Alternative fighter for Argentine AF & Navy during Falklands war.

[F-14ATomcat]

This sort of this is true for all countries in all wars, it is particularly true of Britain as evidenced by the never ending interest on this site.

As for the particulars, Argentina being embargoed and Britain getting the best kit is the very nature of international politics. Britain was a G7 country, Permanent Security Council member with Veto power, a leading member of NATO holding multiple command positions and a large network of other alliances etc etc etc. while Argentina was none of those things. It's a virtual certainty that the large number of NATO members and other British allies would assist her and embargo Argentina. As for 30-40 Exocet winning the war, in such a case Britain would fight the war differently, likely far more cautiously and acquiring suitable equipment to cover the capability gaps.

Let me tell you what generated the outcome of the Falklands war.



Brazil understood Argentina lost due to lack of good submarines, so Brazil has a nuclear submarine program.



Since they saw the unreliability of France they have developed the Mansup anti-ship missile.



they have developed AWACS



They understood the need to diversify allies.

In 1982 Argentina trusted the USA and was an anti-communist ally of the USA.

Remember Brazil is a 220 Million people in 2025.

In 1982 Argentina had less than 35 million people.

The reality is by 2050 south America will be united under Brazilian leadership and not USA leadership, that will be more effective if Trump Invades Mexico.

The 1982 war was a failure for USA diplomacy in Latin america.

The alternative history was one were the USA would had helped Argentina and kept Latin America, today China would not had made the inroads they made, but a few AIM-9Ls turned latin america to look for other allies

 

[Zoo Tycoon]

Here are some interesting numbers on Argentine combat capability during the war, taken from "Air Power in the Falklands Conflict : An Operational Level Insight Into Air Warfare in the South Atlantic". This is a great piece of analytical work which uses Argentine sources (Rivas mainly) to look at why Argentina's FAA and COAN failed to interdict British forces.



3) Looking at those 485 attack aircraft sorties, carrying 1,146 munitions, the biggest issue was also a lack of success finding targets. Once you exclude the 17% of mission aborts due to technical issues (overall serviceability was actually quite good), almost 40% of missions failed to find targets or where cancelled due to weather and/or lack of targets or navigation errors.
Only about 40% missions found their targets, typically resulting in bombs missing their target (23% of missions) or aircraft being driven away by British defenses (11% soft kills). Only 4% of missions hit their targets and only 2% were shot down, with only 1.5% of attack missions were successfully intercepted by Sea Harriers.


A couple of takeaways from all this, according to the book and with which I concur:

1) Sea Harrier's effectiveness (including AIM-9L) was much exaggerated

These three underlined statements don’t fit together.

Finding targets at low levels at 500knots, with a vague intelligence brief is very difficult;- 60%mission failure rate. They were reduced to routinely doing that because it’ll have been catastrophic to do a much more productive medium level slow search, and target line up preparation. This is the definition of a soft kill.

Whilst the term exaggerated is relative, the above indicates the Sea Harriers ( and Sea Dart) significantly adversely impacted their ability to operate effectively. 71% soft kill raising even higher if the weapon missed desperation is linked in 96%. While not invincible, it was good enough.

 

[Scott Kenny]

The reality is by 2050 south America will be united under Brazilian leadership and not USA leadership, that will be more effective if Trump Invades Mexico.

I suspect that an effective removal of the drug cartels (which is within the US military's capability) would change a lot of minds.

 

[1635yankee]

The long-term political ramifications of the entire Falklands campaign are complex, but I think they include far more than "distrust of France," to include distrust of the US (which is pretty endemic in Latin America and the the Caribbean), as the US didn't provide some technical information about setting fuzes for low-altitude use, in addition to the US's obvious support for the UK, despite Argentina's help in various anti-left quasi-military actions in Central America.

Many of the South American economies are much more industrialized and independent of the US than they were a few decades ago. US actions -- especially something like an invasion of Mexico -- would probably drive Latin America far closer to China.

 

[Scott Kenny]

The long-term political ramifications of the entire Falklands campaign are complex, but I think they include far more than "distrust of France," to include distrust of the US (which is pretty endemic in Latin America and the the Caribbean), as the US didn't provide some technical information about setting fuzes for low-altitude use, in addition to the US's obvious support for the UK, despite Argentina's help in various anti-left quasi-military actions in Central America.

Many of the South American economies are much more industrialized and independent of the US than they were a few decades ago. US actions -- especially something like an invasion of Mexico -- would probably drive Latin America far closer to China.

Definitely would be the case initially.

But wiping out the Cartels? my dude, people HATE the Cartels with a passion that I'm not sure I can describe with words. If the US said, "This is the list of everyone known to associate with the (insert name here) cartel. They are all dead now." with photo proof, it'd turn people's heads.

The trick would be to have all the names and hit them all at virtually the same time. (translation: get the intel long before you launch the invasion)

 

[Wotan]

What did Argentina really need to crush England?
View attachment 756446
Simple Tu-22M backfires, even Tu-22 would had defeated England.

A fleet of Su-27 with AA-11s (by the period MIG-29s) and Tu-22Ms would had defeated the British fleet in the Falklands easily, in fact France showed the ability to defeat the carriers, since France had in 1982 a larger fleet of Etendard, the production of Exocet and Mirage 2000s.

So no it is not like it showed England to be a super power, it showed militarily the harrier was not the ideal fighter, if that would had been the case, the Americans would had deployed Harriers instead of F-14s and F-18s and helicopters instead of E-2s .

To be honest the war showed the weakness of the British aircraft carriers and showed, would Argentina be a really bellicose country and getting the war later, the conventional defeat of the fleet was assured.

But luck, the embargo and the fact in Latin America we prefer peace over war, decided the fate of Argentina, any way Argentina is 2.7 million square kilometers which is basically as big as almost most of Europe excluding the Soviet Union, so the war was for a pair of Islands, national pride and not for national security, so at the end peace was better.
View attachment 756455

At the moment neither the Su-27, the Mig-29 and the AA-11 did not exist even in Soviet Union inventory, they wer introduced several years later. And were not available for export until the fall of the Soviet Union.

The best what a non Warsaw Pact could have hoped to obtain was Mig-23, Mig-21 or his chinese derivative, the Chengdu F-7.

 

[Rule of cool]

These three underlined statements don’t fit together.

Finding targets at low levels at 500knots, with a vague intelligence brief is very difficult;- 60%mission failure rate. They were reduced to routinely doing that because it’ll have been catastrophic to do a much more productive medium level slow search, and target line up preparation. This is the definition of a soft kill.

Whilst the term exaggerated is relative, the above indicates the Sea Harriers ( and Sea Dart) significantly adversely impacted their ability to operate effectively. 71% soft kill raising even higher if the weapon missed desperation is linked in 96%. While not invincible, it was good enough.

This is 100% true. The Argentines were terrified of a number of Sea Harriers that started at 20, dropped to 17, peaked at 25 then slowly dropped to 22, and 1 or 2 Sea Dart equipped escorts. This tiny force of defenders (of the Amphibious Area of Operations) forced the Argentines to adopt a style of flying that resulted in a major mission failure rate in order to survive. This is the very definition of a successful defence.

 

[F-14ATomcat]

At the moment neither the Su-27, the Mig-29 and the AA-11 did not exist even in Soviet Union inventory, they wer introduced several years later. And were not available for export until the fall of the Soviet Union.

The best what a non Warsaw Pact could have hoped to obtain was Mig-23, Mig-21 or his chinese derivative, the Chengdu F-7.

I agree, my point was the A-4s were armed with dumb bombs, no air to surface missiles, but the Soviet Union at that time had Tu-22Ms and Su-24s and MiG-23ML that were pretty good and in 1982 the MiG-29 production started, yes by August 1983 the MiG-29s began deliveries.

I mean Japan had F-15s and F-1s the British aircraft carrier was not really well armed.

Now in an alternative history if the Argentinians would had get 30 Exocets sorry, the British would not had survived.

 

[F-14ATomcat]

I suspect that an effective removal of the drug cartels (which is within the US military's capability) would change a lot of minds.

i do not think you understand what people in Latin America think.

The USA blames Latin america of their own vices, Drugs will never end as long as the USA never stop demanding them around 70% of the weapons used by Cartels were sold by US gun makers and the rest are Chinese or Russian made.

Dictators in Latin America were always supported by the USA.

The Falklands war showed that, France was selling Etendard to Argentina to a regime according to them a dictatorship but they did not care the Argentine Dictatorship killed Communists in Argentina with A-4s or Trained central american forces to kill communist and repress their people.

The embargo showed the Hypocrisy of USA policies.

Galtieri thought America for the Americans meant America for the people of the America`s.

The reality is with deliveries of Exocets the FAA and the Navy of Argentina would had won, the best AAM against a Harrier is sink their carrier.

But both France and the USA played the imperialist card, and Galtieri was a full blown Italian immigrant to Argentina,.


Today Venezuela, Bolivia, Nicaragua, Cuba, are radically anti-american, Brazil and Mexico want more independent policies, ( Mexico today trades more with the USA than with Spain and the USA trades more with Mexico than with England )the Falklands war was a very important political moment of the USA that made South America turn first to a Brazilian lead area and later to a economically friendly south America to China.



Today Mercosur is a customs Union, it means they set tariffs to USA products as a group, the AIM-9Ls and the support the USA did to England played a very important part for South America to understand they needed to deal with the USA as a group

 

[Rule of cool]

Now in an alternative history if the Argentinians would had get 30 Exocets sorry, the British would not had survived.

If Argentine had 30 Exocets the British would not have fought the war the same way, they would have made changes to meet the threat. Every action has a counter-action.

I think if a 30 Exocet owning Argentina still invaded on April 1st 1982 I think the British would still retake South Georgia as per what happened in 1982 and develop it into a forward base, maybe with a FOB like Sids Strip at San Carlos.

The intense fighting wouldn't begin until after the southern winter, maybe October 1982. By then All 28 Sea Harriers would be available, as would HMS Illustrous, Sea King AEWs, twin sidewinder and 190g tanks for Sea Harriers (maybe GR3s too), Blue Eric ECM, all 14 GR3 Harriers with Shrike ARMs and LGBs, and some Phalanx CIWS.

On top of this the RN could shuffle it's ship deployments around to get the most suitable ships into the Task Force, those with 1022 radars, Sea Wolf as well as ensuring each one had plenty of light AA guns, chaff rockets, ECM and all the other things that can be fitted to ships on short notice.

 

[F-14ATomcat]

If Argentine had 30 Exocets the British would not have fought the war the same way, they would have made changes to meet the threat. Every action has a counter-action.

I think if a 30 Exocet owning Argentina still invaded on April 1st 1982 I think the British would still retake South Georgia as per what happened in 1982 and develop it into a forward base, maybe with a FOB like Sids Strip at San Carlos.

The intense fighting wouldn't begin until after the southern winter, maybe October 1982. By then All 28 Sea Harriers would be available, as would HMS Illustrous, Sea King AEWs, twin sidewinder and 190g tanks for Sea Harriers (maybe GR3s too), Blue Eric ECM, all 14 GR3 Harriers with Shrike ARMs and LGBs, and some Phalanx CIWS.

On top of this the RN could shuffle it's ship deployments around to get the most suitable ships into the Task Force, those with 1022 radars, Sea Wolf as well as ensuring each one had plenty of light AA guns, chaff rockets, ECM and all the other things that can be fitted to ships on short notice.

England was a nuclear power in total war they were going to win.

however that war in 1982 was not for total war.

England was not going to be allowed to use nuclear weapons.

Remember Argentina is basically Italy and Spain blended in one south American country, so Italy and Spain would had never allowed such actions.

To use conventional weapons, then South America was not going to allow England to use their territories.

So the actions England could had used are limited to air raids (conventional raids) and only to military bases.

But remember any war to last needs flow of weapons and that meant the Soviet Union was going to gain influence.

As a war to be honest happened the best outcome, but the reality is the British fleet was not so well armed as portraited, that is my point.

The Victory of England was the best for peace, but this generated a south america that did not trust the USA.

The USA made a terrible mistake because since 2010 has not generated as much wealth in Latin america as China has.

Wrong policies are paid with time and the 1982 Falklands war was one of the Reasons the USA is in frank decline as a power in South America.

We are in 2025 but the USA lost the influence it had in 1945

 

[F-14ATomcat]

If Argentine had 30 Exocets the British would not have fought the war the same way, they would have made changes to meet the threat. Every action has a counter-action.

I think if a 30 Exocet owning Argentina still invaded on April 1st 1982 I think the British would still retake South Georgia as per what happened in 1982 and develop it into a forward base, maybe with a FOB like Sids Strip at San Carlos.

The intense fighting wouldn't begin until after the southern winter, maybe October 1982. By then All 28 Sea Harriers would be available, as would HMS Illustrous, Sea King AEWs, twin sidewinder and 190g tanks for Sea Harriers (maybe GR3s too), Blue Eric ECM, all 14 GR3 Harriers with Shrike ARMs and LGBs, and some Phalanx CIWS.

On top of this the RN could shuffle it's ship deployments around to get the most suitable ships into the Task Force, those with 1022 radars, Sea Wolf as well as ensuring each one had plenty of light AA guns, chaff rockets, ECM and all the other things that can be fitted to ships on short notice.

Argentina had purchased 14 Super Étendard aircraft and 10 Exocert missiles (each weighing 700 kilos), but the first delivery was made in December 1981, less than five months before the conflict, and included only five aircraft and five missiles. Therefore, when the war began, the pilots did not yet have the operational capacity to carry out the attack and it was necessary to prepare the entire system so that the aircraft and the missile could “talk” to each other in order to be launched.

“Admiral Woodward wrote a book about the Falklands War, which he called The 100 Days. In it he highlights what the sinking of the Sheffield meant to them, not only because of the loss of the destroyer itself, which had very modern technology, but because of the realization of the power of the Exocet missiles, which they had not been able to neutralize. The wear and tear caused by the mere threat of the three missiles that they knew very well we had left, because they were very well informed, meant a significant withdrawal of the task force from the range of action of the Super Étendards from that moment on. And it also meant a withdrawal of the aircraft carriers from the fundamental objective, which was to attack the area of Puerto Argentino, and caused a great wear and tear on the Sea Harrier fighter planes to have the same time of permanence in the area,” Bedacarratz adds.

Malvinas: la proeza de los dos pilotos que hundieron un buque británico y los cinco misiles que casi cambian la guerra

Augusto Bedacarratz y Armando Mayora, pilotos al comando de los aviones cazabombardero Super Étendard, lanzaron los misiles Exocet y hundieran el destructor británico Sheffield

www.lanacion.com.ar

The Argentine air force, despite its bad luck, managed to sink the destroyer Coventry and the frigates Antelope and Ardent. It should be noted that the Argentine Air Force used 1,000-pound (454 kg) and 500-pound (227 kg) bombs which, due to their low flight, hit the ships or the water without exploding, since the low altitude prevented the fuse from being re-armed. This case occurred on board the frigate Antelope which, after being hit by a bomb, exploded when the explosives disposal experts were trying to disarm it. The Navy's Skyhawks used to carry Snakeeye bombs, also 500-pound bombs but equipped with a braking device that made them suitable for bombing at very low altitude.

Malvinas: La batalla aeronaval (y II) - Revista Naval

www.revistanaval.com

 

[Scott Kenny]

i do not think you understand what people in Latin America think.

I know how much they hate the Narcos.

 

[Wotan]

Argentina had purchased 14 Super Étendard aircraft and 10 Exocert missiles (each weighing 700 kilos), but the first delivery was made in December 1981, less than five months before the conflict, and included only five aircraft and five missiles. Therefore, when the war began, the pilots did not yet have the operational capacity to carry out the attack and it was necessary to prepare the entire system so that the aircraft and the missile could “talk” to each other in order to be launched.

“Admiral Woodward wrote a book about the Falklands War, which he called The 100 Days. In it he highlights what the sinking of the Sheffield meant to them, not only because of the loss of the destroyer itself, which had very modern technology, but because of the realization of the power of the Exocet missiles, which they had not been able to neutralize. The wear and tear caused by the mere threat of the three missiles that they knew very well we had left, because they were very well informed, meant a significant withdrawal of the task force from the range of action of the Super Étendards from that moment on. And it also meant a withdrawal of the aircraft carriers from the fundamental objective, which was to attack the area of Puerto Argentino, and caused a great wear and tear on the Sea Harrier fighter planes to have the same time of permanence in the area,” Bedacarratz adds.

Malvinas: la proeza de los dos pilotos que hundieron un buque británico y los cinco misiles que casi cambian la guerra

Augusto Bedacarratz y Armando Mayora, pilotos al comando de los aviones cazabombardero Super Étendard, lanzaron los misiles Exocet y hundieran el destructor británico Sheffield

www.lanacion.com.ar

The Argentine air force, despite its bad luck, managed to sink the destroyer Coventry and the frigates Antelope and Ardent. It should be noted that the Argentine Air Force used 1,000-pound (454 kg) and 500-pound (227 kg) bombs which, due to their low flight, hit the ships or the water without exploding, since the low altitude prevented the fuse from being re-armed. This case occurred on board the frigate Antelope which, after being hit by a bomb, exploded when the explosives disposal experts were trying to disarm it. The Navy's Skyhawks used to carry Snakeeye bombs, also 500-pound bombs but equipped with a braking device that made them suitable for bombing at very low altitude.

Malvinas: La batalla aeronaval (y II) - Revista Naval

www.revistanaval.com

With 14 SUE and 10 Exocets the argentinians would have posibly gained the first round of fighting and would have kept the Falklands/Malvinas. The conflict would have then continue and see different actions of the british military. South Georgia would be liberated and used as a forward base for attack on Falklands.

On the long time, because of attrition and the embargo placed on the delivery of new aircrafts and weapons, Argentine would still end in a situation in which it could not longer prevent the landing of the british in the Falkland.

 

[carvalho2008]

This is 100% true. The Argentines were terrified of a number of Sea Harriers that started at 20, dropped to 17, peaked at 25 then slowly dropped to 22, and 1 or 2 Sea Dart equipped escorts. This tiny force of defenders (of the Amphibious Area of Operations) forced the Argentines to adopt a style of flying that resulted in a major mission failure rate in order to survive. This is the very definition of a successful defence.

The statistics and numbers themselves prove what has already been said.

The Harrier was not enough and only 1,5% of the Argentine attack missions were made impossible because of it.

It is an astronomical mistake for anyone to think that the planes in their final flight path operated in low altitude attacks because of it. The Argentines flew the low attack because they had to delay the radar warning of the ships (radar horizon) and prevent the Seacat and Seawolf missiles from being activated in their best flight envelope and engagement performance....it had nothing to do with the Harrier...just the opposite, the Harrier had better flight performance at low altitude...

 

[carvalho2008]

Here are some interesting numbers on Argentine combat capability during the war, taken from "Air Power in the Falklands Conflict : An Operational Level Insight Into Air Warfare in the South Atlantic". This is a great piece of analytical work which uses Argentine sources (Rivas mainly) to look at why Argentina's FAA and COAN failed to interdict British forces.

1) First, Argentina had ~60 attack aircraft available on most days, all the way to the end. This is a large force which outnumbered Harriers by 2-3x (20 Harriers available initially, later reinforced to 28-30 for the San Carlos landings).
So a lack of fast jets wasn't really the issue.

View attachment 756302

2) Argentina flew 536 combat air sorties over 44 days, including 485 sorties by attack aircraft (if I exclude the 51 Mirage III sorties). On the peak day during the San Carlos landings (May 21st), Argentina's 66 attack aircraft were able to fly 66 combat sorties - exactly 1 sortie per aircraft. On the first day of the war, 76 attack aircraft flew 50 combat sorties - a sortie rate of 0.65 per aircraft.
The problem is that the other 42 days of the war, only 363 sorties were flown... a sortie rate of only 9 per day or less than 0.15 per aircraft.

This low sortie rate was the root cause of Argentina's failure... driven by a mix of poor weather (14 out of 44 days) and most of all lack of targets due to insufficient intelligence (maritime patrol capability) and operating at max range.

View attachment 756303

3) Looking at those 485 attack aircraft sorties, carrying 1,146 munitions, the biggest issue was also a lack of success finding targets. Once you exclude the 17% of mission aborts due to technical issues (overall serviceability was actually quite good), almost 40% of missions failed to find targets or where cancelled due to weather and/or lack of targets or navigation errors.
Only about 40% missions found their targets, typically resulting in bombs missing their target (23% of missions) or aircraft being driven away by British defenses (11% soft kills). Only 4% of missions hit their targets and only 2% were shot down, with only 1.5% of attack missions were successfully intercepted by Sea Harriers.
View attachment 756309

A couple of takeaways from all this, according to the book and with which I concur:

1) Sea Harrier's effectiveness (including AIM-9L) was much exaggerated

2) The biggest missed opportunities for Argentina were better target intelligence and reducing the range (which would have increased the odds of finding targets and eliminated mainland weather as a factor)... this is where the Port Stanley runway could have played a major role if able to host S-2 Trackers and attack aircraft (or refuel them on the return leg)

3) Next biggest opportunity was a more effective weapon than dumb bombs... hence my focus on AS-30 missiles which could have been launched by Canberras & (Super) Etendards. Heavy rockets such as 100mm SNEBs or 5 inch Zunis might also have been useful.

4) Finally, given the very small number of Sea Harriers available, a small fighter component at Port Stanley could have served a useful (but secondary) role to drive away Sea Harrier CAPs and drive up Sea Harrier attrition... without complete air dominance, this might have been enough to give British leaders second thoughts about going ahead with the San Carlos landings

Excellent post!! There is no way to argue with numbers!

The Harrier was never the first, second or third problem for the Argentines! See, it was an excellent aircraft and proved this by being there at the time and place it should have been... but, nevertheless... it could not be there...

It won all of them and well in terms of encounters or interceptions, but these only occurred after the Argentine fighters had already attacked the ships and were already retreating....

Repeating H.K.'s post... "only 1.5% of the attack missions were interrupted by the Harriers...

In other words, we always fall back on what was or would be essential for the Argentines:

Having long-range aircraft or a REVO structure or operating from the islands...

the observation regarding your item 3 is that rockets in that scenario, yes, would be extremely efficient and an excellent option for military or merchant ships...they all had soft skin that would definitely take them out of combat...the problem is that the rocket POD has enormous drag, and needs to be carried on the outward and return trips, making it impossible to use them from the continent using Morrages, daggers and A-4s...

But Canberras would do it easily...Mb-326 on the islands, even though it is a much lower category of aircraft, would also do very well in this mission...the problem was the BLEND of aircraft available to the Argentines and I imagine that in an alternative reality, the MB-326 operated massively in place of the Pucarás inventory, would achieve much better performance...it would perform the same operation at 350 knots, with bombs and rockets... operating from the islands... but it would have to be the only model, without wasting space as happened with the Pucaras... which were complemented by Turbo Mentor... and MB-339... that is... improvisation of 3 to 4 models in which none (except the 339) could do against the British fleet... (The MB-339 only had 12 hours of flight mission in the islands... this shows the precariousness and logistical improvisation)... if they were 100% 339 or MB-326 aircraft, there would have been a much greater number of flights and missions... enough to risk the oceanic fleet or landing...

 

[carvalho2008]

i do not think you understand what people in Latin America think.

The USA blames Latin america of their own vices, Drugs will never end as long as the USA never stop demanding them around 70% of the weapons used by Cartels were sold by US gun makers and the rest are Chinese or Russian made.

Dictators in Latin America were always supported by the USA.

The Falklands war showed that, France was selling Etendard to Argentina to a regime according to them a dictatorship but they did not care the Argentine Dictatorship killed Communists in Argentina with A-4s or Trained central american forces to kill communist and repress their people.

The embargo showed the Hypocrisy of USA policies.

Galtieri thought America for the Americans meant America for the people of the America`s.

The reality is with deliveries of Exocets the FAA and the Navy of Argentina would had won, the best AAM against a Harrier is sink their carrier.

But both France and the USA played the imperialist card, and Galtieri was a full blown Italian immigrant to Argentina,.


Today Venezuela, Bolivia, Nicaragua, Cuba, are radically anti-american, Brazil and Mexico want more independent policies, ( Mexico today trades more with the USA than with Spain and the USA trades more with Mexico than with England )the Falklands war was a very important political moment of the USA that made South America turn first to a Brazilian lead area and later to a economically friendly south America to China.

View attachment 756663

Today Mercosur is a customs Union, it means they set tariffs to USA products as a group, the AIM-9Ls and the support the USA did to England played a very important part for South America to understand they needed to deal with the USA as a group

Dear F-14_Tomcat,

I think we've already exchanged several posts on the Poder Naval website, right? Glad to see you here!

I prefer a more pragmatic geopolitical approach to the situation.

Yes, the Falklands conflict did indeed strengthen the possibility of Mercosur, but more importantly, it only unifies Argentina and Brazil... I realize (I'm Brazilian) that we still have our backs turned to other Latin American integrations and I realize that the other nations here generally don't vote or follow Brazil on global issues at the UN, or even on Brazilian military equipment....

On the other hand, pragmatically, the US made and continues to make serious mistakes in its strategies to block China. Obviously, there are important American partners in several Asian countries, but money and the economy do not forgive shortsightedness... EVERY dollar invested by Americans in Asia will end up in a large fraction of the Chinese economy itself... obviously, it could be any one, South Korea, Malaysia, the Philippines, etc... but the volume of natural economic exchange between these countries is enormous and so, the dollar will end up there... in China... no matter how much they try to remove companies from there... The US does not see that Latin America is its last bastion of defense of the bloc... and that is where it should focus while it still can... the Chinese inflection point was twenty years ago... Europe is experiencing today's problems and is experiencing the erosion of its social welfare status due to the predictable migratory movement. It is a cost of centuries dammed up there. The Ukrainian war also shows that taking on that kind of gamble was not the best investment... the costs are there... no one is better off than they were 15 years ago... and it won't stop... Americans still haven't realized that their last trench is South America... they shouldn't try to limit some countries here, because they will need to join forces soon... it's much better in this situation... to have a strong neighborhood and neighbors...

 

[Desertfox]

I suspect that an effective removal of the drug cartels (which is within the US military's capability) would change a lot of minds.

The only way the US can get rid of the cartels is by legalizing drugs and ending the war on drugs, plus stopping the ridiculous immigration policies. Going to war with the cartels in Mexico will only make Mexicans side with the cartels.

 

[Desertfox]

New leadership. Forget the rest.

And working fuzes...

 

[Zoo Tycoon]

The statistics and numbers themselves prove what has already been said.

The Harrier was not enough and only 1,5% of the Argentine attack missions were made impossible because of it.

It is an astronomical mistake for anyone to think that the planes in their final flight path operated in low altitude attacks because of it. The Argentines flew the low attack because they had to delay the radar warning of the ships (radar horizon) and prevent the Seacat and Seawolf missiles from being activated in their best flight envelope and engagement performance....it had nothing to do with the Harrier...just the opposite, the Harrier had better flight performance at low altitude...

The claim that “prevent the Sea Cat and Sea Wolf missiles from being activated in their best flight envelope”” is factual incorrect due to these being line of sight guided. With such guidance a target inherently doesn’t have a low level no observation zone.

The system that’s missiles kill zone extended out 40 miles at altitude, 18 miles at low altitude but with a limited radar horizon was Sea Dart. I always considered Sea Dart was under recognised for its contribution to forcing the Argentine aircraft down low level.

I’ve written on Secret Projects previously about the Sea Harrier air defence tactics (as recounted by an 801 pilot) to integrate into the overall air defence which shows it was joint achievement, so the dismissal by is completely unjustified . 60% of inbound attacks weren’t worth responding to ….still soft kills. Don’t interrupt your enemy while they’re making a mistake. But that’s still a massive soft kill % as a result of the Sea Harrier/Sea Dart long range air defence.

I doubt the claim that most Sea Harrier kills, were after weapons delivery… I’m reaching for Copy of “Falklands The Air War” by Burden, Draper, Rough, and Smith for further details.

 

[H_K]

But that’s still a massive soft kill % as a result of the Sea Harrier/Sea Dart long range air defence.

I doubt the claim that most Sea Harrier kills, were after weapons delivery… I’m reaching for Copy of Air war South Atlantic for further details.

The soft kill ratio was 11% of all missions. Or ~28% of missions that made it to the target area (since 60% didn't make it that far or didn't find targets). The hard kill ratio was 2% (including 1.5% shot down by Harriers).

You are correct, most Sea Harrier kills were on inbound aircraft, before weapons delivery... IIRC only 2 were on egressing aircraft. But there were many more soft kills than hard kills.

IMHO what this shows is that while soft kill by Sea Dart / Sea Harrier played an important role in defeating Argentine strikes once these were in the target area, the real failure was that Argentina didn't get enough aircraft to their targets (too few sorties, not enough maritime patrol assets, didn't use Port Stanley airport to its full potential etc).

If they'd been able to fly 2x more strike sorties, with half as many aborted due to poor targeting / lack of fuel, that would have put 3x more strikers in the target area. Even with similar soft kill rates and Sea Harrier interception rates, that would have likely changed the course of the war. Especially with more effective weapons, e.g. if their hit rate had been increased by 50% (or dud rate reduced by 50%).

 

[Wotan]

It was a thin victory. Neither side dominated.

 

[Rule of cool]

About 40km directly to the west of the RN gunline in Falkland Sound is a range of hills (mountains?) that are 2,000' high. A bit further north 15km directly opposite the mouth of San Carlos is a hill that is 1,300' high and between those right at the water's edge is a ridge of hills 300' high as the Sound narrows to 11km.

All of this adds up to creating a large radar shadow westward of the RN gunline in Falkland Sound, in which attacking aircraft cannot be tracked by ships radar. As aircraft operating in this radar shadow cannot be tracked, interceptions by Sea Harriers cannot be arranged, indeed warnings cannot even be given if the attacking aircraft fly within this blind spot which gets lower and lower the closer to the target.

While this means the attacking aircraft cannot be seen by the defending ships, it also means that attacking aircraft cannot see their targets until they are right on top of them. This whole restriction is caused by the fact that with Sea Harriers potentially in the mix the attacking aircraft had to prioritise not being intercepted more than getting the best approach for a successful attack.

The Coventry/Broadsword Type 64 combo that operated northwest of the western end of Pebble Island on 25 May would have had a virtually uninterrupted radar view westward and a pretty good view into the radar shadow within the limits of the radar horizon. Did the Coventry/Broadsword Type 64 combo assist with any Sea Harrier interceptions before Coventry was sunk?

 

[F-14ATomcat]

Dear F-14_Tomcat,

I think we've already exchanged several posts on the Poder Naval website, right? Glad to see you here!

I prefer a more pragmatic geopolitical approach to the situation.

Yes, the Falklands conflict did indeed strengthen the possibility of Mercosur, but more importantly, it only unifies Argentina and Brazil... I realize (I'm Brazilian) that we still have our backs turned to other Latin American integrations and I realize that the other nations here generally don't vote or follow Brazil on global issues at the UN, or even on Brazilian military equipment....

On the other hand, pragmatically, the US made and continues to make serious mistakes in its strategies to block China. Obviously, there are important American partners in several Asian countries, but money and the economy do not forgive shortsightedness... EVERY dollar invested by Americans in Asia will end up in a large fraction of the Chinese economy itself... obviously, it could be any one, South Korea, Malaysia, the Philippines, etc... but the volume of natural economic exchange between these countries is enormous and so, the dollar will end up there... in China... no matter how much they try to remove companies from there... The US does not see that Latin America is its last bastion of defense of the bloc... and that is where it should focus while it still can... the Chinese inflection point was twenty years ago... Europe is experiencing today's problems and is experiencing the erosion of its social welfare status due to the predictable migratory movement. It is a cost of centuries dammed up there. The Ukrainian war also shows that taking on that kind of gamble was not the best investment... the costs are there... no one is better off than they were 15 years ago... and it won't stop... Americans still haven't realized that their last trench is South America... they shouldn't try to limit some countries here, because they will need to join forces soon... it's much better in this situation... to have a strong neighborhood and neighbors...

In my opinion there are 4 core nations in Latin america, Brazil is number one the largest, and the most powerful.
Later comes Mexico since we are also developing too. Argentina and Colombia are also Important, I mean core nations because 70% of the Latin american population is composed by these 4 nations.

The Falklands war, is the continuation of all the wars Spain and England had since America was discovered.
Will Brazil lead South america? it is no doubt, Brazil has a cattle population of 230 million cattle, it has the largest Industry of Latin America, from Embraer, Agrale, and other companies.

Previous to 1982 both Brazil and Argentina competed for a nuclear program, after 1982 that competition weakened


In fact after the Falkland war the CBA program merged Argentina with Brazil and CBA-123 was basically Important to develop ERJ-145.

Mexico has a very difficult situation since we are beside the USA, however Brazil is far far from the USA, sadly for us, we have it harder, but Brazil can lead Latin America, since Mercorsur snatched economically south america from the USA and as the USA declines, we in Mexico will have it harder unless the Americans realize America for the Americans means all nations, otherwise as the USA declines, what started with the Falklands war, will become more extreme and that will be a split of the Americas in 2, with the North suffering the decline policies of the USA similar to what happened in the Roman empire.

Remember history still matters, Trump reflects the British empire desire to keeps it cultural zone, Mexico still represents Spain and Brazil is Portugal, in 1982 it was the British empire versus a very weak Spanish empire.

 

[F-14ATomcat]

With 14 SUE and 10 Exocets the argentinians would have posibly gained the first round of fighting and would have kept the Falklands/Malvinas. The conflict would have then continue and see different actions of the british military. South Georgia would be liberated and used as a forward base for attack on Falklands.

On the long time, because of attrition and the embargo placed on the delivery of new aircrafts and weapons, Argentine would still end in a situation in which it could not longer prevent the landing of the british in the Falkland.

The USA was in a very difficult situation in 1982 so they needed a short war, and a British victory why?

A quick British Victory meant few death in the Argentina`s side so little opposition from Spain and Italy and in South America Brazil would have not reacted with alarm.

It also meant NATO would have remained intact.

A long victory of England meant a potential soviet intervention by sending weapons via Peru, Nicaragua and Cuba.

Would had Argentina kept the Islands meant one or 2 aircraft carriers sunk (to this day the Argentine Historians claimed one exocet was fired at the Invincible).

England had no ability to invade Argentina, their fleet was too small, Argentina is huge in land mass, and other south american nations would had supported Argentina.

There was no possibility of attacking Argentina with a nuke.

Supporting Argentina would had meant NATO was a failure, since the USA was supporting Argentina could you imagine if they needed to support the UK against a soviet attack?

The problem was they were not smart a peaceful solution was the best, and that would had mean support both Nations with a promise like Hong Kong, to return the Islands to Argentina or at least shared administration.

In reality Reagan was short sighted

 

[ArtosStark]

The USA was in a very difficult situation in 1982 so they needed a short war, and a British victory why?

Not sure anyone has yet established with any level of verifiable certainty that the US had anything to do with the Argentine decision to invade the Falklands.

 

[Rule of cool]

Not sure anyone has yet established with any level of verifiable certainty that the US had anything to do with the Argentine decision to invade the Falklands.

I don't think the US had anything to do with the war before it broke out, but once it did the US had little real wriggle room.

 

[ArtosStark]

I don't think the US had anything to do with the war before it broke out, but once it did the US had little real wriggle room.

Fair enough. Misread that one.

 

[1635yankee]

The only way the US can get rid of the cartels is by legalizing drugs and ending the war on drugs, plus stopping the ridiculous immigration policies. Going to war with the cartels in Mexico will only make Mexicans side with the cartels.

Leaving aside US domestic politics, most people tend to dislike foreign invaders. Saddam was far on the horrible spectrum, but the 2003 invasion of Iraq did not see the invaders' paths strewn with flowers.

The cartels could likely get respect and prestige for fighting the invaders. I don't know how the problems caused by the cartels can be solved -- Mexico's police and security services are, reportedly quite corrupted -- but I'm also pretty sure a US invasion won't be a solution.

 

[F-14ATomcat]

Not sure anyone has yet established with any level of verifiable certainty that the US had anything to do with the Argentine decision to invade the Falklands.

well I meant the diplomatic problem, regardless what some historians say, the diplomatic issue was important since Argentina was a cold war ally against communism in central america, as England was in Europe, both were allies important against communism

 

[Arjen]

What I remember of the time, communism posed very little of an internal threat to Western Eurpean nations. The military side was another matter.

 

[F-14ATomcat]

Leaving aside US domestic politics, most people tend to dislike foreign invaders. Saddam was far on the horrible spectrum, but the 2003 invasion of Iraq did not see the invaders' paths strewn with flowers.

The cartels could likely get respect and prestige for fighting the invaders. I don't know how the problems caused by the cartels can be solved -- Mexico's police and security services are, reportedly quite corrupted -- but I'm also pretty sure a US invasion won't be a solution.

To understand History always is important see both sides.

Argentinians hated the dictatorship as much Mexicans hate cartels and Crime.
If you read history, you know both the USA and England had wars with Mexico and Argentina, the USA with Mexico, and England with Argentina in the 1800s.

Regardless of the outcome, China and Russia would be delighted if Mexico becomes the American Ukraine besides destroying the economy of Mexico and the USA by destroying the trade between both countries.
In 1982, the Soviets were not fully invited since Galtieri was anti-communist.
In 2025, there are more anti-american governments in Latin America, Cuba, Venezuela, Bolivia, Nicaragua, two regional powers Mexico and Brazil which both are growing.

The problem is much difficult than 1982 for the USA already MERCOSUR has snatched South America from the USA and China is the main trade partner of south America.

A Mexican Invasion by the USA will really destroy the reputation of the USA in Latin America, since the only true economic partner of the USA is Mexico, that will send signals that the USA is totally unreliable as an ally.

It will be worst that the 1982 selling of the AIM-9Ls missiles to England, in Latin america and Mexico specially we consider the USA is as corrupt as our government and they are to blame for the deaths of Mexicans due to the drug war and they never address their drug vices and there are american drug dealers.

This time the stakes for the USA are much higher than the 1982 Falklands war, much higher.

In My opinion the USA will not invade Mexico and that is a topic for another thread

 

[Rule of cool]

well I meant the diplomatic problem, regardless what some historians say, the diplomatic issue was important since Argentina was a cold war ally against communism in central america, as England was in Europe, both were allies important against communism

Sure, but some allies are more important than others. The UK and US have the 1958 Mutual Defence Agreement which is AFAIK the closest nuclear sharing agreement in the world, as well as being founding members of NATO which is AFAIK the closest military alliance in the world.

Argentina has nothing like that level of closeness and integration; indeed, I don't know if Argentina's relationship with the US was as close as Australia's or Japan's.

 

[F-14ATomcat]

Sure, but some allies are more important than others. The UK and US have the 1958 Mutual Defence Agreement which is AFAIK the closest nuclear sharing agreement in the world, as well as being founding members of NATO which is AFAIK the closest military alliance in the world.

Argentina has nothing like that level of closeness and integration; indeed, I don't know if Argentina's relationship with the US was as close as Australia's or Japan's.

What about Cuba and Nicaragua hosting ICBM from the Soviet Union?

You are wrong, the 1982 war was not because the UK was a better ally in 1961 Cuba hosted ICBM from the Soviet Union.

in 1982, Argentina was anti-communist, in 2025 Venezuela is anti-american; remember this

Russian nuclear-capable bomber aircraft fly to Venezuela, angering U.S.​

https://www.reuters.com/article/world/russian-nuclear-capable-bomber-aircraft-fly-to-venezuela-angering-us-idUSKBN1OA130/

The Dictatorship of Argentina was a right wing pro-capitalist.

The USA saw they were not going to be like Castro in Cuba

 

[Rule of cool]

What about Cuba and Nicaragua hosting ICBM from the Soviet Union?

You are wrong, the 1982 war was not because the UK was a better ally in 1961 Cuba hosted ICBM from the Soviet Union.

in 1982, Argentina was anti-communist, in 2025 Venezuela is anti-american; remember this

Russian nuclear-capable bomber aircraft fly to Venezuela, angering U.S.​

https://www.reuters.com/article/world/russian-nuclear-capable-bomber-aircraft-fly-to-venezuela-angering-us-idUSKBN1OA130/

The Dictatorship of Argentina was a right wing pro-capitalist.

The USA saw they were not going to be like Castro in Cuba

None of that has got anything to do with the more or less surprise choice the US faced in 1982 to favour one ally over another.

Not surprisingly the US chose to side with the ally who gave them the material ICBM RVs are made of over the one who was embargoed. As for the long-term payoff, Britain sent an Armoured Division to the 1991 Gulf War and was a major participant in the 2003 invasion of Iraq.

 

[F-14ATomcat]

None of that has got anything to do with the more or less surprise choice the US faced in 1982 to favour one ally over another.

Not surprisingly the US chose to side with the ally who gave them the material ICBM RVs are made of over the one who was embargoed. As for the long-term payoff, Britain sent an Armoured Division to the 1991 Gulf War and was a major participant in the 2003 invasion of Iraq.

In life when you chose one thing you lose another.
They Chose NATO but they lost economically, MERCOSUR was designed to keep the USA out of South America, at the end they lost more, China entered south America becoming the main trading partner, yes you winn a few technologies but you lost economically.

If you consider that wining sorry, at the end China won the USA lost, why? Bush wanted to sign a free trade agreement with South America, that would have made South America a market like Mexico for USA products, the 1982 war showed south america could not trust an ally who was unreliable.

Winner China


The embargo made Venezuela go for Su-30s and Bolivia for K-8 remember all is dialectic, yes embargo Argentina we buy Russian and Chinese they said in South america




Nicaragua got Mi-24s

 

[Rule of cool]

In life when you chose one thing you lose another.
They Chose NATO but they lost economically, MERCOSUR was designed to keep the USA out of South America, at the end they lost more, China entered south America becoming the main trading partner, yes you winn a few technologies but you lost economically.

If you consider that wining sorry, at the end China won the USA lost, why? Bush wanted to sign a free trade agreement with South America, that would have made South America a market like Mexico for USA products, the 1982 war showed south america could not trust an ally who was unreliable.

Winner China
View attachment 756993

The embargo made Venezuela go for Su-30s and Bolivia for K-8 remember all is dialectic, yes embargo Argentina we buy Russian and Chinese they said in South america


View attachment 756994

Nicaragua got Mi-24s
View attachment 756996

Given Chinas economy is on the ropes in the long term the US did win.

Or alternatively you could say that this is an extremely thin premise to link the Falklands with 40 years of economic swings and roundabouts.

 

[Wotan]

Maybe the best aircraft for operation on short airstrips in subarctic conditions.

Saab 37 Viggen - Aviodrome

Tijdens de straaljagerexpositie bij Luchtvaartmuseum Aviodrome kun je de Saab 37 Viggen bekijken, een uniek vliegtuig wat door de Zweedse luchtmacht gebruikt is.

www.aviodrome.nl

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=af05zmFV4i8


Sweden tried to sell it in the seventies to other nations, without succes. What if Argentine did buy one or two squadrons of them? They could less than 500m for operation.

Saab JA-37 Viggen Technical data

Equipped with afterburner with 3 stages: zone 1, zone 2 and zone 3. With zone 3 the aircraft consumed 1 m3 (264 US gallons) of jet fuel per minute. Maximum speed at high altitude: Mach 2.1 (1,400 knots, 1,611 mph, 2,593 km/h). Maximum speed at low (...)

www.ultimatespecs.com

 

[Rule of cool]

Sweden tried to sell it in the seventies to other nations, without succes.

The US restricted the sale of it's US derived engine, unlike the Drakken which had a British Avon and the British don't do as much export restricting.

 

[Wotan]

Sad. That Wiking aircraft would have axed the anglo-saxon Harriers...
One of the best fighters of its period.