Sorry SIndher but there are a number of things that you have overlooked in your "plans" for retaking the Falklands.
Originally Posted by Sindher
1. Task force sails south, SSN's arrive in advance inserting Special forces on to the Falklands and into Argentina. The SSN's cut off all shipping to the islands by sea. No re-supply and no warships would survive when faced with British SSN's hunting them.
SSN's armed with Tomahawk land attack missiles will disable the airports and airbases at Mount Pleasant (Falklands) and the Argentine air bases in the south, limiting Argentine air forces to using bases further north and further inland. Special Forces provide support in this mission and also RN Frigates provide support for the SSN's in sea denial.
Whilst it is true that Britain's Nuclear powered submarines can provide a defensive screen against any vessels present, the idea that missile attacks on the Argentinian Mainland are a possibility is absolutely implausible. The UK does not have the support of America (granted we didn't exactly in the last war considering how unhelpful they were at times), and has no major allies in this conflict. If we start shooting at Argentina, that will escalate the conflict immeasurably. I wonder how popular and international opinion will sway when we hit a building containing civilians on the airbase?
Attacking Airbases on the mainland is not feasible, not even close. We would be crucified internationally.
Originally Posted by Sindher
2. With Argentine re-supply is now limited to air transport only until the Type 45 Destroyers arrive to take control of Air Defence. When these arrive on station this will end. No Argentine transport aircraft or fighter jets have the ability to successfully engage and destroy a Type 45. Type 45 covers an area of 400 square miles.
Provided some sort of transport of troops is possible to the Falklands, Argentina will put as many men on them, and dig in. So, the Argentinians have air control (no bombing bases on the mainland) and ground control for the moment.
Originally Posted by Sindher
3. After successfully disabling Argentine air bases, successfully defending access from the sea, and successfully defending the airspace over the islands and utilising the helicopter AWACS for early warning where needed the RN is now in a position to secure a beach head and land ground forces.
The UK therefor will be fighting whatever size force the Argentine have landed on the islands.
(Ignoring the disabling Argentina air bases)
Now, depending on how the conflict has actually progressed, this is partially feasible. IF Argentina doesn't go all in with thousands of troops, the full force of their (allbeit ageing) air force and whatever naval support they can offer (without it being blown up), then MAYBE there would be a chance that with the air defence shield of the T45s and the sea shield of the nuclear submarines, a landing could be foced.
Originally Posted by Sindher
4. RN ships, submarines, apache gunships and special forces begin to assail and bombard the Argentine forces on the islands whilst recconnaisance will pinpoint a suitable landing area for ground forces.
Potentially possible, apart from probably the Apache bit. Rolling hills and hundreds of islands, even the Taliban managed to down a Chinook and that was on less favourable terms.
Originally Posted by Sindher
5. Amphibious assault begins
Originally Posted by Sindher
6. Superior armed, trained and motivated British troops gradually inflict defeat upon defeat on the Argentines until the inevitable surrender.
In your scenario (which I deem implausible), this all sounds very good. But you have thought nothing about international opinion, or pressure in this. The fact is, once the argentinians have already TAKEN the Falkland islands, every country in the UN will be pressing for peace and talks to open. There will be no Backers for Britain going to war.
Every day that a task force sails south, every civilian death and every action that is fought will resolve more and more countries to call for peace. It isn't so simple as to turn around and say "screw them", this is international politics, not a playground popularity contest.
With Subs and T45s defending a task force and launching an assault based on that defence it would all be great. But without carrier bourne aircraft support, the risks are far too great. You can't risk Billion Pound Destroyers, and expensive subs without the aircraft support to back them up. As I have said, it SOUNDS great, but the risks are huge, and the price of failure is just 1 T45. Our resolve can harden all it wants at the loss of ships and troops, but we simply don't have the ships to contribute to a prolonged conflict.
