was an Argentine settlement on the islands at the time, and ever since Buenos Aires has claimed the Malvinas, as it called them, as its own sovereign territory. Despite its decisive defeat in the Falklands War, and despite the preference of the islanders to remain British citizens, Argentina has never relinquished that claim. It has demanded that Britain agree to negotiate the islands' future. London has steadfastly refused to do so.
Enter China. This week, Argentina joined China's massive Belt and Road Initiative. The agreement that Argentine President Alberto Fernandez and his counterpart, Xi Jinping, signed on Feb. 7 calls for $23 billion worth of Chinese investments for what Fernandez termed "works and projects." Chinese official reporting has stressed not only the importance of trade and investment between the two countries, but also has noted the importance of "regional connectivity," which no doubt signifies an open door for Huawei's 5G network. The agreement represents a giant Chinese foothold in Latin America.
In their joint statement outlining the specifics of what is essentially an economic agreement, however, the two sides also backed each other's territorial claims. Argentina reiterated its support for the One China policy that is the cornerstone of Beijing's claim to Taiwan. For its part, China voiced its support for the Argentine claim to what the statement called "the Malvinas."
Those interested can read the full article here:
thehill.com
This year marks the 40th anniversary of the Falklands War. Argentine forces invaded the Falkland Islands, a British Crown Colony, on April 2, 1982. The Argentines overwhelmed the small British military contingent on Port Stanley, the islands' capital, and took the town without inflicting any casualties. The next day, Argentine marines seized South Georgia Island, a British Overseas Territory about 1,120 miles from the Falklands. By the end of April there were more than 10,000 Argentine troops on the islands.
The challenge for Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher's government seemed overwhelming, given the more than 8,000-mile distance between Britain and the islands. In fact, the British outpost in the South Atlantic that was closest to the Falklands, Ascension Island, was just under 4,000 miles away. Nevertheless, backed by the Reagan administration's strong and timely political, materiel and intelligence support, and despite some naval losses, Britain was able to retake the islands in a matter of just over two months.
Argentina has never come to terms with British control of the islands, which dates to 1833 (they became a Crown Colony eight years later). There was an Argentine settlement on the islands at the time, and ever since Buenos Aires has claimed the Malvinas, as it called them, as its own sovereign territory. Despite its decisive defeat in the Falklands War, and despite the preference of the islanders to remain British citizens, Argentina has never relinquished that claim. It has demanded that Britain agree to negotiate the islands' future. London has steadfastly refused to do so.
Enter China. This week, Argentina joined China's massive Belt and Road Initiative. The agreement that Argentine President Alberto Fernandez and his counterpart, Xi Jinping, signed on Feb. 7 calls for $23 billion worth of Chinese investments for what Fernandez termed "works and projects." Chinese official reporting has stressed not only the importance of trade and investment between the two countries, but also has noted the importance of "regional connectivity," which no doubt signifies an open door for Huawei's 5G network. The agreement represents a giant Chinese foothold in Latin America.
In their joint statement outlining the specifics of what is essentially an economic agreement, however, the two sides also backed each other's territorial claims. Argentina reiterated its support for the One China policy that is the cornerstone of Beijing's claim to Taiwan. For its part, China voiced its support for the Argentine claim to what the statement called "the Malvinas."
Those interested can read the full article here:
Britain, China and the Falkland Islands: Why the US must weigh in
Washington must make clear to Buenos Aires and Beijing that it fully supports keeping the Falklands under British control.
thehill.com
SaparotRob
Unter Gemeine Geschwader Murmeltier XIII
I gotta get back to this one later!Oddly enough, this op-ed showed up in one of my go-to news sources today:
This year marks the 40th anniversary of the Falklands War. Argentine forces invaded the Falkland Islands, a British Crown Colony, on April 2, 1982. The Argentines overwhelmed the small British military contingent on Port Stanley, the islands' capital, and took the town without inflicting any casualties. The next day, Argentine marines seized South Georgia Island, a British Overseas Territory about 1,120 miles from the Falklands. By the end of April there were more than 10,000 Argentine troops on the islands.
The challenge for Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher's government seemed overwhelming, given the more than 8,000-mile distance between Britain and the islands. In fact, the British outpost in the South Atlantic that was closest to the Falklands, Ascension Island, was just under 4,000 miles away. Nevertheless, backed by the Reagan administration's strong and timely political, materiel and intelligence support, and despite some naval losses, Britain was able to retake the islands in a matter of just over two months.
Argentina has never come to terms with British control of the islands, which dates to 1833 (they became a Crown Colony eight years later). There was an Argentine settlement on the islands at the time, and ever since Buenos Aires has claimed the Malvinas, as it called them, as its own sovereign territory. Despite its decisive defeat in the Falklands War, and despite the preference of the islanders to remain British citizens, Argentina has never relinquished that claim. It has demanded that Britain agree to negotiate the islands' future. London has steadfastly refused to do so.
Enter China. This week, Argentina joined China's massive Belt and Road Initiative. The agreement that Argentine President Alberto Fernandez and his counterpart, Xi Jinping, signed on Feb. 7 calls for $23 billion worth of Chinese investments for what Fernandez termed "works and projects." Chinese official reporting has stressed not only the importance of trade and investment between the two countries, but also has noted the importance of "regional connectivity," which no doubt signifies an open door for Huawei's 5G network. The agreement represents a giant Chinese foothold in Latin America.
In their joint statement outlining the specifics of what is essentially an economic agreement, however, the two sides also backed each other's territorial claims. Argentina reiterated its support for the One China policy that is the cornerstone of Beijing's claim to Taiwan. For its part, China voiced its support for the Argentine claim to what the statement called "the Malvinas."
Those interested can read the full article here:
Britain, China and the Falkland Islands: Why the US must weigh in
Washington must make clear to Buenos Aires and Beijing that it fully supports keeping the Falklands under British control.
A few things to unpack...
True, during the war, British Special Forces were flown into and operated from Chile aboard Sea Kings. It's also worth mentioning that before the Falklands war Argentina and Chile came very close to war in 1978, so there was quite a bit of animosity between the two countries by 1982 and the Chileans were keen to help Britain, but covertly, as the activity by British Special Forces in Chile was kept secret for a number of years.
It's an interesting development, Argentina could do with the money as it has a notoriously bad economic record, from being one of the wealthiest nations in the world at the end of WW2 to becoming much poorer owing to badly mismanaging its economy, largely owing to government corruption, coup d'etats etc, so the money will be of use, but will gaining Chinese moneys and an empathetic communist government actually enable action in attempting to secure the Malvinas? I doubt it. China has the capability to take Taiwan but won't because of world pressure, but militarily, Argentina is not in a position to take the Malvinas at all. Perhaps the current government will pull a Galtieri and detract from the country's financial woes and drum up patriotic fervour by putting the money into re-enacting Operacion Azul (changed to Rosario) and invade the islands, at the expense of stabilising the economy?
This is not strictly true, Britain has attempted negotiation before and it is worth noting that even before the war the British discussed and proposed concessions with Argentina. It has always been Argentina that has rejected Britain's claim over the island (I know you didn't write that, dude, the quote system used your name).
Its worth noting that regarding the 72 hours thing, a couple of things regarding the British task force and its preparation. It took the British 72 hours to get the two carriers and warships ready and sail to Ascension, although a lot of stuff was delivered following the departure of the fleet from Portsmouth, including the RAF's Harrier GR.3s, which flew from RAF Wittering/St Mawgan to Ascension Island, which is a loooong way for a Harrier, let alone ten of them (one turned back), being refuelled en route by Victors. Much equipment departed afterwards, the Atlantic Conveyor and other vessels brought equipment and personnel to Ascension and were either picked up there or met down at the islands.
It's also worth noting that the Soviets passed information to the Argentine government regarding the disposition of the British task force through its intel sources once it sailed. Once it departed Ascension, the fleet was tailed almost the whole way to the South Atlantic by FAA spy aircraft, including 707s, one of which was intercepted by a Sea Harrier. The Argentinians knew what was coming. How they reacted was entirely up to them.
I don't believe that para-dropping in is going to change the outcome of Argentine forces taking the island, not unless the British have overwhelming superiority in numbers and equipment. Azul (changed to Rosario) was a well designed and well executed plan with support from the other branches of the armed forces, which was unusual at the time as infighting between branches of the armed forces was rife. Azul was dreamed up by the head of the Armada Adm Jorge Anaya years before 1982 and its actuation was done with support from other military heads, oddly, however the lack of co-operation between the forces marked Argentina's disappointing showing during the British recapture of the islands.
The invasion involved amphibious craft, surface warships and submarines, so the British need firepower and a lot of stuff that had to be brought from the UK, as it traditionally was if stopping the invasion was going to succeed. such a thing would have been an utter waste of paratroopers and whosever aircraft was used to convey them. Just wait, the task force is on its way...
True, during the war, British Special Forces were flown into and operated from Chile aboard Sea Kings. It's also worth mentioning that before the Falklands war Argentina and Chile came very close to war in 1978, so there was quite a bit of animosity between the two countries by 1982 and the Chileans were keen to help Britain, but covertly, as the activity by British Special Forces in Chile was kept secret for a number of years.
It's an interesting development, Argentina could do with the money as it has a notoriously bad economic record, from being one of the wealthiest nations in the world at the end of WW2 to becoming much poorer owing to badly mismanaging its economy, largely owing to government corruption, coup d'etats etc, so the money will be of use, but will gaining Chinese moneys and an empathetic communist government actually enable action in attempting to secure the Malvinas? I doubt it. China has the capability to take Taiwan but won't because of world pressure, but militarily, Argentina is not in a position to take the Malvinas at all. Perhaps the current government will pull a Galtieri and detract from the country's financial woes and drum up patriotic fervour by putting the money into re-enacting Operacion Azul (changed to Rosario) and invade the islands, at the expense of stabilising the economy?
This is not strictly true, Britain has attempted negotiation before and it is worth noting that even before the war the British discussed and proposed concessions with Argentina. It has always been Argentina that has rejected Britain's claim over the island (I know you didn't write that, dude, the quote system used your name).
Its worth noting that regarding the 72 hours thing, a couple of things regarding the British task force and its preparation. It took the British 72 hours to get the two carriers and warships ready and sail to Ascension, although a lot of stuff was delivered following the departure of the fleet from Portsmouth, including the RAF's Harrier GR.3s, which flew from RAF Wittering/St Mawgan to Ascension Island, which is a loooong way for a Harrier, let alone ten of them (one turned back), being refuelled en route by Victors. Much equipment departed afterwards, the Atlantic Conveyor and other vessels brought equipment and personnel to Ascension and were either picked up there or met down at the islands.
It's also worth noting that the Soviets passed information to the Argentine government regarding the disposition of the British task force through its intel sources once it sailed. Once it departed Ascension, the fleet was tailed almost the whole way to the South Atlantic by FAA spy aircraft, including 707s, one of which was intercepted by a Sea Harrier. The Argentinians knew what was coming. How they reacted was entirely up to them.
I don't believe that para-dropping in is going to change the outcome of Argentine forces taking the island, not unless the British have overwhelming superiority in numbers and equipment. Azul (changed to Rosario) was a well designed and well executed plan with support from the other branches of the armed forces, which was unusual at the time as infighting between branches of the armed forces was rife. Azul was dreamed up by the head of the Armada Adm Jorge Anaya years before 1982 and its actuation was done with support from other military heads, oddly, however the lack of co-operation between the forces marked Argentina's disappointing showing during the British recapture of the islands.
The invasion involved amphibious craft, surface warships and submarines, so the British need firepower and a lot of stuff that had to be brought from the UK, as it traditionally was if stopping the invasion was going to succeed. such a thing would have been an utter waste of paratroopers and whosever aircraft was used to convey them. Just wait, the task force is on its way...
Off the top of my head I can't recall the action in particular you're referring to, but flying the single Vulcans to the islands from Ascension required around 11 Victor tankers. Maritime patrol Nimrods conducted sorties during the war and they were refuelled en route by the Victors, the IFR capability having just been added to the Nimrods at the time of the war. One Nimrod recon sortie lasted 19 hours.
I do know that C-130s often carried long rang cargo drops by installing tanks in their holds, one flight lasting 18 hours on a supply drop to a warship at sea.
Unfortunately I can remember most of it
Best leave it like that
As far as I remember, it was 11 tankers each way, a total of 22 Victors, they mostly refuelled other Victors on the way. Must have run down the remaining life on the planes quite significantly.
Now, if the Argentinians had waited another 6 months to launch the operation, Iron Maggie would have castrated the RN for them. Seems to be a recurring theme for the Cons,
because they now have two big carriers without escorts or planes.
Here is some gen https://www.rafmuseum.org.uk/docume...Journal-30-Seminar-The-Falklands-Campaign.pdf has the account of the Charley 130 drop-tablets of stone
Users who are viewing this thread
Similar threads
