Alternative fighter for Argentine AF & Navy during Falklands war.

[Rule of cool]

One can quickly build a crude revetment with standard construction equipment, or even by hand if you have rocks and guys filling sandbags. On the whole, I'd agree it wasn't worth losing more than a handful of the existing aircraft in their fleet.

Damage limitation revetments are easy to construct, but they require parking space that Port Stanley lacked.

It's not just a lack of hardstand and dispersal that make Port Stanley unsuitable for anything other than the most basic and irregular fighter operations. It's a very short runway, the FAA judged it too short given how wet it often was. It lacked any sophistication that regular fighter operations require; taxiways or even turning loops are required so fighters can take off in pairs or flights and speed up aircraft movements.

 

[_Del_]

It's not just ...

A lot of things are done in combat conditions that would never be otherwise considered acceptable.
I'm not disputing the conclusion that it would be a poor operation with poorer chances of success. I think trying to operate a large contingent out of there given the circumstances was a poor risk-reward proposition. Too many of the limited eggs in one basket for an inconclusive advantage.

I think, however, if there had been a greater chance of finding and sinking shipping, or if they had a larger fighter force to absorb losses, then the calculation changes. People find a way to make do when push comes to shove. I don't think the conditions at Stanley, bad as they were, are what prevented larger operations being based there.

 

[Scott Kenny]

One can quickly build a crude revetment with standard construction equipment, or even by hand if you have rocks and guys filling sandbags. On the whole, I'd agree it wasn't worth losing more than a handful of the existing aircraft in their fleet.

And the US built thousands of those in Vietnam.

Port Stanley doesn't have enough space?

Break out the PSP/PAP runway planking, time to make some!

 

[Rule of cool]

And the US built thousands of those in Vietnam.

Port Stanley doesn't have enough space?

Break out the PSP/PAP runway planking, time to make some!

Argentine Air Force engineers, who had ample supplies of steel matting etc, did a study of the Port Stanley airfield and decided it was only good for emergency landings.

I wonder how things might have turned out if the first aircraft to attempt an emergency landing, a Mirage III damaged in air to air combat with a Sea Harrier, wasn't shot down by the AA gunners at Port Stanley on final approach.

 

[Scott Kenny]

Argentine Air Force engineers, who had ample supplies of steel matting etc, did a study of the Port Stanley airfield and decided it was only good for emergency landings.

And if that's the case, then MiG-21s are even more discommended. Not enough legs!

 

[H_K]

I think, however, if there had been a greater chance of finding and sinking shipping, or if they had a larger fighter force to absorb losses, then the calculation changes.

This was exactly my reasoning for handing over 15-18 ex-Aeronavale Etendard IVMs at the same time as the Super Etendard purchase (see discussion on page 5 of this thread).

https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/alternative-fighter-for-argentine-af-navy-during-falklands-war.41308/post-609387

Properly equipped and trained (which is a big if, considering lackluster Argentine preparedness), this would have constituted an ideal force for forward basing a few low tech & expendable fighters (say 6 to 8) with Magic AAMs at Port Stanley and for anti shipping missions from the mainland, with AS30 armed strikers able to do a fuel stop at Port Stanley on the return leg, rather than use up limited air refueling resources.

This would require some COAN pilots proficient in air to air combat and others in low level AS30 attacks, which was a very tough mission that some of the COAN’s counterparts excelled at (such as the Marineflieger’s F-104s).

Not a very likely what-if, but certainly more realistic and more useful than MiG-21s. A handful of AS30 hits (in addition to the 3 successful Exocet attacks) could have tipped the balance in the shipping war. As would a more effective fighter threat which would have forced a rethink of Sea Harrier CAP missions.

 

[Archibald]

Check that. Argentina initial plan, December 1981.

Argentina sticks with their original plan for the Falklands : July 1982

As said in the tin. I did some research, found some interesting stuff. Never had bothered to check, when and how did Argentina military started it all. Notably, what was the ORIGINAL plan ? (the one that never, ever survives first encounter with the ennemy - Moltke the elder). Check the file I...

www.alternatehistory.com

Brief summary
-diplomacy / a token invasion / fait accompli / return to diplomacy
-a token invasion circa July 1982
-South Georgia is a sideshow, not synchronized with the Falklands (and de facto dooming it, as it triggers the British)

 

[carvalho2008]

Right. They could fly just fine from that airfield.

But they'd struggle to get there from the mainland. They'd also fail to fly CAP missions over the strikes coming to British ships east of the islands from the mainland. Worse, they'd be unable to fly to the mainland if chased off the island.

So once the British carriers are within Harrier range of the islands, any Fishbeds would be in trouble.

Why do we continue to rehearse glimpsing a romantic TopGun image of the Falklands war?

Is the objective to win air-to-air combat? Would it be enough to beat the Harrier+AIM-9L? Or is the best objective to balance and attack and fend off the British Task Force? With money Argentina could have F-4....and did it have it??? No...didn't you?

Would the Mig-21 be the best option? I don't think so... the plane must have naval attack capacity and yes, the ability to defend itself in air-to-air combat is desirable, it must also have the capacity to be replaced in volumes and quantities because:

a) The best planes, Argentina left on the continent operating from there, as they were afraid of being attacked by Chile from the coasts;

b) Whatever model was parked on the islands, assume that at least 7 of them would already be destroyed on land by British SAS operations;

c) More than the harrier, the biggest enemy would be the AIM-9L... so, depending on the Argentine missile, the results of the aerial encounters would not change

d) What is the MIG-21’s takeoff distance profile for a naval attack?

e) Would overcoming air-to-air actually prevent disembarkation?

f) For me, it is clear that the chosen fighter must have certain characteristics that are dispensable from the point of view of losses by the Argentines...

 

[Rule of cool]

Check that. Argentina initial plan, December 1981.

Argentina sticks with their original plan for the Falklands : July 1982

As said in the tin. I did some research, found some interesting stuff. Never had bothered to check, when and how did Argentina military started it all. Notably, what was the ORIGINAL plan ? (the one that never, ever survives first encounter with the ennemy - Moltke the elder). Check the file I...

www.alternatehistory.com

Brief summary
-diplomacy / a token invasion / fait accompli / return to diplomacy
-a token invasion circa July 1982
-South Georgia is a sideshow, not synchronized with the Falklands (and de facto dooming it, as it triggers the British)

Thanks for that, it has answered something that had bugged me for the longest time - the untrained conscripts.

I had suspected that the Army units earmarked for garrison/occupation were 'untrained' because the invasion occurred too early in their training cycle. This is exactly what happened, the Argentine conscript induction/training cycle starts in February, Rosario was scrambled together in late March when these troops had only 45 days training. With a June or particularly September invasion these same troops would be much further along in their training cycle and thus far more up to the task of defending the islands.

 

[Arjen]

So these Argentine generals, did they have the mental capacities to tie their own shoe laces, or would they need to call for a lackey?

 

[Archibald]

So these Argentine generals, did they have the mental capacities to tie their own shoe laces, or would they need to call for a lackey?

Anaya by himself was an arrogant prick. At every level: part of Junta dictatorship trio. Indeed after 1981 junta leadership was split between Army, Air Force and Navy commanders.
Don't forget that after the Belgrano bloodbath Anaya retired his navy to ports, leaving the Army and Air Force fighting alone.
Anaya knew since the 1977 Callaghan reaction that his navy was powerless against british nuclear attack submarines.
Anaya knew that South Georgia, if not coordinated with the Falklands own operation, would bring the british in strength, with a vengeance.
In the end, we can thank Anaya stupidity : it brought down the junta through the falklands conflict.

 

[Wotan]

Argentine Air Force engineers, who had ample supplies of steel matting etc, did a study of the Port Stanley airfield and decided it was only good for emergency landings.

And if that's the case, then MiG-21s are even more discommended. Not enough legs!

The AAF rejected probably the Port Stanley airfield for a reason, they only had Mirages, not Mig-21s. The term "rough field operation" is there for a reason...

Watch These MiGs Operate From A Grass Field Like It's No Big Deal

You have probably seen videos of fighter jets operating from long stretches of highway before, but check out these MiG-21 Fishbeds launching and recovering from a grass field!

jalopnik.com

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=be-uD1FCyok&t=1s


By the way, are there any flat field pastures in the Falklands? 1km will do. Maybe instead of Mirages the argentinians would have been more profitable in investing in some cheap Migs and some lawn mowers (or some sheeps).

 

[Rule of cool]

The AAF rejected probably the Port Stanley airfield for a reason, they only had Mirages, not Mig-21s. The term "rough field operation" is there for a reason...

Watch These MiGs Operate From A Grass Field Like It's No Big Deal

You have probably seen videos of fighter jets operating from long stretches of highway before, but check out these MiG-21 Fishbeds launching and recovering from a grass field!

jalopnik.com

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=be-uD1FCyok&t=1s


By the way, are there any flat field pastures in the Falklands? 1km will do. Maybe instead of Mirages the argentinians would have been more profitable in investing in some cheap Migs and some lawn mowers (or some sheeps).

There's a vast difference between a handful of aircraft undertaking the odd rough field takeoff or landing and operating a fighter squadron during an air campaign.

I'm a big believer in off-base operating capability, I recently did a count of the fighter-capable airfields north of the Tropic of Capricorn in Australia. However there is no substitute for a properly set up and equipped air base for both the task of sortie generation and resilience under attack. Such airbases can generate impressive sortie rates exceeding 1 sortie per aircraft per day, indeed are essential for such sorties rates to be achieved.

While I have little doubt that Mig21s could fly from Port Stanley more effectively than Mirage IIIs could that doesn't make Port Stanley a suitable base for a squadron of Mig 21s. For starters is was under seaborne blockade from about the 12th of April, it was supplied with fuel by having supply aircraft arrive with full tanks as possible, then draining the excess fuel before they flew home. This might be fine for a few Pucaras and helicopters but won't give fuel-thirsty Mig 21s much to utilise. There is nowhere to store and load the ordnance fighters need, which on a proper airbase is done away from other tasks in areas asset up to minimise the effects of an accidental explosion. There is minimal hardstand, certainly not enough that fighters can be parked away from each other and better yet in revetments from protection, nor is there any taxiway or turning loops to allow multi-ship takeoffs which even Sid Strip at Port San Carlos had.

I have no doubt putting some Mig21s would be a complicating factor for the British and might have done some damage for the Argentines it wouldn't have been a game changer as these Mig21s couldn't have operated in large enough numbers at a sufficient operational tempo.

 

[Scott Kenny]

The AAF rejected probably the Port Stanley airfield for a reason, they only had Mirages, not Mig-21s. The term "rough field operation" is there for a reason...

Watch These MiGs Operate From A Grass Field Like It's No Big Deal

You have probably seen videos of fighter jets operating from long stretches of highway before, but check out these MiG-21 Fishbeds launching and recovering from a grass field!

jalopnik.com

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=be-uD1FCyok&t=1s


By the way, are there any flat field pastures in the Falklands? 1km will do. Maybe instead of Mirages the argentinians would have been more profitable in investing in some cheap Migs and some lawn mowers (or some sheeps).

Flat? No, not really. At least based on the pictures I've seen.

If it was a flat area it was a swamp. If it wasn't a swamp and was flat enough to fly planes off it, it had houses on it.

The pastures are rolling hills or steeper, not the nice flat meadows you get from regularly-flooding rivers.

 

[F-14ATomcat]

In the 1980s Argentina had a anti-communist government, so forget it no MiG-21s or MiG-23 were going to be inducted.

In a more realistic scenario, better AAM could have given Argentina a chance, the Mirage III and Nasher were good enough versus the harriers, but the arms embargo played the role to limit the self defence of A-4s and Mirage IIIs.

War is no fair, so Argentina lost, but in terms of pilots and equipment Argentina lost due to the arms embargo, Italy`s betrayal and Spain betrayal to their children in south America.

France played the card of facilitator of England`s victory and the same was the USA.

Argentina to win needed Exocets and AIM-9Ls, would they had them very likely they would have won.

So the Arms embargo was the reason they lost

 

[F-14ATomcat]

In my opinion that War was well planned from the beginning: The main objective of the Argentine government was political and was aimed at internal public opinion, the secondary objective was of an economic nature and was aimed at controlling the enormous natural wealth of the area, the third objective was strategic and consisted of sending a message of military power to the government of Chile.

I believe that at no time did the Argentine Generals believe that a British attack carried out from thousands of kilometers was possible without the possibility of large-scale logistical support and without air superiority. It seemed crazy to me at the time and I still think it was tremendously risky.

After so many years I think we still don't know what really happened.

Maybe they thought that a government led by a woman would give in and they were wrong.

I wish we had women like that in the government of the European Union now.

In my opinion the war was not well planned.

If I go back in History Spain during the XV to XVIII ruled the seas thanks to the ability of making their own ships and weaponry.

Argentina did not have the ability of making their own fighter aircraft to the level of England, so they were susceptible to arms embargoes.

It is sad but I have to admit the Argentine politicians were very gullible and stupid to Think the USA was going to support them and same France.
Of course this is product Latin Americans are not peoples or countries with the desire to wage war.

It is good we have no nuclear weapons since that will keep us far from being targets, perhaps we are not great military powers but we are not going to be nuked.

In 1982 Argentina understood England was a nuclear power, France and the USA supported England and they had no weapons to fight, so they lost.

If I am honest pretty stupid war for Argentina, trying to challenge a nuclear power without SLBMs or their own fighter aircraft thinking other NATO members were going to support them.

 

[Scott Kenny]

Why do we continue to rehearse glimpsing a romantic TopGun image of the Falklands war?

Is the objective to win air-to-air combat? Would it be enough to beat the Harrier+AIM-9L? Or is the best objective to balance and attack and fend off the British Task Force? With money Argentina could have F-4....and did it have it??? No...didn't you?

The objective is to keep the Harriers with their AIM-9Ls off the A-4s and Super Etendards doing the attacks on the ships.

Successful attacks on the ships would prevent disembarkation of troops to retake the islands.

 

[Wotan]

In the 1980s Argentina had a anti-communist government, so forget it no MiG-21s or MiG-23 were going to be inducted.

The soviets were not very choosy to whom they would sell their Migs, as long as you had the cash. This is a map of present (blue) and former (red) Mig-21 operators.

A lot of arab and african dictators got their Migs, as well as both Iran and Irak while beeing military oponents. I think that south-americans were just more oriented towards SUA and Europe, because cultural and historical reasons.

 

[F-14ATomcat]

The soviets were not very choosy to whom they would sell their Migs, as long as you had the cash. This is a map of present (blue) and former (red) Mig-21 operators.

A lot of arab and african dictators got their Migs, as well as both Iran and Irak while beeing military oponents. I think that south-americans were just more oriented towards SUA and Europe, because cultural and historical reasons.

Argentina is mostly Spanish and Italian descendants, thus they had a very close relation with the USA and NATO, further more the Argentine dictator was always supported by the USA because they fought communism, in 1973 in Chile they had a communist leaning President so 1982, Chile, was ruled by anti-communist dictator.

So all the weapons were western, Cuba was different they were truly communist so they got MiG-21s.

To be honest Galtieri was a total fool, he thought the USA was going to support him.

The Argentine armed forces never got the best weapons, and to be honest The harriers were not as good, but the Argentine Mirages needed at least a weapon like the Python 3.

Argentina in a realistic scenario needed probably AIM-9Ls or Python 3, but the USA nor Israel were going to provide such weapons but perhaps in an alternative history that was the most probable case

 

[EwenS]

For those interested the link below to articles on the Margaret Thatcher Foundation website regarding US political and intelligence aspects of the war from US document archives.

The US & the Falklands War (1): the US 'tilt' towards Britain (30 Apr 1982) | Margaret Thatcher Foundation

www.margaretthatcher.org

 

[carvalho2008]

The objective is to keep the Harriers with their AIM-9Ls off the A-4s and Super Etendards doing the attacks on the ships.

Successful attacks on the ships would prevent disembarkation of troops to retake the islands.

The islands were unable to house many aircraft. So, let's theorize that all Pucaras, all MB-339s and all Turbo Mentors were replaced by MIG-21s.

How many MIG-21s should Argentina have? And is this number feasible with the rest of the fighters inventories that were on the continent?

Purely Human SAS Commando operations destroyed 7 aircraft on the ground.

at least 04 per land artillery (blowpipe, cannons)

At least 03 in accidents

I'm not counting air-to-air or aerial bomber losses...

In other words... Argentina would need to have around 30-40 MIG 21s in inventory, given operational availability and replacement capacity on the islands...

That seems quite a lot and perhaps not very feasible...

Another point, the focus is distorted... the Argentines' problem with or without a Harrier was not defeating the air-to-air combat... the harriers were not being able to stop the attacks... the problem was blowing up the artifacts that were already They were hitting the ships and keeping them away from the combat and disembarkation...

The Mig 21 takes off in 800 meters only armed with 2 air-to-air missiles and 8,800 kg of weight on unprepared runways... It has to have excess weight to attack the ships...

 

[Rule of cool]

IIUC the planning team for the invasion, both he original plans to take place later in the year and Rosario, were specifically ordered to not make any defensive plans. If such plans were allowed I suspect they would have included improvements to the airport; perhaps an extension with a turning loop, more hardstand and improvised taxiways and other improvements that would drastically increase the military value of the airport.

The Mig 21 takes off in 800 meters only armed with 2 air-to-air missiles and 8,800 kg of weight on unprepared runways... It has to have excess weight to attack the ships...

No it doesn't, simply by being available in the air to air role it ties up Sea Harriers making them unavailable to intercept aircraft from the mainland coming to attack the ships.

 

[Justo Miranda]

In my opinion the war was not well planned.

If I go back in History Spain during the XV to XVIII ruled the seas thanks to the ability of making their own ships and weaponry.

Argentina did not have the ability of making their own fighter aircraft to the level of England, so they were susceptible to arms embargoes.

It is sad but I have to admit the Argentine politicians were very gullible and stupid to Think the USA was going to support them and same France.
Of course this is product Latin Americans are not peoples or countries with the desire to wage war.

It is good we have no nuclear weapons since that will keep us far from being targets, perhaps we are not great military powers but we are not going to be nuked.

In 1982 Argentina understood England was a nuclear power, France and the USA supported England and they had no weapons to fight, so they lost.

If I am honest pretty stupid war for Argentina, trying to challenge a nuclear power without SLBMs or their own fighter aircraft thinking other NATO members were going to support them.

It is easy to make the mistake of judging leaders by the decisions they made in the past, based on what we know now, rather than on the information available to them then. The current moment is a good example of this, imagine that you are an advisor to Trump and he asks you what the Chinese fleet is going to do with Taiwan, or what is going to happen with the president of South Korea or what the Russians are playing with, or if the new flu epidemic is natural or something provoked against vaccine deniers.

The future of the world may depend on what you say to him or whether he listens to you or not.

Fifty years from now, an amateur historian will say: how could they be so stupid?

 

[H_K]

IIUC the planning team for the invasion, both he original plans to take place later in the year and Rosario, were specifically ordered to not make any defensive plans. If such plans were allowed I suspect they would have included improvements to the airport; perhaps an extension with a turning loop, more hardstand and improvised taxiways and other improvements that would drastically increase the military value of the airport.

Indeed. It should have been relatively easy to add some matting at both runway ends and along the runway. The RAF immediately installed matting to enable Harrier ops after the islands were recaptured... presumably they also added fuel & munitions storage areas.

Compare the following:

Port Stanley during invasion... limited hardstand area, many aircraft parked on grass, only a handful of earth revetments. Note the "fake" crater to fool RAF photo analysts.

Now Port Stanley after recapture, with matting added for Harrier ops:

 

[Arjen]

It is easy to make the mistake of judging leaders by the decisions they made in the past

In my view, rushing the Falklands invasion plan, placing barely trained recruits in harm's way, foregoing the Etendards, etcetera, should have been recognised as stupidly reckless there and then. The one reason I can think of why the generals were in such a hurry was because they felt the tide in Argentina was turning against them.
'Let's go for it now, what could possibly go wrong?'

 

[Justo Miranda]

In my view, rushing the Falklands invasion plan, placing barely trained recruits in harm's way, foregoing the Etendards, etcetera, should have been recognised as stupidly reckless there and then. The one reason I can think of why the generals were in such a hurry was because they felt the tide in Argentina was turning against them.
'Let's go for it now, what could possibly go wrong?'

In my opinion, the Argentine generals believed they were making a safe bet. His degree of knowledge of the international situation could be compared to that of Mussolini when he decided to enter World War II to seize Egypt, Greece, several naval bases located in the south of France and all the French colonies in Africa that the Germans could allow. It seemed like a good idea: France was defeated, and it would be in the Germans' interest to use the Italian army as occupying troops while they engaged in other, more important operations. What could possibly go wrong?

 

[alejandrogrossi]

Argentina is mostly Spanish and Italian descendants, thus they had a very close relation with the USA and NATO, further more the Argentine dictator was always supported by the USA because they fought communism, in 1973 in Chile they had a communist leaning President so 1982, Chile, was ruled by anti-communist dictator.

So all the weapons were western, Cuba was different they were truly communist so they got MiG-21s.

To be honest Galtieri was a total fool, he thought the USA was going to support him.

The Argentine armed forces never got the best weapons, and to be honest The harriers were not as good, but the Argentine Mirages needed at least a weapon like the Python 3.
View attachment 754621
Argentina in a realistic scenario needed probably AIM-9Ls or Python 3, but the USA nor Israel were going to provide such weapons but perhaps in an alternative history that was the most probable case

View attachment 754619

F-14ATomcat
Even with better AAM missiles (Phyton .3) we have the same problem for the M-III and the Dagger. Not enough fuel, to engage in dogfight and return to the main land.
Second thought:
The M-III, dont have homologate the Phyton.3. I dont know, at that time, what version of the AIM-9 have the M-III in Europe
Our M-III have M550 or M530 (useless), and the Dagger, the Shafir..
Maybe the missile coud be the Southafrican (V3B Kukri -1981 export version avaible). tat missile was used by all family of M-III and the F-1 family in the SAAF

 

[uk 75]

The sad truth is that prior to March 1982 Whitehall was looking for ways to get the "awkward" Falkland Islanders to accept an "inevitable" deal with Buenos Aires.
Pinochet was not the only dictator the Tories were soft on. Argentina was seen as a good military and civil market for the UK.
This was why the Junta's foolish invasion came as such a shock to the Brits. Why use force when we were trying to get Argentina a deal.

 

[uk 75]

Even with the limitations of the invasion as carried out, it nearly worked.
At first Washington was unwilling to take sides and Secretary of State Haig made repeated Kissinger style visits to get London to accept some kind of deal.
A stronger Defence Secretary than John Nott would have prevented the RN from telling the PM it could recover the Falklands. Britain had accepted since 1966 that it could not make an opposed military landing without the support of US forces (ie in NATO).
But Mrs Thatcher was not any British PM so even if the military option had closed she might have used the presence of US forces in the UK and Britain's NATO membership to get Reagan to tell Galtieri to withdraw.

 

[Arjen]

The sad truth is that prior to March 1982 Whitehall was looking for ways to get the "awkward" Falkland Islanders to accept an "inevitable" deal with Buenos Aires.

The generals were under too much pressure at home to wait for that.

What the generals had needed was an unfair advantage over the UK, and they were months away from gaining just that. They threw it away. What should have been a secure move, turned into a roll of the dice. Because they thought events were catching up with them.

 

[bobtdwarf]

And if that's the case, then MiG-21s are even more discommended. Not enough legs!

legs? They barely have ankles! LOL

 

[F-14ATomcat]

It is easy to make the mistake of judging leaders by the decisions they made in the past, based on what we know now, rather than on the information available to them then. The current moment is a good example of this, imagine that you are an advisor to Trump and he asks you what the Chinese fleet is going to do with Taiwan, or what is going to happen with the president of South Korea or what the Russians are playing with, or if the new flu epidemic is natural or something provoked against vaccine deniers.

The future of the world may depend on what you say to him or whether he listens to you or not.

Fifty years from now, an amateur historian will say: how could they be so stupid?

I guess you are probably from Spain.

Spain kept its colonies safe fron 1492 to 1821, why?



Spain was a military power, in the XV century Spain made its weapons, first lesson of war; a war should not be fought on bets, but on facts, Argentina in the 1950s developed fighters by 1980 only trainer jet aircraft.

They made missiles and very likely could have made a nuke.



In 1982, they were betrayed by a weak Spain (it would not had happened in 1784), a weak Italy, and an Anglosaxon rival who preferred its mother nation.

Spain betrayed Argentina.

Well we as Latin Americans once were part of Spain.

So from the beginning the bet was wrong.

Argentina was no match to England militarily speaking.
Spain an Italy were second rate powers in Europe (it is sad, but it is the truth even some of my ancestors were from Spain and Italy). So in my opinion Galtieri made a wrong move, the British wanted peace and probably they would have given up the Malvinas (Falklands) without war.

Did the USA pay?

Yes now Brazil is part of BRICS and is making nuclear subs, as the result of the sinking of Belgrano and betrayal of the USA.

MERCOSUR was a direct result of the war, Brazil and Argentina decided the USA was not an ally.
But thankfully we continue with a peaceful stand, will the Falklands become part of Argentina? I do not know, but the USA paid that war with Brazil becoming de facto the South American leader and the Free Trade of the Americas sponsored by the USA never happened and Now Mercosur made a free trade agreement with the EU.

 

[F-14ATomcat]

F-14ATomcat
Even with better AAM missiles (Phyton .3) we have the same problem for the M-III and the Dagger. Not enough fuel, to engage in dogfight and return to the main land.
Second thought:
The M-III, dont have homologate the Phyton.3. I dont know, at that time, what version of the AIM-9 have the M-III in Europe
Our M-III have M550 or M530 (useless), and the Dagger, the Shafir..
Maybe the missile coud be the Southafrican (V3B Kukri -1981 export version avaible). tat missile was used by all family of M-III and the F-1 family in the SAAF

I think was not going to be easy but the Python 3 proved its self in 1982 over Lebanon, If the A-4s would had some AAM weapon and the Mirage III and Nesher Python 3s probably the Harriers would not have been as successful and Argentina could had a chance to beat England to the level of negotiating a peace deal.

The harrier in 1982 was over estimated, the A-4 was more or less equivalent and the Mirage III too, but the lack of a good AAM made the victory for the Harriers.

Any way is better south America maybe lost that war, since South America is not a nuclear target.

 

[Wotan]

The Argentine armed forces never got the best weapons, and to be honest The harriers were not as good, but the Argentine Mirages needed at least a weapon like the Python 3.

The funny thing is that Argentina almost got their hands on some Harriers, until the americans came with a better offer...

In the 1970s the UK considered the sale of an aircraft carrier with a force of Sea Harriers to the Argentine Navy but it did not go through. Here’s why.

In 1970s the UK considered the sale of an aircraft carrier with a force of Sea Harriers to the Argentine Navy but it didn't go through

theaviationgeekclub.com

 

[F-14ATomcat]

The funny thing is that Argentina almost got their hands on some Harriers, until the americans came with a better offer...

In the 1970s the UK considered the sale of an aircraft carrier with a force of Sea Harriers to the Argentine Navy but it did not go through. Here’s why.

In 1970s the UK considered the sale of an aircraft carrier with a force of Sea Harriers to the Argentine Navy but it didn't go through

theaviationgeekclub.com

interesting, ironic really, the Harrier is one of my favorite aircraft, I like it in all versions, specially the newer ones.

The USA always had kept Latin America militarily weak, but in one way is good, it help us not to be nuclear targets, the USA nuclear umbrella is Ironic it protect us while they are the target.

In 2025, the only countries that have a not so good stand is Cuba, Mexico and Venezuela in case of the US intervention, but by the exception of Cuba and Mexico that will be highly affected if WWIII happens due to the radioactivity going south and millions of refugees from the USA going south, most of South america has no threat from nukes.

It is good to have peace

 

[Wotan]

In other words... Argentina would need to have around 30-40 MIG 21s in inventory, given operational availability and replacement capacity on the islands...

That seems quite a lot and perhaps not very feasible...

Another point, the focus is distorted... the Argentines' problem with or without a Harrier was not defeating the air-to-air combat... the harriers were not being able to stop the attacks... the problem was blowing up the artifacts that were already They were hitting the ships and keeping them away from the combat and disembarkation...

The Mig 21 takes off in 800 meters only armed with 2 air-to-air missiles and 8,800 kg of weight on unprepared runways... It has to have excess weight to attack the ships...

30-40 Migs is not very much. The client states of the Soviet Union used to have hundreds in their inventories. It is really a cheap aircraft.
It costed fewer than a BMP-1 troop transporter.

You can use a relatively light load of 2 UB-16 containers or two AS-7 Kerry missiles. Lethality would have been increased versus the usde of dumb bombs...

S-5 rocket - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Kh-66 / AS-7 KERRY gallery | Weapons Parade | Kh-66 / AS-7 KERRY.

Kh-66 / AS-7 KERRY gallery | Weapons Parade | Pictures and info about the Soviet Kh-66 / AS-7 KERRY air to surface (ASM) missile.

weaponsparade.com

F-14ATomcat
Even with better AAM missiles (Phyton .3) we have the same problem for the M-III and the Dagger. Not enough fuel, to engage in dogfight and return to the main land.
Second thought:
The M-III, dont have homologate the Phyton.3. I dont know, at that time, what version of the AIM-9 have the M-III in Europe
Our M-III have M550 or M530 (useless), and the Dagger, the Shafir..
Maybe the missile coud be the Southafrican (V3B Kukri -1981 export version avaible). tat missile was used by all family of M-III and the F-1 family in the SAAF

From what iknow the Python 3 is compatible with the european launchers. No need for dooing something special for installation..

 

[alejandrogrossi]

interesting, ironic really, the Harrier is one of my favorite aircraft, I like it in all versions, specially the newer ones.

The USA always had kept Latin America militarily weak, but in one way is good, it help us not to be nuclear targets, the USA nuclear umbrella is Ironic it protect us while they are the target.

In 2025, the only countries that have a not so good stand is Cuba, Mexico and Venezuela in case of the US intervention, but by the exception of Cuba and Mexico that will be highly affected if WWIII happens due to the radioactivity going south and millions of refugees from the USA going south, most of South america has no threat from nukes.

It is good to have peace

Harrier Gr. 1 on the ARA 25 de mayo. The carrier was in her voyage to Argentina. Was a sale promotion..let say it

 

[F-14ATomcat]

30-40 Migs is not very much. The client states of the Soviet Union used to have hundreds in their inventories. It is really a cheap aircraft.
It costed fewer than a BMP-1 troop transporter.

You can use a relatively light load of 2 UB-16 containers or two AS-7 Kerry missiles. Lethality would have been increased versus the usde of dumb bombs...

S-5 rocket - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Kh-66 / AS-7 KERRY gallery | Weapons Parade | Kh-66 / AS-7 KERRY.

Kh-66 / AS-7 KERRY gallery | Weapons Parade | Pictures and info about the Soviet Kh-66 / AS-7 KERRY air to surface (ASM) missile.

weaponsparade.com

From what iknow the Python 3 is compatible with the european launchers. No need for dooing something special for installation..

 

[F-14ATomcat]

Harrier Gr. 1 on the ARA 25 de mayo. The carrier was in her voyage to Argentina. Was a sale promotion..let say it

Brazilian Mirage III with Python 3


Cheetah with Python 3

Shafrir e Python 3

Shafrir Python 3

sistemasdearmas.com.br

thanks

 

[Justo Miranda]

I guess you are probably from Spain.

Spain kept its colonies safe fron 1492 to 1821, why?
View attachment 754710


Spain was a military power, in the XV century Spain made its weapons, first lesson of war; a war should not be fought on bets, but on facts, Argentina in the 1950s developed fighters by 1980 only trainer jet aircraft.
View attachment 754709
They made missiles and very likely could have made a nuke.
View attachment 754708

View attachment 754713
In 1982, they were betrayed by a weak Spain (it would not had happened in 1784), a weak Italy, and an Anglosaxon rival who preferred its mother nation.

Spain betrayed Argentina.

Well we as Latin Americans once were part of Spain.
View attachment 754711
So from the beginning the bet was wrong.

Argentina was no match to England militarily speaking.
Spain an Italy were second rate powers in Europe (it is sad, but it is the truth even some of my ancestors were from Spain and Italy). So in my opinion Galtieri made a wrong move, the British wanted peace and probably they would have given up the Malvinas (Falklands) without war.

Did the USA pay?

Yes now Brazil is part of BRICS and is making nuclear subs, as the result of the sinking of Belgrano and betrayal of the USA.
View attachment 754712
MERCOSUR was a direct result of the war, Brazil and Argentina decided the USA was not an ally.
But thankfully we continue with a peaceful stand, will the Falklands become part of Argentina? I do not know, but the USA paid that war with Brazil becoming de facto the South American leader and the Free Trade of the Americas sponsored by the USA never happened and Now Mercosur made a free trade agreement with the EU.

“Spain was a military power”

If that were true, King Philip II's Armada would have conquered England, the Inquisition would have prevented the development of the steam engine and the construction of the British empire. At present, the Western world would be controlled by religious police, the few who knew how to read and write would do so by lighting themselves with candles and the universal diplomatic language would be Latin. California would be a desert with some missions located in the few Indian population centers and none of this would be the fault of the Spanish people who have suffered historic purges in search of their freedom, without ever achieving it.