Falklands War, 1982, Thread

Status
Not open for further replies.

kwaigonegin

Colonel
I'm not sure where that 80M came from because in 1982 the exchange rate was ridiculous in Argentina so peso may not make sense either.. unless the modern day press took liberty in doing the exchange rates themselves instead of quoting verbatim
 

b787

Captain
$80million? At today's prices a Sea Harrier would barely be $20million and back in 1982 significantly less, closer to $5million.
first we are going to do an analysis and ask some questions.

Can AAA down a SeaHarrier? did it happen in the Falklands?


Answer is yes, it is acknowledged by both British and Argentine sources AAA downed Harriers.

Thus the Argument basically is could an Argentine sailor down a Harrier from a boat with AAA?
The answer is a yes he could.


Do British never lie?
Answer is not, they claim to be honest and free but they lie.


The argument is the Harrier was beatable by AAA and the author while might make a bad estimation of the price of a Harrier, this does not mean AAA can not down a Harrier from a boat
 

b787

Captain
Exactly Those were flight demonstrators and Preproduction prototypes, far from the production versions. but yeah overall That number is way off.
I think B787 did not bother to translate the article and just used google translate. Author of the Article is sloppy and writes "80 millones de dólares" so google translate gives a literal translation.
Generally a Peso is .10 of an American dollar. So 8 Million Dollars becomes 80 million Peso.
the price estimation is wrong, is not the google translation, i speak Spanish well and i read it without translator, i did the google translation for you, those who do not speak it
 

b787

Captain
Well the two YAV-8B prototypes were flying back then, but they were converted from first generation AV-8As (basically Harrier GR1s), the first flew in 1978 and the second in 79, and the first four development aircraft flew in 1981. They were a long way from entering frontline service though, the first frontline USMC sqn VMA-331 standing up in 1985.
Focusing in the price quotation is a way of looking the other way around.
The Harrier while a great aircraft in terms of production success, has several flaws, specially the early versions.

Why Argentina did not buy Harriers in 1969? the answer is the Harrier was not better of an offer than the A-4 Skyhawk.
The Harrier has several compromises as an aircraft, first it has a small wing to allow lower drag at vertical take offs and landings.

Its wing has anhedral, a feature of cargo aircraft C-5, C-141, An-124/An-225, Il-76 and so on, this reduces roll.

As a result the harrier is not agile.

It is small thus it carries little fuel.
while this is a cartoon the harrier has small wings it is fat, has huge air intakes,
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

these are gunsights from RAAF Mirage IIIs showing the the Harrier was beatable by pure aerodynamics by the Mirage III, in fact these are from 1983, why send Harriers to Australia in 1983 if in 1982 it claims it did not have air to air losses?
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Are there claims of Mirage III pilots that downed Harriers?
yes there are.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

the AIM-9L represented a great feature of the Harriers, but the Harrier did not carry many

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


AIM-9L does not have a kill rate of 100% not even Mirage IIIs in the Falklands, Gustavo Garcia Cuerva was a pilot who faced Harriers and was not downed by the Harriers in his Mirage III.

So the Claim the Harrier was super is a bit of Propaganda, there are versions Cuerva managed to down one Harrier and other pilots claim they downed Harriers too, plus England claims accidents were a big reason for loses while at the same time their carriers were not attacked.:rolleyes:
 
Last edited:

b787

Captain
Captain Guillermo Donadille: "When we were a minute from the target, which were the English ships in San Carlos, my number 3, Senn, located on the left, I shout on the radio: 'Atento, a plane to the right ! 'I fixed and I actually see a plane a little further away and flying almost on our course.

Now it turns out that the curious thing about the situation -but this I only learned later-is that Senn was pointing me to another plane that was approaching a little in front and the one I see was a second device that was more lateral.

Donadille admits that at first it thought that it was an Argentine Skyhawk, since there was little light and also it drizzled. But when the Sea Harrier pilot saw Senn and started to turn to attack him there was no longer any doubt, he was an enemy.

Captain Guillermo Donadille: "Then I order the squadron to drop all the bombs and the extra tanks, because with all that paraphernalia you can not turn fast enough to try some defensive maneuver against the agile English planes, so that I order to eject the charges And face the Harriers. "

Senn maneuvered to face the one who was heading towards him but did not see the other Sea Harrier, to the right of the head of the CAP, who was positioned to shoot a missile ("welding the pipe" in the Argentine pilot jargon).

Captain Guillermo Donadille: "Although the Harrier was out of range of the 30-mm guns of my plane, the only weapon we had to deal with, that is to say we were more than 700 meters, To shoot with the idea that, as the fire of the two guns illuminates the whole lower part of the fuselage, the British saw me and did not continue with his attack on the inadvertent Senn.

He actually sees me because he immediately leaves it to Senn, reverses and stings to the ground. I as best I could I inverted my plane to where the English would supposedly happen, all this about 100 meters from the ground, and I start to shoot, without aim, I aimed the plane and I threw where I imagined that it would happen ... and apparently Passed by. I almost swallowed the ground to follow him but the Harrier went through the 'jet' of shells. We passed so low that at one point I thought the British pilot had crashed.

I managed to get out of that risky situation, but only to find Senn, who was closing like a madman, so I had to revert or if we both collided. But I passed, I fitted the plane and in that moment they hit me a missile1 and I have to eject myself. "

A few seconds later the other two members of the squadron -Senn and Piuma- were shot down by the Sea Harriers, but all were successfully ejected and were later recovered by Argentine ground forces in the Great Malvina2 and taken to Port Howard.

According to the British version, Donadille and his two companions were shot down by two Sea Harriers FRS.1 of the No. 801 Sqdn flown by Nigel D. "Sharkey" Ward and Steve R. Thomas. According to this same version, the pilot who was shot by Donadille was Ward, who was able to dodge the blast of cannon. Nigel Ward shot down Senn and Thomas did the same with Donadille and Piuma with their AIM-9L missiles.

This is not in accord with what the Argentines observed: according to the radar of Puerto Argentino3 not less than five Sea Harriers intercepted the three Daggers of the squadron4 «Mouse». Moreover, a ground-based observation post near the battle site had seen a Harrier emerge dropping black smoke at about 15:00 (aerial combat hour). An Argentine researcher, Rubén Oscar Moro, 5 contacted British sources to learn of British royal losses on airplanes and helicopters. These sources gave him the information (according to him his data are 100% reliable) but in return he asked for anonymity. In August 1984 these sources confirmed that the Sea Harrier damaged by Captain Donadille was manned by the Lieutenant Commander Harry Trent, who, after moving about 30 kms from the air combat site, was forced to eject and was rescued by a Sea Helicopter King.


Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
 

Obi Wan Russell

Jedi Master
VIP Professional
There are certainly claims that Harriers were downed by Mirages in 82, but none are substantiated. The six Sea Harriers and three GR3s lost in the war were all accounted for by accidents or ground fire. Two Sea Harriers collided in thick fog shortly after take off, killing both pilots. A third was lost off the deck of Invincible when she turned hard to starboard at speed and the aircraft which was lined up for take off, rolled off the wet deck to port. The pilot ejected safely Tree more SHARs fell to Argentine AA fire whilst on bombing runs.

The Sea Harrier is actually very nimble at medium and low altitudes, whilst the Mirage excels at higher altitudes. In the early days of the conflict the Mirages attempted to draw the SHARs into combat, but neither would play the others game. The Mirages stayed at high altitude, the SHARs at medium altitude, and both sides broke off after a short while.

Much is made of the AIM-9L version of the Sidewinder missile, released to the Task Force from NATO stocks. Previously the Sea Harriers had been armed with the AIM-9G version, which had a narrower 'engagement cone'. The Navy Pilots, most of whom had served tours on the Phantom prior to converting to the SHAR had trained to use the '9G for many years, and it required a 'stern chase' to acquire it's target. Although the '9L had an 'all aspect' engagement capability, meaning it could be fired at a target head-on, all the missiles were launched from the stern quarter as the pilots had been trained to do. dhm2120.jpg Incidentally, the Harrier wing was, according to it's chief designer, 'inspired' by the wing of the A-4 Skyhawk! Which preceded the Harrier by about five years...
 

b787

Captain
There are certainly claims that Harriers were downed by Mirages in 82, but none are substantiated.

.
what is none are substantiated? answer a one sided version, in few words, propaganda war.

The Mirage as this picture shows overpowered the Mirage with a kill rate of 4:1 in favor of the Mirage in mock combat

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

So in reality, in aerodynamics the Harrier with those small wings are not better as you claim, in 1983 the RAAF Mirage III pilots defeated the same Harrier pilots of 1982 in mock combat, why? the Mirage had only a single disadvantage against the Harrier in 1982, the AIM-9L was superior allowing frontal attacks.

Beyond that a Harrier once depleted of its AIM-9Ls as in the case of Cuerva, was not better as you claim, the British claim accidents, as the one you claim by the way that accident seems your pilots were not good flyers.The reality is while is believe the Harrier had the edge in weapons. it only carry 2 AIM-9Ls because it needed external fuel tanks as Cuerva`s combat shows, both fighters were short ranged in the operations, and the AIM-9Ls have no kill probability of 100%.

Here is Martin Balza, one of the Argentine commanders in 1982, he claims 12 aircraft downed by the air force of Argentina, so your none are substantiated, is only one sided version that has no proof the Harrier was so good
 
Last edited:

b787

Captain
Here is Martin Balza, one of the Argentine commanders in 1982, he claims 12 aircraft downed by the air force of Argentina, so your none are substantiated, is only one sided version that has no proof the Harrier was so good
here my apologies Martin Balza claims at least 12-14 British Harrier and sea Harrier aircraft downed by the AAA of Argentina in 1982 during the Falklands/Malvinas war
and it is in this video at minute 12:00

 

b787

Captain
I'm sure the videos are great but I don't understand Spanish.:(;)
The video is of one of the main Argentine Officials who fought in the Malvinas/Falklans war, he says Argentina was doomed from the beginning, their weapons were inferior, their military strategy was at the best improvised , however he says their AAA was really good, downing 12 to 14 Harriers.
Here you have an Argentine news paper of 5th May 1982, it says 3 Harriers attacked base Condor and 2 Harriers were downed, it further says Britain only admitted one Harrier
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

He also says that there were 3 main Argentine mistakes, one they thought the landings were going to be in the south as this Argentine newspaper from 1982 depicts

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


the other 2 were they did not work on the airport airstrips to allow A-4s and Mirage III to operate from Malvinas/Falklands and the amy did not cordinate well the defense for example the navy did not mine the channel between the Islands.

He said he spoke with the British General Moore after the war. Moore was afraid of the A-4 Skyhawks because they were everywhere.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top