Falklands War, 1982, Thread

[b787]

Additional info from my previous post for my Friend B787:

Further, the threat of war with Chile over the Beagle crisis meant that many of Argentina’s best units (volunteer army) were unavailable to serve in the Falkland/Malvinas. So instead of forces trained for cold wet climates in remote areas, units from northern, tropical Argentina were sent to the islands. Further, because of a lack foresight to move eqipment, virtually all troops were flown into the Falkland/Malvinas. This meant that while large numbers of troop units were on hand, very few of those units had the vehicles, clothing and equipment they needed. In essence, it was an unbalanced force. Large numbers of infantrymen without transport or heavy supporting arms are almost more a liability than an effective combat force. This is because they are not trained as infantry, but as mobile forces. Without the element of mobility these troops are now static and cannot be fully utilized.

Mirage Chile is not your enemy, Chile is only a result of an oligarchy that was fighting your oligarchy even had a same origin.


Similar to feudal Europe after the fall of the roman empire, Spain's vice royalties divided in small kingdoms.
Argentina, Uruguay, Paraguay should be one country, it was like that in the colonial times, Chile is not enemy of Argentina, but greed and external forces and sheer lack of geopolitical understanding has kept Argentina and Chile separated. but a united south America is the first step for your freedom, just look at Mexico now, Trump has brought back our history of 1848 between Mexico and the US, if you do not see, we are the Spanish world you will never understand our present, history has the roots of our current conflicts

 

[FORBIN]

Canberrra and a Leander


A County firing a Sea Slug

 

[Obi Wan Russell]

All air to air engagements in the Falklands were stern chase pursuits. The all-aspect capability of the '9L was never used, simply because the Sea Harrier Pilots were for the most part former Phantom pilots trained to use the AIM-9G, with which the Sea Harrier had also been armed from it's introduction up to the start of the War.

On paper the Harrier family do appear to have a lower turn rate, but they can also 'cheat' They have vectored thrust, which can be used in flight to either evade an enemy engaging them from astern or dramatically increase the angle of attack beyond the normal flight envelope. Something the F/A-22 quite proudly boasts it can do, and Harriers have been doing it since the 1970s. In the Falklands though, 'VIFF-ing' (Vectoring In Forward Flight) was not used as at no time did any Argentine aircraft manage to successfully dogfight with a Sea Harrier.

In fact, after the first few tentative encounters at the start of May, when the Mirages refused to come down from high level and the Sea Harriers refused to climb from medium level, the Argentine Air Force apparently gave up on winning the air war, which was a tactical error on their part.

 

[b787]

All air to air engagements in the Falklands were stern chase pursuits. The all-aspect capability of the '9L was never used, simply because the Sea Harrier Pilots were for the most part former Phantom pilots trained to use the AIM-9G, with which the Sea Harrier had also been armed from it's introduction up to the start of the War.

On paper the Harrier family do appear to have a lower turn rate, but they can also 'cheat' They have vectored thrust, which can be used in flight to either evade an enemy engaging them from astern or dramatically increase the angle of attack beyond the normal flight envelope. Something the F/A-22 quite proudly boasts it can do, and Harriers have been doing it since the 1970s. In the Falklands though, 'VIFF-ing' (Vectoring In Forward Flight) was not used as at no time did any Argentine aircraft manage to successfully dogfight with a Sea Harrier.

In fact, after the first few tentative encounters at the start of May, when the Mirages refused to come down from high level and the Sea Harriers refused to climb from medium level, the Argentine Air Force apparently gave up on winning the air war, which was a tactical error on their part.

Do you understand what is all aspect?

In 1971, the USAF and U.S. Navy agreed to jointly develop the AIM-9L, a vastly improved Sidewinder based on the AIM-9H. Major development goals were ALASCA (All-Aspect Capability) and effective use against violently manoeuvering and high-speed targets at all ranges. The AIM-9L had new long-span pointed double-delta canards, a modified MK 36 solid-fuel rocket motor (MODs 8 through 11), and a new AN/DSQ-29 solid-state guidance and control section. Additional improvements include a completely new Argon-cooled Indium Antimonide (InSb) seeker, a DSU-15/B AOTD (Active Optical Target Detector) laser proximity fuze, and an improved 9.4 kg (20.8 lb) WDU-17/B annular blast-fragmentation warhead. All AIM-9L features resulted in a vastly improved missile which could acquire targets at all aspects, and had a much improved tracking, manoeuvering, terminal homing, and killing performance. Production started in 1978, and more than 16000 AIM-9Ls have been built by Philco-Ford, Raytheon, BGT (Germany), and Mitsubishi (Japan). The AIM-9L was used very successfully by the Royal Navy in the Falklands War during 1982.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

All aspect is from any side of the target, so you simply do not understand why the AIM-9L is much better than the Shafrir or Magic.


The Nesher needed to get behind the Harrier at 6 o clock position, same the Mirage III.

Neshers and Skyhawk did not have radar, the Skyhawk did not even use AAMs.


The Harrier could attack from any angle at the Mirage III.


In 1982 only Russia had a better missile, the AA-11 on MiG-29s and late AA-8Aphid variants.

The Harrier was not going to survive against a MiG-21 armed with advanced versions of AA-8 Aphid

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

I can assure you modern Kfir of Colombia armed with Python V will trash any 1982 Harrier

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

The reason the FAA and th Armada suffered to many loses is the Nesher were used to attack ships and had Shafrirs; used by Neshers with no radar dependent upon ground control, the Harrier was not that good, versus Israelis Kfirs armed with Python 3 in 1982 would have had air to air losses for sure

 

[TerraN_EmpirE]

Obi is right on this, the British may have had the capacity to use all aspect but without the training they would have reverted to tail shots.
Doctrine and training make the tactics not theories and paper.

 

[b787]

Obi is right on this, the British may have had the capacity to use all aspect but without the training they would have reverted to tail shots.
Doctrine and training make the tactics not theories and paper.

you and him are wrong.

The homing head is not in the pilot`s head, the homing head is on the missile, the homing head has a 90 degree cueing capacity and an infrared capacity able to search and track for colder parts such as the wings and fuselage.
Of course you think the British pilots were Maverick in topgun, the AIM-9L is all aspect, it means you can fire the missile on a 90 degree cone at any angle of the target, such capability was lacking on the Magic and Shafrir.

Gustavo Garcia Cuerva survived a dogfight with Harriers but he ran out of fuel, so he needed to land in the Falklands, the Mirage could not dogfight because it burns fuel and an inferior missile meant they were in disadvantage, but the Harrier is not more maneuverable at low altitudes . it has inferior instantaneous turn rate, which is basically the maximum banking the aircraft can perform

 

[TerraN_EmpirE]

Today with digital systems yes then it was all anolog the pilots would not have known to listen for the cue. Note that the cue was not a false alarm.

 

[b787]

Today with digital systems yes then it was all anolog the pilots would not have known to listen for the cue. Note that the cue was not a false alarm.

what a joke, the pilots knew how to use the AIM-9Ls, and the homing capability was in the missile it self, what you and him want to do is to add the heroic element seen in Hollywood movies, bad argies good british defeaing a superior enemy what a joke, the Harrier was inferior in agility and if it was armed with AIM-9Bs like originally were the Skyhawks, the Harrier losses would had skyrocketed, in fact you are just making a movie

 

[TerraN_EmpirE]

No, that's the thing we are telling you they didn't know, this was a new system. They had little familiarity with. The machines used on both sides were anolog machines with switches fuses dials and bobs controlled by hydraulic pumps connected by cables. These were very complex mechanisms but more clock work then todays computer driven machines.

 

[b787]

No, that's the thing we are telling you they didn't know, this was a new system. They had little familiarity with. The machines used on both sides were anolog machines with switches fuses dials and bobs controlled by hydraulic pumps connected by cables. These were very complex mechanisms but more clock work then todays computer driven machines.

do not say none sense things, why they were going to arm Harriers with AIM-9Ls if they could not use the all aspect capability? it would have been better to use regular AIM-9Cs, you have no logic so no need to argue it any more, The Harrier was armed with a better missile, which frankly neutralized the better ITR and by flying low neutralized the radar of the Mirage III, forcing the Argentine pilots go low, by going low the Mirage needs to use more fuel, air is denser at low altitudes, so it needs more power to go faster, so the Mirage were in disadvantage without an AIM-9Ls equivalent and at low altitude where in a prolonged close combat the Mirage could be potentially out turn and where the Shafir needed to be fired behind the target where the nozzles are visible.
The rest is Hollywood stuff you and him want to add to the story