|
|
|
Subject:
RE:French in Falkland
Phaid
5/2/2005 4:59:35 AM
|
| We could have deployed up to 40 crusader and more likely 30 Crusader (17 years old)
That's completely wrong. Aeronavale originally received 42 Crusaders; by 1982, 13 of them had been destroyed in accidents, so there were only 29 left in existence at all, and not all of those were operational. And as I said, there was only one Flotille of Crusaders operating in 1982, Flotille 12F, with 12 aircraft. 14F had converted to Super Etendard in 1979. The attrition rate and maintenance was too high to keep even two squadrons of 10 aircraft each operational.
Crusader were as good as F4E (delivered after 1965 with best available radar then improved)and enough good agaisnt Argentine aircraft without ECM and jammers.
Crusaders don't compare well at all to carrier-based F-4 models available in 1982. F-4s had longer range, better radar, and 4 IRM + 4 RHM and were capable of BVR. Sure, the Crusader was possibly a better dogfighter than the Phantom, but in terms of combat persistence and every other factor it is inferior. And the APQ-104 on Crusaders doesn't compare at all to the radar of Phantoms in 1982.
Superetendard were able to perform CAP against A4 or Dagger loaded with bombs or to refuel in flight Crusader to extend their CAP.
The air to air refueling capability of the SE's is an advantage compared to the British. That's about all the SE's would have provided, though it is significant. The problem is that there would not have been enough Crusaders. Pressing Super Etendards into service as CAP might have been possible, but they would have been far inferior to the Sea Harriers.
And at this time we had gun able to intercept seaskimmer for almost our our ships unless UK (100 mm Ml 68 antiaircraft gun +NAJIR and proximity fuze shell).Only few ship with seawolf had a antimissile capacity.
The ability to intercept sea skimmers is fine, but historically wouldn't have been that significant. Only two British ships were sunk by Exocets - one was a Type 42 destroyer, the other the Atlantic Conveyor container ship. All of the other British losses were caused by bomb attacks by low flying aircraft. British anti-air gunnery was excellent, and accounted for one Dagger and about 10 skyhawks, as well as several other aircraft.
Nonetheless, the vast majority of total Argentine losses (22 Skyhawk, 2 Mirage, 11 Dagger, 2 Canberra, various other aircraft -- the FAA lost 41% of its strength during the Falklands war!) were caused by Sea Harriers.
At this time French navy had 2 carriers, 7 AA frigate (3 masurca and 4 SM1MR), 15 ASW frigates (all with towed LF sonar), 10 corvettes, 17 SSK, 2 SSN (Rubis and Saphir), 5 SSBN, 8 amphibious ships (1 LPH, 3LSD, 4 4000 tons LST), 6 oiler , 4 resplenishment ships etc...crewed by 30000 men (vs 12500 today!)
The RN Task Force consisted of:
2 aircraft carriers
2 LPD
5 LSL
8 destroyers
9 AAW frigates
6 ASW frigates
1 ice patrol ship
2 patrol boats
4 SSN
1 SS
3 survey vessels
10 replenishment tankers
5 replenishment supply ships
1 helicopter support ship
2 auxiliary service vessels (tug and salvage ships
3 civilian passenger liners
6 civilian RO-RO ferries
2 large civilian container ships
We could not only have done Falkland but in a quicker way. In fact with such a deterrent Argentine would not have dared to take Falkland probably.
The facts don't support that conclusion. In order to succeed, the Task Force retaking the islands has to be able to protect its landing ships and troops from Argentine air attack. This requires the task force to either have aircraft with sufficient range and in sufficient numbers to maintain CAP over the islands while keeping its carriers out of range of Argentine aircraft, or to have enough fighters to provide CAP for both itself and the islands.
At the very best, the French navy could possibly have accomplished the same mission, but the conditions in the South Atlantic would have made it much more difficult for the French to operate their aircraft than it did for the British. The French CVs would not have been able to sortie aircraft as often as the RN, they would only have about half as many dedicated fighters as the British, and they don't have the option to do things like operate the aircraft from the islands as the British were able to do their Harriers once they had landed. |
| |
|
|
|
