Falklands/Malvinas war naval scenario

[Bgile]

Incidently for the record, it was the unamed BBC narrator on the TV series who described AWAC's role as a spy plane. My post merely repeated the description given.

I seized on that as an indication that the moderator didn't know much about the subject and since I had heard that the US may have supplied some intelligence I thought "spy" might have been correct and "AWACS" wrong.

[marcelo_malara]

I don´t buy the AWACS theory. The plane would have to fly thru Brazil at least, and that country had friendly relations with Argentina. The same to Uruguay, they wouldn´t let British military to refuel there. And moreover, an E-3 is easily intercepted without escort. I acknowledge the Chilean support, a country that had then a long standing dispute about border delimitation with Argentina. In fact, the greatest support given by the Chilean, was the constant menace of they using the situation to fledge a full attack against Argentina, and that make some valuable troops remain in the continent "in case off".

Thanks for the Belgrano data Robert, 12 kt in a war zone is pure incompetence.

[lwd]

Well a little web search revealed the following:
http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G1-127798918.html

Seven Royal Air Force E-3D Airborne Early Warning and Control System (AWACS) platforms later augmented the British AEW capability. (38)

and
http://eightiesclub.tripod.com/id319.htm

In fact, such assistance was minimal; the Reagan administration even refused to loan the British an AWACS aircraft that could have alerted the Royal Navy task force to surprise air attacks

[marcelo_malara]

"Royal Air Force purchased 6 (later increased to 7) E-3D aircraft in December 1986. The aircraft are designated Sentry AEW1."

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E-3_Sentry.

[RF]

Having looked at the Eighties Club article, I notice it is copyrighted for the year 2000. I am aware that Reagan did refuse Thatcher's initial request for US assistance and possibly the comment about AWAC's was made on that point. I also see that the article appears to be derived from press reports sourced from the time of the conflict.
I am inclined to think the BBC revalations are right, as recently sourced disclosures, along with the other admittedly very circumstantial information I have posted.

As for Uruguay - well who knows what really went on behind the scenes. Maybe I'm more cynical than Marcelo, but bearing in mind the existing connections between Montevideo and the Falkland Islands Company I wouldn't be surprised if atitudes expressed in public decried a rather different reality behind the scenes, as along with Pinochet Uruguay would have more to gain than lose if the Argetine junta fell. Of course RN warships would not be allowed to refuel in Montevideo harbour. But there was no ban as far as I'm aware on the British merchant navy.

[marcelo_malara]

Reading the AWACS article in wiki, I noticed that the radar range is about 375 km (basically the distance to the horizon from 35.000 ft) for low flying aircrat and 560 km to high flying ones. They would have to be "stationed" very close to the islands to be of any utility (in fact patrolling just outside the east coast to give a reasonably early early warning of a low altitude attack), that would mean a long fly from anywhere they came, with air refuelling, and high risk of being detected.

[Bgile]

The AWACS would probably be immediately detected for what it was, since the radar could be picked up on Argentine ESM gear from a very long range away, probably from the mainland.

[marcelo_malara]

I discover today that Belgrano´s max speed was 18 kt, limited because of boilers and reduction gear condition. She was scheduled for a two month refit in March when she was called to duty. Don´t believe that two months would restore her to 30 kt condition, but sending an 18 kt cruiser to war is plainly criminal. May be the rest of the old fleet was in a similar state.

[RF]

Personally I regard the whole conflict as criminal, in the sense that Galteri started a war he had no chance of winning and that it was his own people that had to pay the price. Like Hitler over the invasion of Poland, Galteri thought Britain wouldn't fight because its leaders were spineless - and Galteri thought Thatcher would be spineless because she was a woman....
But unlike Hitler Galteri didn't have the resources or armed forces to fight an all out war when Britain did choose to fight.

It could have been so different if Galteri had:

1) Stabilised his countries economy the way Pinochet did in Chile (I make no judgement here about the rights and wrongs involved in pursuing such policies)

2) Wait for HMS Endurance to be decommissioned

3) Re-equip all the armed forces for a modern war, including stockpiling Exocet missiles and the planes and batteries needed to fire them, replace VDM with a front line carrier equal to any carrier in the RN or US Navy, upgrade the Belgrano into a proper missile carrying fast cruiser

4) Collaborate with Saddam Hussein so as to be ready to strike at the same time Kuwait was invaded

5) Properly plan a campaign of active defense for the Falklands once seized. This would include commando units to strike at military targets in Britain itself.

6) Attempt to obtain a nuclear weapon, or at least give the impression of having them.


In other words, do the job properly, as a military professional.

[RF]

With regards to the AWAC's matter I presume that Alexander Haig is still alive and able to be asked for a definitive answer on this, as obviously we won't be able to question the late Ronald Reagan.

[Bgile]

Just how would you propose Argentina go about acquiring a 95,000 ton super carrier?

Your ideas seem rather grandiose to me and not at all possible under the circumstances, considering that he started the war when he did to get people's minds off the other problems he created.

[marcelo_malara]

Just how would you propose Argentina go about acquiring a 95,000 ton super carrier?

It is even out of the European powers reach, there is just one country (or two with China) that can afford it.

[RF]

My suggested strategy is extremely grandiose and expensive, quite apart from the fact it assumes no other country would notice what was going on. Rather like Hitler's naval Z Plan. That last sentence in my post was made tongue in cheek.

But it would represent the only realistic chance Argentina would have of seizing the islands by force and winning the subsequent conflict. I think that unless the Argentine could find a leader that could turn the country into something approaching a superpower any sane leader would realise it was an impossible goal.
As I am British anyway I am hardly likely to give the Argentines (not even Marcelo!) practical advice on how to they should get hold of the Falklands.....

[RF]

Just how would you propose Argentina go about acquiring a 95,000 ton super carrier?

It is even out of the European powers reach, there is just one country (or two with China) that can afford it.

And possibly Russia.

[paul mercer]

I can imagine some satellite photo support, but AWACS? Where did you get this information?

The BBC in Britain on one of the digital channels ran a series of programmes last year marking the 25th anniversary of the invasion of the Falklands. This included a dramatic re-enactment of the actual invasion events, involving detailed interviews with Governor Rex Hunt, Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, Foreign Secretary Francis Pym, Defence Secretary Lord Carrington and in particular US Secretary of State Alexander Haig.
It was stated that as part of the close relationship between Thatcher and Reagen the US President felt constrained to help the British, particulary as the Argentine action was seen as unprovoked naked aggression. Initially Haig was sent on a ''shuttle'' between London and Buenos Aires to try to negotiate a settlement, using Pym as his British contact and the three man junta representing the Argentine military.
According to Haig's account he was frustrated by the intransigent atitude of the junta, which he, Haig, initially saw as the obstacle to a political settlement. In the meantime Thatcher was furious that Pym apparently had gone behind her back in attemting to negotiate through Haig and came close to sacking him. Thatcher then went direct to Reagen asking for US covert assistance for a British military attempt to retake the Falklands.
Haig then had a third meeting with Galtieri, Lami Dozo and Aneya in which he told them that they had only one chance now to reach a peaceful settlement. They would not budge saying the British would not fight over the Malvinas. Haig told them bluntly that the British would fight, the British would prevail and that consequently the junta would fall.
After the failure of the Haig mission Reagen telephoned Galtieri, who refused to speak to him. This was described by military observers commenting as a monumental blunder, as ''you do not ignore and snub the President of the United States, even if you are a head of state yourself.'' Angry at the rebuff Reagen then telephoned Thatcher and said the US would be prepared to help the British, but that they must not be seen to do so openly in order not to prejudice US relations with Mexico, Brazil and particulary Chile. It was then agreed over the telephone that the US would deploy an AWAC's aircraft over the south-west arc of the Atlantic, with the US Navy sending direct reports to the British naval Task Force Commander, Admiral Woodward, through the communications link on Ascension Island. It was then stated by a BBC commentator that the AWAC's were used until the retaking of Port Stanley.

Incidently this TV programme also mentioned, without going into detail, the role of GCHQ in Cheltenham, England in breaking into Argetine military communications.

Bgile, I hope this answers your query.

Read a book some time ago called 'Falklands, the secret plot' , in it Haig after listening to Galtieri, is reputed to have have said 'General, the British are going to kick s---- out of your troops! Also rumoured is that Regan said that 'If the British had asked us for a carrier, we would have given them one' Whether either is true I don't know, but it shows the very close ties between President Regan and Prime Minister Thatcher. One senario that might be interesting is the Belgrano v a refurbished and updated HMS Belfast - what do you chaps think?