Low-cost, muti-role aircraft for small militaries

Re: New interceptors for the Argentine Air Force?

asif iqbal said:

please read more about the conflict before making such posts, infact just look back in this thread the situtation in question was discussed

And Royal Navy did not have 20 odd sea harriers they had 42 aircraft in total, 28 sea harriers and 14 Harriers GR3, and not all were on aircraft carriers they were stored on container ships

Click to expand...

Cheers, did actually read the thread before making the post. You are correct most of the the GR3's were stored at that time so the 6-10 Skyhawks would only have had to take on whatever Sea Harriers that could have gotten airborne.
Perhaps you could enlighten me as to how the A4Q with an inferior radar and AIM9B would have accomplished this.
Many thanks

Re: New interceptors for the Argentine Air Force?

because the Argentinian carrier scouts had located the British task force and so Argentina had the crucial element of suprise

Re: New interceptors for the Argentine Air Force?

asif iqbal said:

because the Argentinian carrier scouts had located the British task force and so Argentina had the crucial element of suprise

Click to expand...

It's the open ocean. The A-4's would have had to fly at medium to high altitudes most of the way to carry any reasonable payload, and they would have been spotted on radar by the radars on the escorts. Element of surprise lost. Any unusual airborne target on radar was investigated by Sea Harriers, and the A-4's would have to fight their way past the Sea Harriers, the and the escorts before they could do anything.

And Harrier's armed with all aspect AIM-9's would make short work over the A-4's armed with tail chase weapons. Not to mention the excellent Blue Fox radar and over the open ocean, it would not have the issues it had in the littorals.

But the most telling issue is training; British training was vastly superior to Argentine training. The Brits would have regular access to NATO combat training schools and extensive flight hours (the NATO standard for just basic pilot proficiency is higher than what the bulk of the world's air forces pilots get annually). RN pilots also would better understand their weapons better and be releasing their weapons accordingly with a high success rate, compared to Argentine pilots (note the very high dud bomb rates of Argentine pilots when they attacked British ships).

Re: New interceptors for the Argentine Air Force?

i dont know why people like yourself seem to think just because someone has a longer range weapon automatically translates into a victory, this is just narrow thinking and easy to say but does not reflect the true scenario of the war

the fact that the Ministry of Defence listed this incident with another 4 in a debriefing after the war (a debreifing which has only been made public recently) which would have turned the tide of the war in favour of the Argentinians

a study was conducted and feasibility studys were done, analysis and reviews after the war showed that this incident and this incident alone would have changed the course of the war

the others were

if Argentina had more exocets
if they had built a airbase on Falklands
if they lost more than 1 out of the 3 ships carrying aircraft
had Argentina invaded in late 1982

for more accurate information and analysis please read May issue 2012 of Air Force Magazine, they ran a series of articles on the 30 anniversary of the war earlier this year, i have a copy of them all

Re: New interceptors for the Argentine Air Force?

asif iqbal said:

Argentina did start preparation for the war but did not finish the preparation because the the invasion was brought forward by 6 months by the military Junta

Had it been carried out in October 1982 as scheduled Argentina would have most likely have won the war

And the reason why conscripts were used was because the best Argentinian divisions were sent to the Chile border to stop any preemptive attack from Chile, irony also is that 6 months later they were at peace because Chile leadership changed, had the invasion happend in October the best Argentinian divisions would have been deployed to fight

And finally had the wind not died down when Argentinian aircraft carrier was about to launch its aircraft UK would have lost most of it's hand full of Harriers which would have finished off the air cover for Royal Navy, and in the South Atlantic at that time of year it's very rare for winds to die down

Click to expand...

But ultimately, the root cause for all of those deficiencies in preparation was a mistaken belief that the British would not fight.

If the Argentines had fully expected the British to go to war over the islands, they would have taken many critically different choices in the lead up to war which would have given the Argentines an almost unassailable edge.

The outcome should be an abject lesson in the dangers of hubris and the importance of always being prepared for the worst.

Amusingly, had history played out differently and Argentina actually won the war, the lesson we should take from studying it would be the same, with the only difference being that it would have been British hubris and lack of preparation that would have served as the cautionary example.

The only reason the Junta decided to invade the islands was because the British had gutted its own navy to start with and all but given up on naval fixed wing aviation. That decision critically weakened the RN to the point where Argentina thought the British didn't have anything left to fight with. Had the RN been left in a decent state with at least one carrier operating F4s, chances are there never would have been a Falklands War.

Re: New interceptors for the Argentine Air Force?

i do not think there were any deficiencies in preparation or mistaken belief that the British would not fight, none whatsoever, overall the better country won, the fight was fair and sqaure and they both did their parts, just happened that British came out on top

the only deficiencies in preparation was that Argentina feared a nuclear SSN was on the way to the South Atlanic which prompted them to invade 6 months ealier than planned this did not allow the completion of the preparation

UK was very poorly equipped for the war, Ronald Regan was so convinced UK would losse he didnt even bother making a effort, hell even the Soviets were taken back by the performace of the British armed forces

it was a close call, most of the time the war was on knife edge, the balance could have changed at any points which i mentioned but they didnt, result was a UK victory

however had the war came in 1982 and HMS Illustrious was sold off to the Aussies, then for sure UK would not have been able to launch such a task force

today the Falklands belongs to UK, thats where this war ended, why the detail, well there are lessons to be learnt

i see Falklands war same as Battle of Midway, infact a mirror image, only 40 years apart

Re: New interceptors for the Argentine Air Force?

asif iqbal said:

poor qaulity torpedos? i think you will find that Argentina had top qaulity anti-ship misiles and fighter jets to go with them, in the form of the Exocet equipped Mirage F1s

not only that Argentina was very well equipped for the war and had all the chances to win, the reason they didnt was because of overall lack of strategic command and inferiror training, Argentina almost won that war

had Argentina done thier homework right down to the T, the result of the war would be different

Click to expand...

I have to concur, you disregard the supply problem. The Royal navy submarines made an effective sea denial. Argentina only came close because the British blundered as well.

Re: New interceptors for the Argentine Air Force?

PLAWOLF’s, and asif iqbal, comments are both correct. If the war was begun 6 months later the outcome could have been different. It is also true that Argentine did not have a contingency worked out if the English initiated a military response. This all relates back to Plawolf’s comment of the ”lack of strategic planning”. In fact the time table was moved up so far that the Navy had only received five of the Super Etendard and an equivalent number of missiles. Once the French personnel left the Navy had to figure out the missile mounting and launching on its own.

Also, the follow up to the initial invasion shows that Argentina had given little thought to the possibility of a significant military response. Argentina poured thousands of troops into the islands as a garrison, but virtually all of them were flown in by air (concerned that a nuclear submarine might be in the area). But since Argentina was still confronted with the possibility of conflict with Chile, their best light infantry forces, those trained for cold weather, independent, operations were deployed to the border with Chile. The troops actually sent to the Falklands came from more temperate regions. Further, they were motorized and mechanized forces. But since they deployed by aircraft, they came without their armored vehicles. With the exception of a handful of armored cars, and about 100 trucks, the Argentinian forces in the Falklands had no mobility. This also meant they would be fighting without the supporting fire of their armor. The Falklands, large portions of which were little more than peat bogs, might not be ideal armor country, but the lack of firepower and mobility meant the British would have time and space to maneuver against the Argentinian infantry when the time came.

An interesting note to the submarine angle is that the Type 209/1200 submarine "San Luis" fired 8 wire guided torpedoes at the British carrier Invincible and its escorts from 7000m, none hit. The Navy, many years after the fact, officially reported that an inexperienced operator, doing maintenance on the Mark 37 torpedoes, accidentally reversed the polarity in the electric gyroscopes during maintenance. Since it is an official report from the government, I will take it with a grain of salt.

Re: New interceptors for the Argentine Air Force?

Miragedriver said:

Since it is an official report from the government, I will take it with a grain of salt.

Click to expand...

I himself retyping with Argentinian peoples and can say, that true data about submarine attack can not confirmed from Argentina. So Argentinian submarine use USA and Germane torpedoes and information about defective NATO torpedoes forbidden total. As know submarines in Argentina was byu with corruption. And this corruption not allow say true data.
If you reverse gyro in Mk-37 - you receive return torpedo after launch. But all 8 torpedoes in attack go normal. But no one torpedo homing system can not find target. 2 torpedoes was seen from carrier deck. 8 torpedoes in this attack was: 4 Mk-37 and 4 SST-4.
I can say more: after ready for war patrol other Argentinian submarine during testing firing launch 4 SST-4 - all torpedoes was defective. So war patrol was cancelled.
Argentinian submarine "S-32" launch near all torpedoes, what have during war patrol - 1 Mk-37 may be made hit. All other missed.
And more: all information in my chronic submarine attack certain 1982 year was was receive from Argentine. I receve patrol log british submarine what sunk Belgrano, but patrol log from "S-32" classified and today. Reason - describe defective torpedoes and really ASW british navy.
So not think, that any offical data is true.

Re: New interceptors for the Argentine Air Force?

I am guilty of this myself. I would like to please stay on the topic ,which was the best replacement combat aircraft for the FAA, based upon available types and the current geopolitical situation.
I personally believe that the Mig-29 will do the job nicely and that in can be acquired used and upgraded. Replacement part can be obtained not only from Russia, but also India. However, if the opportunity where available I would like to see the (first production run) J-10’s be incorporated. Based on that I will turn the discussion over to the forum experts.