If it didn't have a budget that would allow it to operate top-notch fighters better than daggers and A4s, do you think it was feasible to buy and operate Harriers in Argentina?
There was nothing wrong with either A-4s or Mirages|Daggers. Note that the Israeli Air Force was still operating both at that time.
Well, considering that Galtieri and his goons would react to people complaining about military spending (including massive tax increases) by torturing and killing them, the answer is probably "for a while,' although the economy would accelerate on its trajectory of "crash and burn."
I think that the post-Falklands armed forces of Argentina are pretty strong evidence that the amount of military spending during the era of Galtieri & Co was unsustainably high.
Because NATO's remit did not -- and does not -- extend that far; the Falklands were far outside of the region where Article 5 was applicable. I don't know what its exact limits were, but it also likely would exclude British Honduras (Belize since independence), Diego Garcia, and the Marianas Islands. The NATO treaty tended to exclude colonial possessions, and I'm not sure it would apply to overseas metropolitan territories of France, such as Martinique. It was certainly not held applicable during the Algerian (then under French control, and, by French law, part of metropolitan France) war for independence.
For the purpose of Article 5, an armed attack on one or more of the Parties is deemed to include an armed attack:
on the territory of any of the Parties in Europe or North America, on the Algerian Departments of France, on the territory of Turkey or on the Islands under the jurisdiction of any of the Parties in the North Atlantic area north of the Tropic of Cancer;
on the forces, vessels, or aircraft of any of the Parties, when in or over these territories or any other area in Europe in which occupation forces of any of the Parties were stationed on the date when the Treaty entered into force or the Mediterranean Sea or the North Atlantic area north of the Tropic of Cancer.”
The Tropic of Cancer is roughly 26.4 degrees North latitude. So that does exclude Belize (or Puerto Rico). Algeria was included, but internal insurrection was not considered an armed attack for NATO's purposes. Besides, Article 5 requires unanimity among the members, and the US sympathies were frankly on the side of the Algerians.
Because NATO's remit did not -- and does not -- extend that far; the Falklands were far outside of the region where Article 5 was applicable. I don't know what its exact limits were, but it also likely would exclude British Honduras (Belize since independence), Diego Garcia, and the Marianas Islands. The NATO treaty tended to exclude colonial possessions, and I'm not sure it would apply to overseas metropolitan territories of France, such as Martinique. It was certainly not held applicable during the Algerian (then under French control, and, by French law, part of metropolitan France) war for independence.
The Tropic of Cancer is roughly 26.4 degrees North latitude. So that does exclude Belize (or Puerto Rico). Algeria was included, but internal insurrection was not considered an armed attack for NATO's purposes. Besides, Article 5 requires unanimity among the members, and the US sympathies were frankly on the side of the Algerians.
Carrier based aircraft have poor wheel brakes because they’re primary stopping means, is the tail hook.
The operating issue at Port Stanly airport was the balanced field length, ie being able to reject a take off when traveling at near take off speed and only have half the runway length to stop.
So stopping with the hook on a runway. There’s two methods;- 1 Install a RHAG, which is a Rotary Hydraulic Arresting Gear…. Big, heavy, expensive fixed installation, the Brits installed one of these so as to operate F4 Phantom. There weren’t that many around in the early 80’s and required quite a bit of skill/experience, also this is an strategic enabling a piece of equipment it becomes a primary target. 2 Install a CAG. A Chain Arresting Gear, this is a really crude version of the above. It consists of two heavy chains connected to a wire across the runway, the wire is raised of the runway surface by rubber donuts spaced along its length. When engaged the chains are drag along and it’s their inertia that does the slowing. Easy to put together but painful, slow if it’s being frequently or routinely used due to the reset time/hassle.
The Neshers were withdrawn from service in 1977, and a large number were sold to Argentina. 39 out of 61 built.
What's more, the only problem with the Mirage over the Falklands was their range and their inability to be refuelled in flight.
Empty the A-7E was almost double the weight of the A-4Q and 5,000lb heavier than the Super Etendard. So I doubt it could have been operated from the 25th De Mayo.
You ask if was feasible for Argentina to buy Harrier. I was test on a CV but never buy it.
If the Spain Navy have this View attachment 712542
Let image that in the 25 de Mayo View attachment 712543have this View attachment 712544
But my choise is for the A-4 (not the Q ex B)
I prefer the C version
What was the outcome of the war? Above the type of model, there must be a critical mass number of them....even if Argentina, which already had difficulty maintaining its A4, had acquired harriers for its aircraft carrier, unlike the A4...how many of them Would they be enough? No... of course it wouldn't be a small number and with even worse operational maintenance. There is no point in analyzing the plane, you have to analyze the package... what would be the point of Argentina operating a few 12 harriers on the 25th of May (which would have a shorter range than the A4) if they would be using the AIM-9B missile against the AIM- 9L British? would not change anything in favor of the Argentines...air combat would be the same or worse...there would not be enough Argentine Harriers to sustain the attrition rate...quantity is a quality in itself...that is why the MB-326 or MB-339 come into this assessment... it would be enough in alternative history for them to exist in place of the IA-63 Pucara...
But an alternative to the A-4, in the same way I proposed the MB-326 or MB339 as an alternative to the Pucara.
However, the A-7E would also not operate from the islands without lengthening the runway among other things, but they would operate incredibly better than the A-4s and Daggers coming from the mainland....the range and weapons load is much greater. bigger and would have solved many things... it was not an expensive fighter at the time and it was available... although we are honest in that it was a more expensive solution than the A-4, obviously being a global replacement for it...
Empty the A-7E was almost double the weight of the A-4Q and 5,000lb heavier than the Super Etendard. So I doubt it could have been operated from the 25th De Mayo.
Yes, it would not be viable to alternatively replace the A-4s of the Argentine Navy, but alternative replacements for the dozens of A-4s of the Air Force would be excellent. Operating in the same way from the continent with an incredible advantage in range, combat load and flight time over the islands... the A-4s and edaggers could barely have a 5 minute mission in the conflict area...
The Daggers were delivered to Argentina between Nov 1978 and Sept 1981.
Argentina was subject to US sanctions via a Congressionally-mandated halt on all U.S. military aid, training, and arms sales to Argentina, which was enacted in August 1977 and went into effect on October 1, 1978.
I wouldn't change the composition of the Argentine Navy's inventory, I think the A-4 and the Super Etendard were possible at that time.
But perhaps the Air Force A-4s could alternatively be exchanged in their acquisition for the A-7s...
I think that the SUE at the time were newer and more expensive and only 83 were manufactured at the time that the A-7 were already available, they would be cheaper, with more payload and range... the SUE could not operate on board and from the continent, the advantage would be with the A-7s... and in a good quantity of the same A-4s, thus achieving the same critical mass of numbers supporting the same rate of attrition that the A-4s suffered...
For attack on open waters, not doubt, but in close wtares were the AM-39 dosent work well, i not so sure.
You need bomb load that the SUE dont have
SUE
A-4
Of course, with SUE you have a better avionic, radar, RWR.
For the CV, i think a mix is OK
In 1972 the A-7E was considered for the Clems and (just like Hornets and Rafale) would have been at the edge of both catapults and arrestor gear capabilities. So no chance in heck for 25 de Mayo (which was similar to Arromanches, and even Etendard IVs were never tried on that carrier).
The Super Etendard was designed for a fleet of which the largest carrier was smaller than an Essex. I don't know how that would cause it to be more restricted on 25 de Mayo compared to the A-4.
The Super Etendard was designed for a fleet of which the largest carrier was smaller than an Essex. I don't know how that would cause it to be more restricted on 25 de Mayo compared to the A-4.
If at the time of actual combat, the 25 de Mayo was not able to launch the A4 with an attack combat load, why do you think the Super Etendard would do it???
it is bigger and heavier than the A-4... I know they intended to operate on an aircraft carrier, but see that it would also have the same restrictions as the A-4, to the point where people laugh about not being able to take off loaded either... .
If at the time of actual combat, the 25 de Mayo was not able to launch the A4 with an attack combat load, why do you think the Super Etendard would do it???
it is bigger and heavier than the A-4... I know they intended to operate on an aircraft carrier, but see that it would also have the same restrictions as the A-4, to the point where people laugh about not being able to take off loaded either... .
Without an operational catapult of sufficient power, it would seem no jet aircraft (other than an Harrier ) would be viable.
The UK sold two very modern warships to Argentina just a few years before the start of the Falklands War. I'm sure that the UK would sell Harriers. Whether Argentina, with its Galtieri-era habit of pulling everybody into the business of kidnapping and torturing dissidents, could actually maintain them in any level of serviceability is a separate question.
In 1972 the A-7E was considered for the Clems and (just like Hornets and Rafale) would have been at the edge of both catapults and arrestor gear capabilities. So no chance in heck for 25 de Mayo (which was similar to Arromanches, and even Etendard IVs were never tried on that carrier).
Definitely it cannot be used from the Argentine carrier. BUT. The Corsair has sufficient combat radius (1,430km for A-7E IMS) to be operating on its own from the Argentine mainland with a much larger bombload than anything the Argentines had and isn't too shabby in a dogfight either. So IF the US would had exported it around 1974-75....
Without an operational catapult of sufficient power, it would seem no jet aircraft (other than an Harrier ) would be viable.
The UK sold two very modern warships to Argentina just a few years before the start of the Falklands War. I'm sure that the UK would sell Harriers. Whether Argentina, with its Galtieri-era habit of pulling everybody into the business of kidnapping and torturing dissidents, could actually maintain them in any level of serviceability is a separate question.
My friend, be careful with the butterfly effect...
How many harriers do you imagine Argentina could have bought? In place of the A-4Q? Would this interfere with the acquisition of the Super Etendard? in the Etendard+Exocet package? harrier was integrated with Exocet? 12? 14 Harriers? With AIM-9B? Would it make a difference? Remember that Argentina lost 17 A-4 Skyhawks....
My friend, be careful with the butterfly effect...
How many harriers do you imagine Argentina could have bought? In place of the A-4Q? Would this interfere with the acquisition of the Super Etendard? in the Etendard+Exocet package? harrier was integrated with Exocet? 12? 14 Harriers? With AIM-9B? Would it make a difference? Remember that Argentina lost 17 A-4 Skyhawks....
Since the Harrier was a more modern aircraft with a much more complex engine and flight control system? Probably well fewer than half the number of A-4s plus Etendards.
If Galtieri really wanted to obtain the Falklands, a far better option would probably have been trying to buy them from the UK. I suspect that something on the order of one or two years' of Argentina's military budget would have done it.
The non aligned Argentina (think a South American India) emerged as a lively democracy with a varied procurement from East and West. Like India it enjoyed better relations with London and Moscow than it did with Washington.
Its navy operated a British carrier (Leviathan transfered in 1967) and two British cruisers (Tiger and Lion sold in 1970 unconverted)
Sea Harriers for the carrier La Argentina followed in 1980 replacing Seahawks.
The Soviet Union supplied Mig 21s followed by Mig23/27 and some 25s in the 1970s. Maritime Tu142 and Il38 aircraft followed.
The Leanders used by the Navy were joined in the 70s by a variant using Soviet supplied weapons. Kashin class destroyers were selected over the UK T42 as replacements for the cruisers in 1979.
Relations with London were such that by 1983 Argentina was being offered Tornado IDS and ADVs.
Following India's annexation of the Portugese colony of Goa the UK government was faced with an Argentine offer to buy a controling share in the Falklands Island Company and build a new airport near Port Stanley.
Negotiations about such a deal continued until 1980. Shortly after the Lancaster House agreement solved the Rhodesia issue Lord Carrington persuaded Mrs Thatcher that the time had come to reduce the burden of a presence in the S Atlantic. The islanders were offered generous resettlement packages in the UK and New Zealand. Many stayed, noting that the new Malvinas Sociedad were better landlords than the avaricious Falklands Islands Company.
Carrington's triumph was short lived. In March 1982 Spanish forces rolled into Gibraltar and restored Spanish rule without a shot being fired.
The non aligned Argentina (think a South American India) emerged as a lively democracy with a varied procurement from East and West. Like India it enjoyed better relations with London and Moscow than it did with Washington.
Its navy operated a British carrier (Leviathan transfered in 1967) and two British cruisers (Tiger and Lion sold in 1970 unconverted)
Sea Harriers for the carrier La Argentina followed in 1980 replacing Seahawks.
The Soviet Union supplied Mig 21s followed by Mig23/27 and some 25s in the 1970s. Maritime Tu142 and Il38 aircraft followed.
The Leanders used by the Navy were joined in the 70s by a variant using Soviet supplied weapons. Kashin class destroyers were selected over the UK T42 as replacements for the cruisers in 1979.
Relations with London were such that by 1983 Argentina was being offered Tornado IDS and ADVs.
Following India's annexation of the Portugese colony of Goa the UK government was faced with an Argentine offer to buy a controling share in the Falklands Island Company and build a new airport near Port Stanley.
Negotiations about such a deal continued until 1980. Shortly after the Lancaster House agreement solved the Rhodesia issue Lord Carrington persuaded Mrs Thatcher that the time had come to reduce the burden of a presence in the S Atlantic. The islanders were offered generous resettlement packages in the UK and New Zealand. Many stayed, noting that the new Malvinas Sociedad were better landlords than the avaricious Falklands Islands Company.
Carrington's triumph was short lived. In March 1982 Spanish forces rolled into Gibraltar and restored Spanish rule without a shot being fired.
Ummm... historically the Argentines received the carrier Warrior (renamed Independencia) from the UK in 1958 - she had been fitted with a 5 degree angle deck and mirror landing system in 1956, and was commissioned into ARA service in July 1959.
She operated an air wing of F4U Corsairs, S-2A Trackers, SNJ-5C Texan trainers*, and occasionally F9F Panthers landed aboard and launched, but they were not a permanent part of her air wing (although they could have been if the ship had been modernized for them).
She was placed in reserve in 1970 with the arrival of 25 de Mayo, and scrapped in 1971.
* Later they also operated some T-28 Trojan trainers... these could have been armed the way the T-28s supplied to South Vietnam were, for COIN operations.
Acquiring Leviathan in 1967 could provide an opportunity for a modernization of Independencia if the ARA could afford to operate two carriers.
The only foreign air arm to operate the Panther was Argentina's Servicio de Aviacion Naval, which received 24 refurbished F9F-2s in 1958. Lack of spares took the type out of service by 1969.
The SdAN also acquired 2 F9F-8T Cougar two-seat trainers in 1962, which were also tested aboard - but again, she needed a steam catapult and more improvements to properly operate them. They were withdrawn from service in 1971.
There were a couple of improvements in the F9F (F-9) Cougar that I always thought should have been followed up on by a lower-rank nation, and Argentina would have been perfect for them.
Late production F9F-8s were fitted with the capability of carrying two Sidewinder infrared-homing air-to-air missile underneath each wing. This feature was retrofitted to many earlier F9F-8s. The first Sidewinder-equipped Cougars were deployed overseas by VA-48 in July of 1956.
A radar-equipped night fighter version of the F9F-8T was proposed by Grumman in 1955. It was to have carried an AN/APQ-50 radar and was to have been equipped with an all-missile armament. However, the performance was considered insufficient to warrant production.
In 1961, Grumman proposed a modernized version of the F9F-8T with updated systems and a Pratt & Whitney J52 turbojet in place of the J48 (the J48-8A engine of the -8 series of Cougars produced 7,250 lb dry, and 8,500 lb with water injection, while the J52-6 produced 8,500 lb dry {in the A-4E in flight testing by mid-1961} and the 9,300 lb J52-8 was in testing {flying by 1963} - the J52 was more reliable, more responsive, and used less fuel than the J48). However, the Navy selected the Douglas TA-4F instead, and the updated two-seat Cougar project was abandoned.
What if Argentina, in 1961, asked for radar-equipped 2-seat F9F-8s with the J52 and new avionics (production of the F9F-8T had ended in 1960, so re-start should be easy) - and maybe some single-seat F9F-8s and F9F-8Bs (these had just been withdrawn from active USN squadrons in 1958-59 (leaving only those in USN & USMC reserve squadrons until 1964).
The F9F-8Bs were F9F-8s converted into tactical nuclear bombers. They were fitted with the Low-Altitude Bombing System (LABS), additional instruments, as well as with the control and arming equipment needed for the nuclear weapon, or "special store" as it was euphemistically called. However, in service most F9F-8Bs were operated as conventional fighter-bombers and were provided with six underwing weapons pylons.
Removing the nuclear control and arming equipment, and re-engining used F9F-8s & F9F-8Bs with the J52 would give a nice air wing.
The non aligned Argentina (think a South American India) emerged as a lively democracy with a varied procurement from East and West. Like India it enjoyed better relations with London and Moscow than it did with Washington.
Its navy operated a British carrier (Leviathan transfered in 1967) and two British cruisers (Tiger and Lion sold in 1970 unconverted)
Sea Harriers for the carrier La Argentina followed in 1980 replacing Seahawks.
The Soviet Union supplied Mig 21s followed by Mig23/27 and some 25s in the 1970s. Maritime Tu142 and Il38 aircraft followed.
The Leanders used by the Navy were joined in the 70s by a variant using Soviet supplied weapons. Kashin class destroyers were selected over the UK T42 as replacements for the cruisers in 1979.
Relations with London were such that by 1983 Argentina was being offered Tornado IDS and ADVs.
Following India's annexation of the Portugese colony of Goa the UK government was faced with an Argentine offer to buy a controling share in the Falklands Island Company and build a new airport near Port Stanley.
Negotiations about such a deal continued until 1980. Shortly after the Lancaster House agreement solved the Rhodesia issue Lord Carrington persuaded Mrs Thatcher that the time had come to reduce the burden of a presence in the S Atlantic. The islanders were offered generous resettlement packages in the UK and New Zealand. Many stayed, noting that the new Malvinas Sociedad were better landlords than the avaricious Falklands Islands Company.
Carrington's triumph was short lived. In March 1982 Spanish forces rolled into Gibraltar and restored Spanish rule without a shot being fired.
Argentina acquiring Leviathan in 1967 to modernise Independencia (ex Warrior) potentially affects the acquisition of Karel Doorman as 25th De Mayo in 1969.
April 1968 KD suffers an engine room fire while refitting for RNethN.
Boilers were taken from Leviathan as replacements (they may already have been acquired). RNethN decide not to complete the work for themselves.
Oct 1968 per Wiki Argentina acquires KD and refit continues with commissioning into the ARA in March 1969.
So if boilers get used to modernise Independenvia where does that leave KD? Refit delayed or cancelled?
Since the Harrier was a more modern aircraft with a much more complex engine and flight control system? Probably well fewer than half the number of A-4s plus Etendards.
If Galtieri really wanted to obtain the Falklands, a far better option would probably have been trying to buy them from the UK. I suspect that something on the order of one or two years' of Argentina's military budget would have done it.
Argentine harriers with AIM-9B versus Harriers with AIM-9L would not make any difference in aerial combat...
They would be shot down at the same rate as the A-4s and daggers were...
The aggravating factor is that there wouldn't be so many Argentine harriers, reducing combat persistence with the rate of attrition and loss rate...
It is absolutely important to understand that it is not just aerial combat that decides the battle or war, it is first and foremost the ability to continue flying...absolutely, the Harrier would not provide this to the Argentines. There would be very few units...you have to have a model capable of alternatively occupying the A-4 and Pucará model...as the losses are large....
Even if you collect the Aircraft Carrier for fear of nuclear submarines, the few Harriers would not have the range to reach the islands from the mainland. You could argue that, of course, they could be moved to the islands and then, I will have to remember the 12 units destroyed at the airport by the SAS operation.... what would you replace them with...? This happened...you have to have numbers...silver bullets don't always solve the problem...and in this case, not even a silver bullet would be, I would have to add that in addition to this acquisition, Argentina also had the AIM-9L in your inventory....alternative realities that never resolve on their own, you depend on other changes in history to also be made, making viability difficult....
Argentina acquiring Leviathan in 1967 to modernise Independencia (ex Warrior) potentially affects the acquisition of Karel Doorman as 25th De Mayo in 1969.
April 1968 KD suffers an engine room fire while refitting for RNethN.
Boilers were taken from Leviathan as replacements (they may already have been acquired). RNethN decide not to complete the work for themselves.
Oct 1968 per Wiki Argentina acquires KD and refit continues with commissioning into the ARA in March 1969.
So if boilers get used to modernise Independenvia where does that leave KD? Refit delayed or cancelled?
Or perhaps they are not needed. The main (and perhaps only) reason the boilers were needed was the fire. Independencia may well just need her boilers thoroughly overhauled, not replaced.
In the timeline posted by uk 75, Leviathan is sold to Argentina in 1967, and modernization work is likely underway by April 1968 (probably at the same Dutch shipyard that historically modernized both Vengeance for Brazil (Minas Gerais) and Venerable for the Netherlands (KD)) - so when KD suffers her boiler room fire she is not repaired at all - but she is stripped for equipment to complete Leviathan!
Leviathan had spent many years firstly as an accommodation ship then in unmaintained reserve. During that time she was stripped of much useable equipment for use in othe WW2 era ships still in service. This was done both officially & unofficially.
The SdAN also acquired 2 F9F-8T Cougar two-seat trainers in 1962, which were also tested aboard - but again, she needed a steam catapult and more improvements to properly operate them. They were withdrawn from service in 1971.
To my knowledge, only one F9F-2B Panther was tested on board the Independencia, 3-A-119, on 27 July 1963. It only landed on it and was not catapulted.
And AFAIK the two F9F-8Ts were never operated from Independencia, they were just transported on her with S-2 Trackers when they were delivered.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
) would be viable.
