Alternative fighter for Argentine AF & Navy during Falklands war.

MiG-21MF/bis vs Sea Harriers ?

  • Sea Harriers would have complete air superiority.

  • Sea Harriers would have had some losses.

  • Sea Harriers would have been blasted out of the sky.

  • None of the two aircraft would have gained air superiority.

Results are only viewable after voting.
Empire said:
Argentinian can't get many A-4's over the island.
Click to expand...
I leave it to you to imagine if the F-4 Phantoms, with a much better range than the Sea Harriers, had been able to operate BARCAPs far from the British fleet, no Argentinian aircraft would ever have reached it !
Empire said:
I think by 1976-77 the HMS Eagle was out of service and Hermes was under going a mild conversion.
Click to expand...
For me, the Ark Royal alone is capable of doing a lot of harm !!!
 
F.L. said:
I leave it to you to imagine if the F-4 Phantoms, with a much better range than the Sea Harriers, had been able to operate BARCAPs far from the British fleet, no Argentinian aircraft would ever have reached it !

For me, the Ark Royal alone is capable of doing a lot of harm !!!
Click to expand...
Yes I agree the Ark Royal would have been a game changer with the Buccaneers providing air refueling to the Phantoms a deadly combination!! But the Argentinians could get real lucky remember the Argentina fleet spotted the British fleet first in the 1982 conflict they just couldn't launch an attack because they got no wind across their aircraft carrier deck at the time or so the story goes!! But like I said earlier if the Argentinian A-4B's of the FAA can't find a unrefueled configuration for their attack jets (say drop tanks with one 500 pound bomb or one 250 pound bomb) than there is no chance for them and they probably wouldn't attack in 1976-77.
 
Last edited:
Eagle was laid up in Reserve in 1972 and used as a source of spares to keep Ark Royal in service. After about 1974 there was no way back for her.

Centaur was sold for scrap in 1972.

Hermes was converted to a Commando/AS carrier 1971-73.

Albion was sold in 1972 & Bulwark was a commando carrier.
 
Empire said:
I think it would be the juntas way to distract. I agree the out come would be no different than 1982 especially if Argentinian can't get many A-4's over the island. I think by 1976-77 the HMS Eagle was out of service and Hermes was under going a mild conversion. . Maybe the junta in 1976-77 thought the same as the 1982 junta the British wouldnt fight for the islands!!
Click to expand...
In 1982, the Tory government had recently passed a law which removed the right for people from Britain's overseas territories, except Gibraltar, from moving into Great Britain and Northern Ireland. This was likely seen as an indication that the British government didn't care about the Falklands, and certainly didn't care about the people who lived there.
 
Hermes was converted to a commando carrier at Devenport Dockyard 1 March 1971 to 18 Aug 1973, replacing Albion; had accommodations for 750 troops.
She was then converted to ASW carrier 10 May 1976 to 10 Dec 1976, then replaced in ASW role by Bulwark and converted to VSTOL (Harrier) carrier, receiving her bow ramp from March 1980 to June 1981.

Bulwark was converted to commando carrier at Devonport Dockyard 1/1959-23 Jan 1960. Troop capacity was originally 700; upgraded to 900 in 1963.
She was laid up in contingent reserve 5/1976, and offered for sale to Peru! Designated as a reserve ASW carrier in 1976; conversion to ASW carrier started 20 March 1978, completed and recommissioned 23 Feb 1979. One boiler room destroyed by fire 15 March 1980; not repaired. Decommissioned for disposal 4/1981.

Ark Royal was in good fettle, however - being a TV star. A major BBC documentary series, one of the earliest fly-on-the-wall documentaries, Sailor was made, showing life on board the ship during a February-to-July 1976 Western Atlantic deployment.

Now Intrepid went into reserve sometime in 1976 (still trying to nail down what month) so she might be delayed a bit getting underway with a load.

After May 1976 would be good for Argentina - except for the start of the southern winter right then.

Much earlier would see Hermes and Bulwark both active as troop transports (and thus available to host a LOT of Army and Commando helicopters and troops, and possibly some RAF Harrier GR.1s (needing a full-deck run, neither ship having a ski-jump installed). 6 GR.1s were operating in Belize at the time, so they could be picked up by a flat-top heading south.

 
BlackBat242 said:
Hermes was converted to a commando carrier at Devenport Dockyard 1 March 1971 to 18 Aug 1973, replacing Albion; had accommodations for 750 troops.
She was then converted to ASW carrier 10 May 1976 to 10 Dec 1976, then replaced in ASW role by Bulwark and converted to VSTOL (Harrier) carrier, receiving her bow ramp from March 1980 to June 1981.

Bulwark was converted to commando carrier at Devonport Dockyard 1/1959-23 Jan 1960. Troop capacity was originally 700; upgraded to 900 in 1963.
She was laid up in contingent reserve 5/1976, and offered for sale to Peru! Designated as a reserve ASW carrier in 1976; conversion to ASW carrier started 20 March 1978, completed and recommissioned 23 Feb 1979. One boiler room destroyed by fire 15 March 1980; not repaired. Decommissioned for disposal 4/1981.

Ark Royal was in good fettle, however - being a TV star. A major BBC documentary series, one of the earliest fly-on-the-wall documentaries, Sailor was made, showing life on board the ship during a February-to-July 1976 Western Atlantic deployment.

Now Intrepid went into reserve sometime in 1976 (still trying to nail down what month) so she might be delayed a bit getting underway with a load.

After May 1976 would be good for Argentina - except for the start of the southern winter right then.

Much earlier would see Hermes and Bulwark both active as troop transports (and thus available to host a LOT of Army and Commando helicopters and troops, and possibly some RAF Harrier GR.1s (needing a full-deck run, neither ship having a ski-jump installed). 6 GR.1s were operating in Belize at the time, so they could be picked up by a flat-top heading south.
Click to expand...
Thank you!!! Great Info!!!!
 
Hi All
Can someone do calculation to see if A-4B can reach San Carlos bay from the Argentina main land and get back without aerial refueling? Say maybe lighten the combat load out? Here is some info I collected on the distances and actual details of the strikes carried out in 1982. Im no good with figuring out the calculations of combat radius and ranges.

typical loadout was 2 x 450 gallon tanks on the inboard wing pylons, centerline TER with 3 x 500lb bombs, or the standard centerline pylon with 1 x 1000lb bomb,


A typical mission involved taking off from a base 700 kms (434.96 miles) away from the target. A few minutes after taking off the Skyhawk met the KC-130, and refuelled their tanks with that little extra that would allow them to return, since usually the range of this plane allowed them only a 3 min bombing run and then it was home or bath.


Argentine airbases: Distances to Port Stanley Airport:[17] Trelew: 580 nautical miles (1,070 km), Comodoro Rivadavia: 480 nautical miles (890 km), San Julián: 425 nautical miles (787 km), Rio Gallegos: 435 nautical miles (806 km) and Rio Grande: 380 nautical miles (700 km).
Due to the distance required to fly to the islands, two minutes was the average time Argentine attack aircraft had available in the target area.
 
As long as the Royal Navy had or has fleet nuclear submarines in service Argentina cannot operate naval forces between the mainland and the disputed islands.
Whatever aircraft carrier it had would be sunk after 1964 until the present.
Even without retaking the islands as it did in 1982 the UK could deny Argentina access to them by sea using two or three SSNs on patrol.
A timely deployment of an SSN in 1982 could have saved many lives.
 
Last edited:
uk 75 said:
As long as the Royal Navy had or has fleet nuclear submarines in service Argentina cannot operate naval forces between the mainland and the disputed islands.
Whatever aircraft carrier it had would be sunk after 1964 until the present.
Even without retaking the islands as it did in 1982 the UK could deny Argentina access to them by sea using two or three SSNs on patrol.
A timely deployment of an SSN in 1982 could have saved many lives.
Click to expand...
Agree 100%
We have ASW capabilities for SSK, not for SSN.
 
I should add to the above and to my earlier thread that I think Argentina would have been a good recipient (forget the politics for a while) for Centaur and her Sea Vixens with Harriers/AV8s to follow and then Sea Harriers or AV8Bs. As a country with a long seaboard and a key role in S America this would be reasonable.
The F104S from Italy or even Italian Tornados and in due course retired RAF Tornados would also be appropriate if politics were not around.
 
BlackBat242 said:
Now Intrepid went into reserve sometime in 1976 (still trying to nail down what month) so she might be delayed a bit getting underway with a load.
Click to expand...
Well, I made contact with an acquaintance on another board, and he provided a news story saying that Intrepid went into reserve in July 1976.

I knew someone there would know - they are a bunch of old salts there.

Here is his resume:
HMS Raleigh 1963 , HMS Collingwood 1963 & 67 , HMS Ark Royal 1964-7, HMS Undaunted 1968-71, HMS Victory (Fleet Maintenance Group) 1971-72, HMS Exmouth 1972-74
JEM, EM, OEM, LOEM, POOEL
Then 28 years in the Fire Brigade
Retired since 2002
Click to expand...
 
Empire said:
Hi All
Can someone do calculation to see if A-4B can reach San Carlos bay from the Argentina main land and get back without aerial refueling? Say maybe lighten the combat load out? Here is some info I collected on the distances and actual details of the strikes carried out in 1982. Im no good with figuring out the calculations of combat radius and ranges.

typical loadout was 2 x 450 gallon tanks on the inboard wing pylons, centerline TER with 3 x 500lb bombs, or the standard centerline pylon with 1 x 1000lb bomb,


A typical mission involved taking off from a base 700 kms (434.96 miles) away from the target. A few minutes after taking off the Skyhawk met the KC-130, and refuelled their tanks with that little extra that would allow them to return, since usually the range of this plane allowed them only a 3 min bombing run and then it was home or bath.


Argentine airbases: Distances to Port Stanley Airport:[17] Trelew: 580 nautical miles (1,070 km), Comodoro Rivadavia: 480 nautical miles (890 km), San Julián: 425 nautical miles (787 km), Rio Gallegos: 435 nautical miles (806 km) and Rio Grande: 380 nautical miles (700 km).
Due to the distance required to fly to the islands, two minutes was the average time Argentine attack aircraft had available in the target area.
Click to expand...

Try this website. https://www.distance.to/
 
uk 75 said:
I should add to the above and to my earlier thread that I think Argentina would have been a good recipient (forget the politics for a while) for Centaur and her Sea Vixens with Harriers/AV8s to follow and then Sea Harriers or AV8Bs. As a country with a long seaboard and a key role in S America this would be reasonable.
The F104S from Italy or even Italian Tornados and in due course retired RAF Tornados would also be appropriate if politics were not around.
Click to expand...
uk.75
In that case (no War).
A Centaur CATOBAR, then to operate with SH or AV-8 (the need a refit with Sky Jump)
Something like this
1703169602873.png

For our Air force
My dream
1703169725166.png
Not much more, because we need much budget.
for this 10, we need a lot more
 
Would be funny as hell if Argentina at some point bought second-hand Sea Vixens... how would a Sea Vixen FAW.2 fare against a SHAR Mk.1 ?
Never asked, could Sea Vixen fly out of something smaller than Hermes ? Any chance for Majestic / Colossus ?
 
Archibald said:
Would be funny as hell if Argentina at some point bought second-hand Sea Vixens... how would a Sea Vixen FAW.2 fare against a SHAR Mk.1 ?
Never asked, could Sea Vixen fly out of something smaller than Hermes ? Any chance for Majestic / Colossus ?
Click to expand...
In terms of maneuverability -my opinion- the Sea Vixen have the same tham M-III / Dagger; or less
2x Shafir for Dagger / 2 Magic 550 M-III (2 batch)
If you can update the Sea Vixen with more modern misiles ( you have 4) plus AAR.
1703196151439.png
The Sea Vixen, i must saw it for FAA not COAN, for the reason that you say (I dont think that can take off form Majestic or Colossus
 
Empire said:
Can someone do calculation to see if A-4B can reach San Carlos bay from the Argentina main land and get back without aerial refueling?
Click to expand...
Did Argentina have 300 gallon tanks or only 150 gallon tanks? A centerline 300 gallon tank would be less draggy than 2x 150 gallon tanks, and there would still be space for 2x 500lb or 2x 1000lb bombs under the wings.

Distances to San Carlos:
350nm from Rio Grande
360nm from San Julian
375nm from Santa Cruz
385nm from Rio Gallegos

A-4C combat radius with 1x 300gal tank and 2x 500lb Bullpups was 340nm Hi-Lo-Lo-Hi, including 100nm at low level each way for ingress/egress and 5min combat. Radius Hi-Lo-Hi improves to 460nm.

So interpolating between the 2 numbers, a Skyhawk could fly a 360nm mission from San Julian with ~80nm at low level each way, or more likely a mix of 100-120nm low level going in and 40-50nm low level on the way out. But that requires dropping the tank when empty… which I don’t think Argentina could afford to do. Keeping the drop tank all the way would increase fuel burn by ~5%, reducing radius by ~15nm. To offset that, the low level portion would have to be reduced to ~70nm each way, say 100nm in / 30 nm out. Still ok I think.

Payload would be 2x 500lb or even 2x 1000lb as the A-4B was ~900lb lighter than the A-4C I used in the example above.
 
Last edited:
H_K said:
Did Argentina have 300 gallon tanks or only 150 gallon tanks? A centerline 300 gallon tank would be less draggy than 2x 150 gallon tanks, and there would still be space for 2x 500lb or 2x 1000lb bombs under the wings.

Distances to San Carlos:
350nm from Rio Grande
360nm from San Julian
375nm from Santa Cruz
385nm from Rio Gallegos

A-4C combat radius with 1x 300gal tank and 2x 500lb Bullpups was 340nm Hi-Lo-Lo-Hi, including 100nm at low level each way for ingress/egress and 5min combat. Radius Hi-Lo-Hi improves to 460nm.

So interpolating between the 2 numbers, a Skyhawk could fly a 360nm mission from San Julian with ~80nm at low level each way, or more likely a mix of 100-120nm low level going in and 40-50nm low level on the way out. But that requires dropping the tank when empty… which I don’t think Argentina could afford to do. Keeping the drop tank all the way would increase fuel burn by ~5%, reducing radius by ~15nm. To offset that, the low level portion would have to be reduced to ~70nm each way, say 100nm in / 30 nm out. Still ok I think.

Payload would be 2x 500lb or even 2x 1000lb as the A-4B was ~900lb lighter than the A-4C I used in the example above.
Click to expand...
I think they used the 300 gallon tanks! Not sure how many they had tho!!! Thank you!!! H_K great information appreciate you doing the calculations!!!!
 
Does anyone know what the takeoff distance of the Canberras was?
martin-b-57b-version-ee-canberra-1569567.jpg
 
carvalho2008 said:
Does anyone know what the takeoff distance of the Canberras was?
Click to expand...
From JAWA 1962-63.
T.O. distance to 50 ft (15.25 m)
- Mk. 6 - 5,800 ft (1,768 m)
- Mk. 7 - 5,650 ft (1,720 m)
- Mk. 8 - 6,000 ft (1,830 m)
Landing distance from 50 ft (15.25 m)
- Mks. 6, 7, 8 - 3,900 ft (1,190 m)
 
Last edited:
B-57B. No Canberra ever had a cockpit like that. USAF markings are a bit of a giveaway too.
<edit> As @Scott Kenny wrote, B57s were called Canberra too.
So - Canberra or B-57? The answer should be 'yes' :p
 
Last edited:
Arjen said:
B-57B. No Canberra ever had a cockpit like that. USAF markings are a bit of a giveaway too.
Click to expand...
I've no doubt it's a B-57 ! :cool:
What I'm asking is whether the question refers to the Canberra (as in the text) or the B-57 (as in the image).
 
Last edited:
carvalho2008 said:
Also including in the list more Canberras could have helped too....
Click to expand...
It was all I could find, with my other JAWA editions offering nothing at all.
Comparing engine / weight specs of Mks. 6, 7, 8 with other marks should give you an idea of T.O. distance of those other marks.
carvalho2008 said:
takeoff distance was too long for the runway on the islands....
Click to expand...
Indeed. 918 m runway length, currently.
Quote from wikipedia-entry on Port Stanley airport:
Immediately after the conflict air defence of the Islands and garrison was carried out by Sea Harrier FRS.1s and Harrier GR.3s at RAF Stanley and from the aircraft carrier, HMS Invincible, on standing patrol. The runway was extended by [..] 6,100 feet (1,900 m), paved with aluminium planking, and had arrester equipment installed to allow RAF F-4 Phantom fighters, initially some of those of No. 29 Squadron RAF, to be based on the island as air defence.
[...]
In 1985, RAF Mount Pleasant opened and in April 1986 Port Stanley Airport returned to civilian use. The temporary aluminium planking runway extension was removed, bringing the runway down to its present length.
Click to expand...
Runway length at RAF Mount Pleasant:
Runways
DirectionLength and surface
10/282,589 metres (8,494 ft) Asphalt concrete
05/231,525 metres (5,003 ft) Asphalt concrete
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
From English Electric Canberra: The History and Development of a Classic Jet by Bruce Barrymore Halfpenny, Pen & Sword, 2005 (reprinted 2013)

B.Mk.2
TO distance to 50ft at max weight (zero wind) 4,500ft (1,372m); without tip tanks 3,540ft (1,080m)
Landing distance from 50ft at max landing weight (40,000lb - 18,160kg) 4,500ft (1,372m); with only 250gal (1,138L) of fuel 2,520ft (770m)

PR.Mk.3
TO distance to 50ft 4,410ft (1,345m); without tip tanks 3,450ft (1,050m)

T.Mk.4
TO distance to 50ft 3,120ft (950m); without tip tanks 2,370ft (725m)
Landing distance from 50ft at max landing weight (31,500lb - 14,300kg) 3,450ft (1,050m)

B.Mk.6
TO distance to 50ft 5,800ft (1,768m)
Landing distance from 50ft 3,900ft (1,190m)

PR.Mk.7
TO distance to 50ft (zero wind) 5,650ft (1,768m); without tip tanks 3,960ft (1,210m)
Landing distance from 50ft at max landing weight (40,000lb - 18,160kg) 3,900ft (1,190m) ;with only 250gal (1,138L) of fuel 2,320ft (710m)

B(I)Mk.8
TO distance to 50ft 6,000ft (1,830m)
Landing distance from 50ft 3,900ft (1,190m)
 
uk 75 said:
I should add to the above and to my earlier thread that I think Argentina would have been a good recipient (forget the politics for a while) for Centaur
Click to expand...
uk.75
This is my refit of the Centaur.
1703857945867.png
Island like Karel Doorman (our 25 de mayo) and a angled deck like her.
Add some parking space foward and aft the island.
I add at the stern, to starbaord side, an extension to conunterbalannce of the angled deck.
The only thing I couldn't do - I don't use paint very well - was the paint for the new angled deck.
Maybe one with better skill can do it.
Not change CAT, because as far i understand, the can mange the A-4 /F-8 and S-2E (her air group).
In a future refit we can move the foward lift a little more to the starboard side, tu put a more powerfull cat and add one in the angled deck (same configuration like the R05 or R09)
 
What about the F-16A/B? Argentina was a nominal ally of the US. Venezuela was able to purchase them at some point in the 1980s.
 
JohnCitizen, given that the F-16A/B itself was all but new in operational service (entering USAF service 17 August 1978), I would think Argentina would have to purchase brand new off the production line, as there was no surplus F-16's in the USAF inventory at this time frame. Argentina just didn't have the $ cash $ for such an expensive investment, let alone the lead up time for the Argentinians to become proficient in its use and serviceability.

[Venezuela was one of the first export customers for the F-16 in1983.]

Regards
Pioneer
 
Pioneer said:
JohnCitizen, given that the F-16A/B itself was all but new in operational service (entering USAF service 17 August 1978), I would think Argentina would have to purchase brand new off the production line, as there was no surplus F-16's in the USAF inventory at this time frame. Argentina just didn't have the $ cash $ for such an expensive investment, let alone the lead up time for the Argentinians to become proficient in its use and serviceability.

[Venezuela was one of the first export customers for the F-16 in1983.]

Regards
Pioneer
Click to expand...
Well, this is all fiction anyway. Depends on how fictitious we want to be. If we're assuming Argentina has the same economy and the same relationship w/ the US . . . then our choices may be limited to Russian or French. And if we're keeping w/ the same Argentine gov't, as was noted above, they were staunchly anti-Moscow. Very right wing. The Mirage 2000 prototypes don't fly until 1978 or 1979.
 
The only other option that comes to mind right away would be a version of the Kfir. The American engine would allow the US to block exports; however, the SA Cheetahs, for example, used alternative engines. Now in order to give the Argentinians a boost over what they really had capability-wise in 1982, you'd need a more advanced avionics suite for the Kfir. But that was in the works circa 1982.
 
JohnCitizen said:
The only other option that comes to mind right away would be a version of the Kfir. The American engine would allow the US to block exports; however, the SA Cheetahs, for example, used alternative engines. Now in order to give the Argentinians a boost over what they really had capability-wise in 1982, you'd need a more advanced avionics suite for the Kfir. But that was in the works circa 1982.
Click to expand...
I think that at the time, the best solution would have been Israeli help to modernize the Mirages/Daggers, in particular to add in-flight refueling capability.
Otherwise, given that Ecuador, the first Kfir export operator, received its aircraft in 1982, I think it would be possible for the Argentinians to receive Kfirs, fitted with Israeli engines, shortly before the start of the conflict.
 
But then again, I think it comes down to the fact that the invasion of the Falkland Islands was launched too early, when not all Argentine forces were ready for a confrontation with the British, which had not been sufficiently thought through.
 

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom