Alternative fighter for Argentine AF & Navy during Falklands war.

[alejandrogrossi]

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.
View attachment 712719View attachment 712720View attachment 712721View attachment 712722
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.
View attachment 712723View attachment 712727

That is correct.
And the only landing, it was not at porpuse.
It was a pilot decision.
The the catapult of the ARA independencia, it didne´t have enough to launch the Phanter

 

[alejandrogrossi]

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 They were withdrawn from service in 1971.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.


View attachment 712715

Nice idea
A mix of this

and this

but in 1982, are to old to against SH FRS.1

 

[alejandrogrossi]

For me
the fighter (in replace of IAI Dagger) was this


6 or 8 Mk 82 Snake Eye and 2 AIM-9
And if its need it


Test it but never use



And, the most important thing of all


Not for the COAN, for the FAA
Because, It can not operate from the 25 de Mayo. i read -dont remeber- thta the French have problems to flying off from her Clemenceau class CV

 

[Scott Kenny]

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?

Maybe delayed. Depends on whether Independencia needed boilers fully replaced or just overhauled.

 

[F.L.]

I think the F9F Cougar would have been a very good aircraft for the Argentine Navy. I think that if about 40 of them had been delivered around 1965, they might have remained in service until 1982. (There were still some F-86F Sabres!) I think that if they had received more effective missiles than the AIM-9B, for example Magics I, they could have offered good capabilities in the air-to-air role. I can imagine an air group made up of Skyhawks used to attack the British fleet and Cougars in the air-to-air role.
What's more, the Cougar is slightly lighter than the Skyhawk.
The Cougar, (but also Skyhawks) could provide buddy-buddy refuelling, and I think that would have solved some of the range problems.

Nice idea
A mix of this
and this
but in 1982, are to old to against SH FRS.1

A F9F-8T have been tested with APQ-89 radar at China Lake, in 1961.

 

[BlackBat242]

I think the F9F Cougar would have been a very good aircraft for the Argentine Navy. I think that if about 40 of them had been delivered around 1965, they might have remained in service until 1982. (There were still some F-86F Sabres!) I think that if they had received more effective missiles than the AIM-9B, for example Magics I, they could have offered good capabilities in the air-to-air role. I can imagine an air group made up of Skyhawks used to attack the British fleet and Cougars in the air-to-air role.
What's more, the Cougar is slightly lighter than the Skyhawk.
The Cougar, (but also Skyhawks) could provide buddy-buddy refuelling, and I think that would have solved some of the range problems.

A F9F-8T have been tested with APQ-89 radar at China Lake, in 1961.
View attachment 712762

I have 3 different pics of that test Cougar (one the same as yours), but forgot that I had them.

As for refueling... sell Argentina a quartet of R3Y Tradewinds.
OK, replace the T-40 engines with T56-501M1s for better reliability.




I forgot the other Cougar variant needed the F9F-8P:

 

[F.L.]

I have 3 different pics of that test Cougar (one the same as yours), but forgot that I had them.

Can you post them in the F9F thread ?

 

[F.L.]

I think that if the cougar had been sold to other countries (e.g. France, Brazil, Canada...) it would have increased its lifespan with more possibilities of finding spare parts and second-hand airframe.
In any case, when you consider that the French were able to maintain their F-8E(FN) until 1999 by dipping into aircraft graveyards, I think it's possible for Argentina to do the same with Cougars until mid 1980s.

 

[EwenS]

I think that if the cougar had been sold to other countries (e.g. France, Brazil, Canada...) it would have increased its lifespan with more possibilities of finding spare parts and second-hand airframe.
In any case, when you consider that the French were able to maintain their F-8E(FN) until 1999 by dipping into aircraft graveyards, I think it's possible for Argentina to do the same with Cougars until mid 1980s.

Not with the US embargo on the supply of military equipment to Argentina in place from 1978.

 

[H_K]

This wasn’t so much an aircraft problem as a planning problem.

The range problem wouldn’t have existed at all if Argentina had properly planned to use Port Stanley airfield for shuttle operations with aircraft refueling/rearming there.

Which would have required planning for short field operations from a 1,200m runway, at a minimum at light landing & take off weights for return to the continent. Which means installing a brake chute on the A-4. That would have enabled 40+ A-4s to fly longer missions with a heavier load.

(I hear @zen ’s argument about balanced field length but this is wartime and rejected takeoffs are an acceptable risk - a risk taken daily in fact for catapult launched aircraft aboard carriers so why not from Port Stanley).

Possibly some A-4s could also have flown CAP over Port Stanley too (although I would want them to use the R550 Magic rather than the inferior Aim-9B).

Then for the rest of the force (Daggers and Canberras) you have mainly a weapons problem. Fitting an air refueling probe to the Daggers would have been most useful. A stand-off missile like the AS-30 might also have helped.

 

[F.L.]

I totally agree with you, @H_K
Do you think the Mirages IIIEA could have operated from Port Stanley ?

 

[BlackBat242]

Can you post them in the F9F thread ?

Actually, you already posted all three of them in post #28 of the "F9F ancestors, prototypes, and projects" thread... that's probably where I got them!

https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/grumman-f9f-ancestors-prototypes-and-projects.611/post-615894

 

[F.L.]

I fell on my behind while reading this article !
The Soviets are reportedly considering deploying Tu-128 "Fiddlers" in Argentina.

Malvinas 37 anos – Interceptadores soviéticos Tu-128 'Fiddler' quase assumiram a defesa aérea argentina - Poder Aéreo – Aviação, Forças Aéreas, Indústria Aeroespacial e de Defesa

Conforme mencionado recentemente no Poder Naval na sua campanha contra o Reino Unido pela posse das Ilhas Malvinas/Falklands a Argentina recebeu ajuda militar da então União Soviética na forma de dados de posicionamento da frota naval inimiga gerados por satélites e por aeronaves de...

www.aereo.jor.br

Malvinas 37 anos – Tu-95 soviéticos espionaram navios da Marinha Britânica - Poder Naval

Durante a Guerra das Malvinas, o destacamento de bombardeiros Tu-95 do Exército soviético, implantado em Angola desde 1977, se encarregou de seguir a frota britânica, estudar sua composição e formação, tirar fotos e reunir inteligência eletrônica.

www.naval.com.br

 

[F.L.]

Given the images of HMS Hermes & Invincible on their return from the Falklands, is it possible that there have been damaged by the Argentinians and repaired on site ?

"We were informed that the aircraft carrier HMS Hermes had been hit by Argentine missiles and might have to enter the repair dry dock for a long period," said Bulbenkov. The British did not acknowledge the damage caused by the Argentines, although the ship underwent repairs for four months until November 1982.

Photoshoped picture :

 

[Desertfox]

The planes Argentina had could do the job, what we should be discussing is what weapons should Argentina have acquired.

 

[Scott Kenny]

The planes Argentina had could do the job, what we should be discussing is what weapons should Argentina have acquired.

Disagree, there's a very big difference between the combat range of an A-4 and an A-7.

 

[Desertfox]

Well yes A-7s would absolutely be better, but the A-4s could do the job if they just had bombs that would explode and the SEs if they just had more Exocets.

 

[Scott Kenny]

Well yes A-7s would absolutely be better, but the A-4s could do the job if they just had bombs that would explode and the SEs if they just had more Exocets.

How many A-4 strikes had to turn around because they didn't find any ships before they reached critical fuel levels?

 

[Manuducati]

Given the images of HMS Hermes & Invincible on their return from the Falklands, is it possible that there have been damaged by the Argentinians and repaired on site ?

View attachment 712860

Pure proganda, easily debunked.

Was HMS Invincible (RO5) sunk in the Falklands War? – Here’s the truth…

Dear readers, as my own Falklands War project “The First Casualty – The untold story of the Falklands War” comes ever closer to being released, I find myself inexorably more drawn…

rickydphillipsauthor.wordpress.com

 

[H_K]

How many A-4 strikes had to turn around because they didn't find any ships before they reached critical fuel levels?

Wouldn’t have been a problem in the first place if they had brake chutes fitted, allowing them to refuel at Port Stanley.

The irony is the UK were the first the operate a forward operating base in the Falklands, with the Port San Carlos air strip becoming operational on June 5th. It was used to refuel Harriers and extend their CAP time and was set up in a much more challenging environment. That the FAA were unable to use Port Stanley in the same way despite having the luxury of time and existing infrastructure shows how poor their pre-war planning was.

The San Carlos FOB (Forward Operating Base) - Think Defence

A less well-known aspect of the air war over the Falkland Islands in 1982 was the use of a FOB (Forward Operating Base) at San Carlos for both Harriers and helicopters.

www.thinkdefence.co.uk

 

[F.L.]

I think one type of aircraft that the Argentinians missed out on was "high-speed" reconnaissance aircraft. (RF-101, RF-8, RF-4E or Mirage IIIR style)

For me
the fighter (in replace of IAI Dagger) was this

 

[alejandrogrossi]

I think one type of aircraft that the Argentinians missed out on was "high-speed" reconnaissance aircraft. (RF-101, RF-8, RF-4E or Mirage IIIR style)


View attachment 712907

Love it
But F.L. i put the FAA not the COAN (he can not operate on board 25 de Mayo) in replace of the IAI Dagger (Grupo 6) with this camo

 

[carvalho2008]

This wasn’t so much an aircraft problem as a planning problem.

The range problem wouldn’t have existed at all if Argentina had properly planned to use Port Stanley airfield for shuttle operations with aircraft refueling/rearming there.

Which would have required planning for short field operations from a 1,200m runway, at a minimum at light landing & take off weights for return to the continent. Which means installing a brake chute on the A-4. That would have enabled 40+ A-4s to fly longer missions with a heavier load.

(I hear @zen ’s argument about balanced field length but this is wartime and rejected takeoffs are an acceptable risk - a risk taken daily in fact for catapult launched aircraft aboard carriers so why not from Port Stanley).

Possibly some A-4s could also have flown CAP over Port Stanley too (although I would want them to use the R550 Magic rather than the inferior Aim-9B).

Then for the rest of the force (Daggers and Canberras) you have mainly a weapons problem. Fitting an air refueling probe to the Daggers would have been most useful. A stand-off missile like the AS-30 might also have helped.

Some say that the terrain of the Malvinas airports was unsuitable for the weight of the fighters and therefore, it was not enough to simply expand using metal plates, concrete and paving would be necessary, but there was no time.

There are photos showing that part of the metal plate material for the expansion was even unloaded, but the conclusion was that there would not be time for all the engineering.

It can be argued that the British operated the Harrier there, but this model of aircraft was built precisely for this purpose. It is smaller and lighter, and uses very little track.

There was a study for the A-4 there with two 500 liter tanks + 2 250 kg bombs, they did some training on simulations on the continent, but they did not carry it out.

Some cite the concern of maintaining first class aviation. Air Force line on the continent, as they feared that Chile would take advantage of the moment to retaliate against the threats and skirmishes of 1978 (Beagle Channel)

In any case, the topic itself is about the alternative to aerial material, and not necessarily tactical errors. It is in this search and focus that we must look for models that alter interdependencies as little as possible and manage to infiltrate themselves as an isolated element but with the capacity to change the situation.

The better the alternative, the smaller the interdependencies, the worse the alternative, when it is also necessary to change historical facts that occurred, tactical decisions, etc. We shouldn't change the story to fit the plane model, but change the plane model, which can change the story, like in the movie "Butterfly Effect"...

Some are looking to focus on a fighter that could rival the Harrier. This is a mistake! The primary objective is to attack ships and the task force....They don't even need to worry so much about the Harriers!!! Isn't it clear that despite their notable efforts, they were not where they needed to be, they did not have the necessary autonomy and range and waves and waves of Argentine attacks overcame the defenses and continually hit the ships? Well, the Harriers were already operating at their limit and insufficient! The analysis framework is just to verify that they could stress the operation even more... planes much simpler than the A4 could do this... they just needed to be on the islands... a plane that could simulate the same flight envelope as the A -4 with excess weight coming from the continent... with attack speed between 300knots and 450 knots in low flights over islands or sea...

Argentinians PSA (Prefabricated Surfacing Airfield) in the Falklands.

https://www.cavok.com.br/guerra-das-falklands-malvinas-a-pista-do-aeroporto-de-stanley-poderia-ter-feito-a-diferenca-para-os-argentinos

 

[carvalho2008]

Nice idea
A mix of this
View attachment 712733
and this
View attachment 712734
but in 1982, are to old to against SH FRS.1

I will give an example here, despite it not being a model available at the time, but just as an example of the importance of focusing on attacking ships from the main British fleet or ships deployed for disembarkation that were in the islands' channels.

Take the Boeing Skyfox with alternative example. as the only change on the Argentine side in exchange for the IA-63 Pucara.

Argentina had 43 Pucaras, so imagine the simulation with 43 Boeing skyfox... continuously deploying 14 to 24 of them to the islands, replacing the units with each loss.

It is not a capital or essential aircraft compared to the A4 naval or air force, as well as M-III or daggers. It is a sacrificeable plane, which does not change the Argentine fear of being attacked from behind by the Chileans.

Just as some here even thought of the old F9F as an alternative to the Argentine navy, see that they are both models with the same flight envelope and speed.

However, the Boeing Skyfox has 2,400 kg of external weapons load, and a range of 3,630 km exclusively with internal fuel!!!! it, like the MB-326 or 339, can emulate the same attacks carried out by the A4 in low-flying flights...the envelope is almost the same...but the range is absurd!!!! There is no intention of trying to change the final destination of the various engagements between A-4 and Harriers. There is no need for this. The Boeing skyfox could be shot down at the same rate, but the point is that just as the A-4 leaked the defense lines and reached the ships in sequence after sequence, the Skyfox would also do so and with a huge additional, because once operating of the islands, the work saturation of the Harriers would be much more degraded and weakened than it already was...remembering again, the Argentine planes simply passed by most of the time...this is the focus below...

Air operations over the islands just needed to increase! The problem is that the Argentines did not have an airplane model for this... The PUCARA is only for CAS... and the MB-339s were mostly out of operational conditions... the rare and few available, 5 the 6th went there and what they already had difficulty operating on the mainland, there in the cold of the islands got even worse...only about 4 hours of flight for the entire group...in other words...we can't even say that existed, if it wasn't precisely that the first contact was made with success and errors by Lt. Crippa with his MB339... he managed to destroy at least 1 ship.... not bad...

https://projetosalternativosnavais.files.wordpress.com/2020/07/cutaway-boeing-skyfox.jpg

An improved T-33....have you ever thought about this same package on the PHANTER F9F??

 

[alejandrogrossi]

I will give an example here, despite it not being a model available at the time, but just as an example of the importance of focusing on attacking ships from the main British fleet or ships deployed for disembarkation that were in the islands' channels.

Take the Boeing Skyfox with alternative example. as the only change on the Argentine side in exchange for the IA-63 Pucara.

Argentina had 43 Pucaras, so imagine the simulation with 43 Boeing skyfox... continuously deploying 14 to 24 of them to the islands, replacing the units with each loss.

It is not a capital or essential aircraft compared to the A4 naval or air force, as well as M-III or daggers. It is a sacrificeable plane, which does not change the Argentine fear of being attacked from behind by the Chileans.

Just as some here even thought of the old F9F as an alternative to the Argentine navy, see that they are both models with the same flight envelope and speed.

However, the Boeing Skyfox has 2,400 kg of external weapons load, and a range of 3,630 km exclusively with internal fuel!!!! it, like the MB-326 or 339, can emulate the same attacks carried out by the A4 in low-flying flights...the envelope is almost the same...but the range is absurd!!!! There is no intention of trying to change the final destination of the various engagements between A-4 and Harriers. There is no need for this. The Boeing skyfox could be shot down at the same rate, but the point is that just as the A-4 leaked the defense lines and reached the ships in sequence after sequence, the Skyfox would also do so and with a huge additional, because once operating of the islands, the work saturation of the Harriers would be much more degraded and weakened than it already was...remembering again, the Argentine planes simply passed by most of the time...this is the focus below...

Air operations over the islands just needed to increase! The problem is that the Argentines did not have an airplane model for this... The PUCARA is only for CAS... and the MB-339s were mostly out of operational conditions... the rare and few available, 5 the 6th went there and what they already had difficulty operating on the mainland, there in the cold of the islands got even worse...only about 4 hours of flight for the entire group...in other words...we can't even say that existed, if it wasn't precisely that the first contact was made with success and errors by Lt. Crippa with his MB339... he managed to destroy at least 1 ship.... not bad...

https://projetosalternativosnavais.files.wordpress.com/2020/07/cutaway-boeing-skyfox.jpg

An improved T-33....have you ever thought about this same package on the PHANTER F9F??

Too late for war
From Wiki

First flight	23 August 1983

Maybe this?


For the cross to Islands and if you need to retrated from there

 

[alejandrogrossi]

I put the F-8E in replace to the IAI Dagger, becase you have, like the Dagger, and aicraft that you can use as a fighter or attack
One of my favorite was, one of the aricraft, that a time of the buying MIII- our country considered but discarded for too old.
Of course, at the time of the war, her only rol it would have been Attack

 

[H_K]

the first contact was made with success and errors by Lt. Crippa with his MB339... he managed to destroy at least 1 ship.... not bad

In what parallel universe did Crippa’s attack destroy a ship? HMS Argonaut was only lightly damaged topsides by canon fire from the MB339.

 

[F.L.]

They don't even need to worry so much about the Harriers!!! Isn't it clear that despite their notable efforts, they were not where they needed to be, they did not have the necessary autonomy and range and waves and waves of Argentine attacks overcame the defenses and continually hit the ships ? Well, the Harriers were already operating at their limit and insufficient! The analysis framework is just to verify that they could stress the operation even more...

The Sea Harriers shot down around twenty Argentinian aircraft, mate.

It is a sacrificeable plane.

A plane can be sacrificed, but not a pilot. The Argentinians were very brave, but not kamikaze.

 

[F.L.]

Given that before the conflict, the Argentinians didn't have too bad a relationship with England, I think that around 1976/78, they could have bought BAE Hawks.
It would have been a good aircraft to operate from BAM Malvinas.

 

[carvalho2008]

In what parallel universe did Crippa’s attack destroy a ship? HMS Argonaut was only lightly damaged topsides by canon fire from the MB339.

 

[carvalho2008]

Crippa's attack damaged the Argonaut's sensors and firing radar, which left it defenseless and was targeted in a second attack from the mainland as it was retreating. The translator changed the meaning of the word....But it is important to note that the sequence of its destruction was initiated by mb339, even though Crippa got confused and lost valuable seconds of sight angle, as the surprise caused him to try to shoot without having unlocked the weapons, when he realized the error, he unlocked and fired everything he had, rockets and cannons...but he must have certainly lost some because of the error. The important thing is that the ship was completely blind and was caught in a second bomb attack, totally unprotected, coming from the continent, ok??

 

[carvalho2008]

The Sea Harriers shot down around twenty Argentinian aircraft, mate.

A plane can be sacrificed, but not a pilot. The Argentinians were very brave, but not kamikaze.

Yes, correct, but without changing and respecting history, when you insert this new plane in place of the pucaras, there are no elements to imagine that another 20 would be reduced. Quite the contrary, the probability is of reduction because:

a) In the presence of an air force, even if simplified on the islands with the capacity to attack ships, the aircraft carriers would have to be a few kilometers further away, at various times, further damaging the range and autonomy of the Harriers, which were already at their limits

b) The continental side of the islands would remain open, and Argentine materials and supplies would continue to be landed

c) The volume of air operations had already exceeded on the British side, you allocate this element of assessment, represents that the same attacks coming from the continent by A4 and Daggers would continue to occur, with the same results, which were not bad at all, but adds the attacks new facilities provided by the islands' planes. Considering the number of ships hit, even in such a precarious way coming from the continent, and that the flight envelopes would be almost the same, except flight time, autonomy and range which would be much greater, a score higher than 6 or 7 is highly likely. ships or even a new chance to even reach aircraft carriers. I don't eliminate the real story of the SAS sabotage attacks, nor this, but there is not the slightest element to believe that the Harriers would shoot down all the planes that came from the mainland and all the new planes that would be on the islands, simply because they didn't shoot down dozens of attack infiltrations... the role of the harrier was sensational, but the mission was bigger than they could do...

 

[F.L.]

You are totally right @carvalho2008.
But would EMB-326/339s, Hawks, AT-33 or other light attack aircraft based at BAM Malvinas have been enough of a threat for the aircraft-carrier to move aside ?

 

[carvalho2008]

Too late for war
From Wiki

First flight	23 August 1983

Maybe this?
View attachment 712947
View attachment 712948
For the cross to Islands and if you need to retrated from there
View attachment 712949

The A37 was very uggly, but perfect for that mission

 

[carvalho2008]

You are totally right @carvalho2008.
But would EMB-326/339s, Hawks, AT-33 or other light attack aircraft based at BAM Malvinas have been enough of a threat for the aircraft-carrier to move aside ?

This is the fun part of the rehearsal. Exercise each action that could be carried out for each of these hypotheses

 

[Scott Kenny]

You are totally right @carvalho2008.
But would EMB-326/339s, Hawks, AT-33 or other light attack aircraft based at BAM Malvinas have been enough of a threat for the aircraft-carrier to move aside ?

It would have forced more Harriers into CAP missions instead of CAS, which would have delayed the recapture at the very least.

 

[Desertfox]

You know what aircraft would be funny? The SEPECAT Jaguar...

 

[alejandrogrossi]

You know what aircraft would be funny? The SEPECAT Jaguar...

Nice choice.
I put this only for load out


On this (A version)




Only one things I know they can refuel from C-160, but never saw a photo of refueling from C-130.
I think the Transall is faster than the C-130.
But yes, very good attack plane
Ideal for the profile use by our pilots, in his attacks

 

[Scott Kenny]

It would have forced more Harriers into CAP missions instead of CAS, which would have delayed the recapture at the very least.

Also, Hawks could have flown as fighter escorts for strikers from the mainland, which would have further reduced the effectiveness of Harrier CAP.

 

[carvalho2008]

It would have forced more Harriers into CAP missions instead of CAS, which would have delayed the recapture at the very least.

As long as there was a functional air force on the islands, the landing could not be carried out. Time was running against us as the worst of winter was coming.

The harrier CAPs would need to concentrate on the carrier defense ring and would be forced to leave the no-fly zone in the background. The continental side of the islands would remain open and Argentine reinforcements would not be interrupted.

The Aircraft Carriers would have to focus on destroying the airports. However, Harriers have not been very good at this during this campaign. In fact, the Port Stanley runway never stopped operating.

I believe that Woodward, unwillingly, would have no alternative but to keep his aircraft carriers close to the islands, being forced to maintain the aggressive attack on the airports... this would be risky, but necessary. In this way, the ships on the other hand would be at risk of being counter-attacked by the islands, in addition to the attacks that already existed from the mainland.

Shefield could not remain on radar picket, as he could be attacked from behind by the islands, he would have to work in a shorter ring of the task force, but on the west side of the islands....it would be a very bad business to think of a radar picket on the side mainland of the islands...

English frigates could not approach for NSFS fire support.

If, despite the Harriers still commanding the air, the Argentines actively operated their aerodromes on the islands with low-performance fighters, stressing the limits of operations, it would be likely that 1 to 2 S2T Tracker operations would begin to operate from there as well, providing clarification and discovering the position of the English main fleet....this would be risky...how many harriers could be in the air at the same time? there would be a risk of a combined attack from the mainland + islands....

I don't know what the result would be, but it would be curious and challenging...