Alistair Gunn wrote:

Guy alcala twisted the electrons to say:
The runway has long since been shortened and narrowed, to
3,013' x 63' (from 4,100' x 150' pre-war, extended to 6,100' x 150' in
the immediate aftermath, until RAF Mt. Pleasant was opened in 1995),
presumably to make it less useful in a war while still allowing the
FIGAS Islanders to land at Stanley.

One wonders if someone thought to include the odd piece of explosive
under what's left of the runway - "just in case" you understand ...

You might just still be able to land a Herc there under good conditions, by
day. Per AFPAM 10-1403, the minimum size runway for a C-130 in assualt
operations is 3,000' x 60'. At night on a wet runway, it would be extremely
dicey, although NVGs and a good ILS (or better yet ILS-quality GPS) approach
might make it possible. At the moment, there's only an NDB there, so the AAF
would need to bring ILS equipment with them.

Personally, I'd think that RAF Mt. Pleasant would have had appropriate
cavities designed in under the runway, but the problem would be getting
enough warning time to place the explosives. I assume that they wouldn't
normally be in situ, but I leave it up to Kevin Brooks or anyone else with
military engineering experience to say what the practice would be. It just
strikes me as breaking all sorts of safety regs, especially as Mt. Pleasant
is the sole APOE for external flights, the civilian LanChile flights from
Punta Arenas as well as the RAF TriStars from Brize Norton (via Ascension).
It is an interesting point, though. Having two airstrips nominally
compatible with Hercs, separated by 30 miles and with only a Company Group to
defend both of them, seems like a really bad idea, especially as the Military
Command and the Government are separated the same way. If they can't put
Stanley out of service (and are willing to do so, accepting that it could be
a false alarm), then the only reasonable action is to abandon it and just
defend Mt. Pleasant, in hopes that reinforcements can arrive from the UK in
time. But they'd pretty much have to be paras, because even if the Argentine
Army/Marines can't take Mt. Pleasant before the transports (let's assume
C-17s) arrive, they can certainly position soldiers with MANPADS, if not more
sophisticated systems, on all likely approach paths.

It's an interesting question as to just how Argentina would go about
attacking the Falklands now. I think their best bet would be to land SF by
sub, and then drop their sole Parachute battalion ("Regiment" in the
Ejercito) near/around one of the airfields, probably Stanley, and then
(assuming they've captured the runway in usable condition) bring in at least
one more battalion, or at least some heavy weapons/vehicles, by air. If they
could manage a simultaneous (with the para battalion) landing of a Marine
battalion by helo/landing craft, that would certainly be worthwhile. They're
in a lot worse shape now as far as amphibious ops than they were in 1982, as
they lack an LST/LVTPs, don't have a carrier, and are extremely limited in
ships with medium helo spots (and helo transport capability). They can move
LCVPs to the Falklands on one of the three civil transports they have under
charter, but they're hardly ideal as troop transports. Still, if the trip is
fairly short (i.e., from one of the nearby mainland ports), it might be
doable.

Afterall, it was bad enough the RAF having to go round the Vulcan
preservation groups borrowing pieces of equipment (mostly relating to the
refuelling probe) - if Argentina has another go, they'd have to go and
borrow entire Vulcans! grins

I think a GR.4 with Enhanced Paveway (LGB/GPS/INS) would do the job just
fine, although the crew would be getting more than a little antsy by the time
they finally landed back at Ascension;-) And the RN SSNs have Tomahawk now,
although I can't remember if they've got any unitary warheads or just the
bomblets.

Guy