My friend read history, good clue read the History of battles in South America between Spain and England, when you read that you can tell me if you have a free press, you say you have, well i laugh about it.
I didn't say we had a 'Free' Press, I was just saying they most certainly were not then and are definitely not now, organs of state. They do not repeat whatever line the Government feeds them, they are much more likely to criticise. That line sells more papers. They are certainly freer than many Nations press, and if a carrier had been attacked they would have jumped at the chance to be the first to report it.
The Falklands showed against Tu-22M your forces would had not survived.
I never said they'd do well against Backfire Bombers, I said they were tailored against the Soviet Bombers of their era, i.e. Bears and Badgers. The Backfire was a newer threat than them, and as already stated the RN was stuck with obsolete weapons and sensors on many of it's ships Much of the RN pre-dated the Backfire and only the newest ships such as the Type 22 Frigates were at least designed with such threats in mind. In 1982 only three of the first four T22s were in service and only two of them sailed with the Task Force. Sea Wolf was in short supply back then simply because it was new.
Le us compare
Argentina had only 5 Exocet, they made you a lot of Damaged, to the fact your Prince Andrew was only allowed to accept he was on the HMS Invincible under missile attack in 2011, you tried to concealed in 1982.
Argentina at the time had received 5 AM39 Air Launched Exocets and 5 Super Etendards, part of an order for 14 of each. The remaining aircraft and missiles were embargoed in France until after the war. Argentina already had a larger number of MM38 Ship Launched Exocets in service mounted on various Destroyers and frigates. These missiles could not be converted to Air Launching, but a pair of MM38s were removed from a Frigate damaged earlier in the war (one of the A69s I believe) and mounted on a Semi trailer. This formed a makeshift shore defence battery that was used late in the war to attack HMS Glamorgan, the Missile striking her helicopter hangar aft as she was turning away, destroying her Wessex mk3 and killing everyone in the hangar This was the last actual Exocet attack of the war, so the final score is either six or seven missiles launched, as there is still debate about whether one or two missiles were launched at Glamorgan. \the ship survived the attack and continued in service with the Chilean Navy for many years afterwards.
When recounting events of the war, many times you'll hear crewmen state they heard the announcement 'Air Warning Red' or similar and the presumption was often that the attack would be Etendards with Exocets. An attack on any ship of the carrier battle group would be considered an attack on all of them, that's the whole point of operating as a carrier battle group, mutual defence. When the aircraft attacked, they turned out to be Skyhawks (the Etendards don't close to visual range, they launch the missiles at a range of between 20-30 miles then turn back), and the Skyhawks had little choice but to attack the first ship they see.
The pilots of the AAF* were very highly trained, very professional, very brave. This has NEVER been disputed by anyone on the UK side. The Sea Harrier pilots when interviewed often praised their opposite numbers both during and after the conflict. However the AAF's pilots were trained in Land attack missions, and were unfamiliar in the tactics of attacking modern warships at sea, which was the province of the Argentine Navy's Air Arm. The latter pilots did apparently offer the benefit of their training and experience to their Air Force colleagues, who pressed home their attacks very bravely. However in the heat of battle when flying at several hundred knots just above the sea and having a matter of seconds to identify and attack a warship manoeuvring hard, belching thick black smoke and firing back and especially as the attack was on the rear quarter, misidentification is entirely understandable. The Facts remain, Invincible was not directly attacked, she was not damaged, HMS Avenger WAS attacked but escaped serious injury.
How many Tu-22Ms the Soviets had?
At least 100 in 1982, now the A-4s were they armed with AAMs? no all argentine A-4s could only attack but with unguided weapons and the airgun.
So your Harrier pilots were hunting aircraft without AAMs and even in that situation, the A-4s showed excellent professionalism.
Professionalism of the AAF pilots is not and has never been in dispute as stated above. Any Fighter or Fighter-bomber pilot will tell you if you are in a fight, and it is unfair against you for whatever reason, you run away to fight another day. Most Fighter pilots will tell you they are not chivalrous Knights duelling with each other. They are back stabbing assassins who pride themselves on creeping up unseen on their prey and killing them before they are seen. That's just the nature of the game. The F-35 family and the F-22, are they designed to fight fairly or are they designed to win? My Brother served on RN Submarines in the 80s and 90s. He said there are only two types of ship, the submarine you are on, and all the rest are targets. Sharkey Ward, CO of 801NAS on board HMS Invincible in 1982 told his pilots on the way south after press reports highlighted the disparity in numbers (20 Sea Harriers facing around 200 Argentine Combat aircraft of various types) said: "We are not Outnumbered, We are in a Target-Rich Environment".
Did your Harriers stop the Argentine air refuelling operations? no you never did it, never ever, it means long range attackers like Tu-22Ms would had destroyed your carriers easily.
The two Hercules Tanker aircraft of the AAF were high priority targets, but as we lacked AEW for fighter direction and the Tankers stayed outside the range of ship based radars of the Task Force (sensibly) they were never intercepted.
If the Soviet Union/Warsaw pact had launched attacks in the North Atlantic, they would not have been facing the RN alone, the would have been facing all the NATO Navies, including the USN. The Backfires would have been detected by Hawkeyes and intercepted by Tomcats. The Sea Harriers would have formed another ring of defensive aircraft for them to penetrate and after that any survivors would come up against the area defence SAMs of the combined fleets. In the unlikely event all 100 Backfires could be launched in such a combined attack their numbers would be thinned out at every stage, the Tomcats, the Sea Harriers, the Standard SAMs, Sea Dart, Sea Sparrow, Sea Wolf and Phalanx. Such an attack would have a high mortality rate for the attackers.
To give a detail, a Tu-22M could fire its 600km range missiles at longer range that the Etendards
Yes a capable aircraft. With no means to counter a Tomcat directed by a Hawkeye, or even a well directed pair of Sea Harriers. It can't outrun a Sidewinder missile, or a Sparrow, or a Poenix.
You plead to the Frenchies not to deliver the extra exocet because you knew 20 Exocet would had destroyed your fleet.
Yes. that's what allies do for you in wartime. Exocet was a real threat, nobody has tried to deny that. Of the Exocets launched, usually two at a time, the failure rate was about 50%. Two were launched at HMS Sheffield. One hit and failed to explode, which didn't matter as the rocket motor ignited a lot of flammable material within the ship. The second missile is believed to have been shot down by another frigate (or at least claimed to have been). It is certain it did not hit anything other than the Ocean. The first missile's failure to detonate was probably a result of the Argentine Navy's armourers being unfamiliar with the missile, which they had only received a few months earlier and were not fully trained up in it's use. This only emphasises the importance of training for war tasks, not a lack of bravery on anyone's part.
*For Clarity as this is an English Language forum, I use AAF as shorthand for the Argentine Air Force, which in Spanish would be referred to as the FAA/ Fuerza Area Argentina, so as to avoid confusion with the Royal Navy's Fleet Air Arm/FAA.
