Alternative fighter for Argentine AF & Navy during Falklands war.

[TomS]

Mybe this, but i dont know if still avaible in 1982.
I always liked the Bison

Bison tankers survived until 1994 but they were never exported to Soviet clients, being regarded as strategic assets.

 

[F.L.]

Not sure of the quality of the sources but when I look this up the non-Warsaw pact (apart from Syria’s) MIG-23MFs only start getting any missile that isn’t an ATOLL until after the Falklands War has already taken place. And generally to even just get the MIG-23MF (even the non-Warsaw pact downgraded version) in the required timescale you had to be heavily prioritised and favoured by the USSR (for example to Syria as a limited counter to Israel’s new F-15s and F-16s). And even the highly favoured Syria’s MIG-23MFs didn’t have AA-7s in this timescale (didn’t have them for the fighting over the Bekaa valley in summer 1982, approx. the same time as the Falkland conflict was wrapping up).
And Syria’s MIG-23s (or MIG-21s etc) didn’t exactly cover themselves in glory in that combat occurring at more or less the same time as the Falklands War.

No reason to see why Argentina of the time under their relatively hard-right military junta would have been remotely so favoured so at best Atoll armed MIG-23MFs, but probably more likely to be MIG-23SMs.
And it’s not like the Aphid was remotely a match for the Sea Harrier’s all aspect Sidewinders or all that better than the real-world Mirage’s equivalent armament anyway.

In this book, the exact date of the beginning of the exports of R-23 is given, I will have to check.

MiG-23 Flogger in the Middle East: Mikoyan I Gurevich MiG-23 in Service in Algeria, Egypt, Iraq, Libya and Syria, 1973-2018

By Tom Cooper Terminus ‘MiG-23’, perhaps even ‘Flogger’, is likely to appear at least ‘common’ to many of readers. Yes, that’s that arrow-like design from a stable of well-known, Soviet-made fighte…

helionbooks.wordpress.com

 

[F.L.]

And the buddy-buddy systems ? At the same period, the Iraqis used them on different fighters.
Would such systems have been within the reach of the Argentines ?
Peruvians locally modified their Su-22As for AAR.
A few years later, the Iraqis and Libyans modified their MiG-23s for refueling.

 

[alejandrogrossi]

And the buddy-buddy systems ? At the same period, the Iraqis used them on different fighters.
Would such systems have been within the reach of the Argentines ?
Peruvians locally modified their Su-22As for AAR.
A few years later, the Iraqis and Libyans modified their MiG-23s for refueling.

You mean this
But all was the attack version (BN) not the radar version
Proyect was from late 1980
They have problem reflueing the MIG23 with C-130. Then they buy IL-76
The history
https://medium.com/war-is-boring/libyas-peculiar-aerial-refueling-mig-23s-af840188b278

 

[kaiserd]

In any case, the big question is :
What is the range of the MiG-21MF/bis with three drop tanks and 4 R-60 ?
Normally, with a standard armament, the MiG-23 has a combat range of 1500km and 2550km with 3 additional 800l tanks.
It is therefore fully capable of reaching the Falklands.

What MiG-23 variants are we talking about?

At best we are talking about MIG-23MS’s or non-Warsaw Pact down-graded MIG-23MFs (more likely the former not the latter from a timing perspective). Definitely no AA-7s and almost certainly no AA-8s in the timescale for this conflict.

The MiG-23MF started to be exported with R-23 and R-13M or R-60 (depending on the country) in the late 70s. It is therefore possible that Argentina received them before 1982.

Not sure of the quality of the sources but when I look this up the non-Warsaw pact (apart from Syria’s) MIG-23MFs only start getting any missile that isn’t an ATOLL until after the Falklands War has already taken place. And generally to even just get the MIG-23MF (even the non-Warsaw pact downgraded version) in the required timescale you had to be heavily prioritised and favoured by the USSR (for example to Syria as a limited counter to Israel’s new F-15s and F-16s). And even the highly favoured Syria’s MIG-23MFs didn’t have AA-7s in this timescale (didn’t have them for the fighting over the Bekaa valley in summer 1982, approx. the same time as the Falkland conflict was wrapping up).
And Syria’s MIG-23s (or MIG-21s etc) didn’t exactly cover themselves in glory in that combat occurring at more or less the same time as the Falklands War.

No reason to see why Argentina of the time under their relatively hard-right military junta would have been remotely so favoured so at best Atoll armed MIG-23MFs, but probably more likely to be MIG-23SMs.
And it’s not like the Aphid was remotely a match for the Sea Harrier’s all aspect Sidewinders or all that better than the real-world Mirage’s equivalent armament anyway.

In this book, the exact date of the beginning of the exports of R-23 is given, I will have to check.

MiG-23 Flogger in the Middle East: Mikoyan I Gurevich MiG-23 in Service in Algeria, Egypt, Iraq, Libya and Syria, 1973-2018

By Tom Cooper Terminus ‘MiG-23’, perhaps even ‘Flogger’, is likely to appear at least ‘common’ to many of readers. Yes, that’s that arrow-like design from a stable of well-known, Soviet-made fighte…

helionbooks.wordpress.com

But they were definitively not on the Syrian airforces’ MIG-23MFs as of June 1982, the same month the Falklands conflict ended.
And Syria, by having MIG—23MFs at all at that time, were already highly favoured non-Warsaw Pact Allies.
And Why would Argentina attract equivalent status given the military junta at best lukewarm attitude to Soviet involvement/ assistance (in reality they declined it)?

 

[F.L.]

That's right.
A Libyan MiG-23UB (coded 7715) was also tested for in-flight refueling in 1988 on a KC-130H, but while the same test was very successful for the Mirage F1AD, the MiG-23 became uncontrollable at low speeds, the Hercules' cruising speed being 400km/h.
On the other hand, the Iraqi buddy-buddy refueling on MiG-23 & Su-22 were successful.

 

[F.L.]

@kaiserd You are wrong !!!
According to this book, the Syrian MiG-23s were delivered in 1979 with R-23R/Ts and R-13Ms, the R-60MKs being delivered later.
The MiG-23MF was even in the front line with its R-23 at the time of air war over Bekaa valley.

 

[uk 75]

The Sea Harrier with the AIM9L was a formidable dogfighter. Its pilots had the advantage of dissimilar aircraft combat training.
Against an opponent with inferior weapons and training they would be expected to prevail.
However, against effective longer range AAMs and well trained pilots the 1982 vintage SHar would be vulnerable. This was why it was upgraded to carry Amraams.
By the time Sea Harriers were operating against the Serbian Air Force in the early 90s they had Amraam.

 

[timmymagic]

No reason to see why Argentina of the time under their relatively hard-right military junta would have been remotely so favoured so at best Atoll armed MIG-23MFs, but probably more likely to be MIG-23SMs.

There was a recollection from a British diplomat at the time talking to a Soviet diplomat.....the Soviet diplomat mentioned that his nation would naturally be taking a neutral standpoint in the conflict, but then said that off the record he hoped the British would kick the fascist juntas arse....

There wouldn't have been many/any senior Soviet diplomats or politicians in 1982 who hadn't served in WW2....they weren't particularly well disposed to right wing regimes...

 

[Kiltonge]

For something different, recall that Argentina had made enquiries about purchasing Sea Harriers in the late 1970s but didn't proceed.

 

[Archibald]

For something different, recall that Argentina had made enquiries about purchasing Sea Harriers in the late 1970s but didn't proceed.

Also Vulcan bombers, the (sick) irony.

 

[Zoo Tycoon]

I remember attending a talk given by one of the first SHAR pilots to go down south. The main concern was BVR AAM as there was little that could be done to counter. The Matra R530 was hence the big concern even if it had a low kill probability with enough shots the loss rate of SHAR would be decisive. Argentina had plenty of R530 available, including better variants, only a handful were fired.

Then there was an exchange on PPrune with a Argentine Mirage pilot, who was asked about the R530. He replied that the R530 was difficult to use, temperamental, very infrequently fired in training and when they did it produced very poor results. He continued that the problem was the logistics of providing a training target over a range that could monitor the results. So there was always fundamental uncertainty over just what had happened.

The point is, that it’s not just about the aircraft platform, there’s an awful lot behind it. The early radar guided air to air was quite fragile technology which could only be made to work with training whereby the pilots could learn from their experiences on the range ie briefed on what went well and not so well. Even the big player struggled with this in the early days, with full support from the system design authority, so second tier customers really had little hope.

The R23 missile has, at best, an uncertain reputation. It’s performance in Syria is disputed and Iraq although claimed as many successful engagements, seems to have little hard evidence.

 

[Archibald]

Yep, the R-530 was akin to Sparrows before the F-15's that is the -F variant. Vietnam era AIM-7 B to E. On a platform - the Mirage III - that had much less internal room than a Phantom, and a missile / electronic industry (Thompson CSF) that had a long way to go to catch with Uncle Sam. Even on the early Mirage F1 with improved Cyrano radars the R-530 still sucked.
Had WWIII broke up in the early 1980's, I confirm R-530s would have been fired in large volleys just to try to kill a few of the Warsaw Pact combat aircraft coming in large numbers "pour faire nombre".

Super 530F was a quantum leap but not before the late 1970's and never on the Mirage III series (needs to build a 1/72 scale Mirage V with a F1 radome and IFR probe plus two Super 530F on the wing tank pylons)

 

[F.L.]

The R23 missile has, at best, an uncertain reputation. It’s performance in Syria is disputed and Iraq although claimed as many successful engagements, seems to have little hard evidence.

The R-23R/T was indeed considered by the pilots as not very reliable, on the other hand the R-24 was very effective and highly appreciated by the Flogger's pilots.
Source : MiG-23 Flogger in the Middle East

 

[F.L.]

needs to build a 1/72 scale Mirage V with a F1 radome and IFR probe plus two Super 530F on the wing tank pylons.

That would be awesome !!!

 

[H_K]

Fact is that range alone makes it a giant PITA for any air ops coming from Argentina mainland, even the closest airstrip. Now if they had more tankers, things might have been different.

Or fighters able to operate from the short 4,000ft runway at Port Stanley.

Could the Mig-23 have done this?

In a previous alt history thread I had speculated that if Argentina had gotten their hands on a dozen surplus Etendard IVMs (to help with the Super Etendard transition) those fighters could well have ended up flying day CAP from the Falklands, where they might have posed quite a headache. Any somewhat maneuverable fighter with short runway capability might have done the trick really, so why not a Mig-23?

 

[uk 75]

If Argentina had been able to base fighter aircraft at Port Stanley like the Mig 23 or its own Mirage/Dagger force, the UK would have had to look at military and other alternatives to sending a Task Force equipped only with Sea Harriers.
But that is discussion for another thread.

 

[alejandrogrossi]

Fact is that range alone makes it a giant PITA for any air ops coming from Argentina mainland, even the closest airstrip. Now if they had more tankers, things might have been different.

Or fighters able to operate from the short 4,000ft runway at Port Stanley.

Could the Mig-23 have done this?

In a previous alt history thread I had speculated that if Argentina had gotten their hands on a dozen surplus Etendard IVMs (to help with the Super Etendard transition) those fighters could well have ended up flying day CAP from the Falklands, where they might have posed quite a headache. Any somewhat maneuverable fighter with short runway capability might have done the trick really, so why not a Mig-23?

I dont know if this have short take off ruway capability, but i like it

 

[F.L.]

Or rather that,

Indeed, the Crusader would have provided Argentina with an extraordinary "Dogfighter".
I don't know if it had already been considered to purchase it ?

 

[alejandrogrossi]

Or rather that,

Indeed, the Crusader would have provided Argentina with an extraordinary "Dogfighter".
I don't know if it had already been considered to purchase it ?

I never know about any offer of USa about F8
I don't think the ARA 25 de Mayo can operated with them
But they can be refuel by KC130

 

[uk 75]

That F8 looks very smart in Argentine colours.

 

[Archibald]

Wouldn't fit 25 de Mayo. Case in point: France had a half-sistership (Arromanches) - and nobody ever dared to try.

In fact the Crouzes barely fit a 34 000 tons Clem' , only with reinforced BLC - and still with atrocious attrition: 26 out of 42 procured, 1964-1999.

No idea how Crusaders fit on SBC-125A Essexs, but on Clems they were quite "hot" on landings. As much I love the Crusader, it was a massive bitch to land on any medium carrier. Found some stats one day, out of (a bit less than) 1300 build, at least 1000 got some kind of serious mishap in their useful lives. Get to check the exact number, but it was eye-popping high.

 

[Archibald]

There it is. A very good read.

https://digital-commons.usnwc.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=&httpsredir=1&article=1597&context=nwc-review

Between 1949, the year jets started showing up in the fleet in numbers, and 1988, the year their combined mishap rate finally got down to Air Force levels, the Navy and Marine Corps lost almost twelve thousand airplanes of all types (helicopters, trainers, and patrol planes, in addition to jets) and over 8,500 aircrew, in no small part as a result of these issues.

What. the. frack. 12 000 aircraft and 8500 crews ? Never realized the USN had THAT many planes and squadrons in the first place. Even with the massive WWII orders of Hellcats and Corsairs. Sounds astronomically high loss rate !!

Perhaps the statistics for the F-8 Crusader, a supersonic fighter designed by Vought in the late 1950s, provide a good illustration of the problem. The F-8 was always known as a difficult airplane to master. In all, 1,261 Crusaders were built. By the time it was withdrawn from the fleet, 1,106 had been involved in mishaps. Only a handful of them were lost to enemy fire in Vietnam.2 While the F-8 statistics might have been worse than those for most other models, they make the magnitude of the problem clear: whether from engine failure, pilot error, weather, or bad luck, the vast majority (88 percent!) of Crusaders ever built ended up as smoking holes in the ground, splashes in the water, or fireballs hurtling across a flight deck

A 88% mishap rate. Dear God. Then again the french loss rate of 26 out of 42 is 61% - almost two-third of the airframe procured !

When I was a kid (30 years ago) I wondered "why only 17 Crusaders upgraded in the wait for the Rafale ? ain't much of the 42 procured." Now I realize it was the bulk of the few airframes left after so many mishaps.

Mishap list at the bottom of that page - it is pretty appalling. Quick browse of the word "crashed" has one entry within the webpage text and 26 in the list. So yes - 26 down out of 42.

Btw this only leaves 16 airframes so - Houston we have a problem. Seems that list is flawed... there is one Crouze missing.

Vought (Chance) F-8E/ P (FN) Crusader [in english]

 

[F.L.]

The Crusader was used in the Philippines as a land-based fighter. It could have been offered to Argentina for a similar role.

 

[Archibald]

They were repaid on a massive shoes loan - courtesy of Imelda Marcos wardrobe... (I'll get my coat, not my shoes - although I may need shoes to, to run for cover...)

 

[F.L.]

Has a Harrier ever been lost in combat to other fighters ?
(Harrier GR, Shar, AV-8)

 

[TomS]

Has a Harrier ever been lost in combat to other fighters ?
(Harrier GR, Shar, AV-8)

No. But outside of the Falklands, I don't think Harrier has ever engaged in air-to-air combat.

 

[uk 75]

The most likely clash would have been between Indian Sea Harriers and the Pakistan AF. India used its Seahawks against Pakistan.

 

[riggerrob]

Mybe this, but i dont know if still avaible in 1982.
I always liked the Bison

Bison tankers survived until 1994 but they were never exported to Soviet clients, being regarded as strategic assets.

This was back when the Argentine Air Force operated Boeing 707(s) as their primary long-range transport. I am not clear if they ever operated more than a single Boeing.
Its most nefarious role was taking political prisoners on one-way trips to the middle of the ocean during the Dirty War.
It might have been possible to to retrofit that Boeing 707 with under-wing Beechcraft refuelling pods like the Boeings operated by the Canadian Armed Forces.

 

[batigol]

Mybe this, but i dont know if still avaible in 1982.
I always liked the Bison

Bison tankers survived until 1994 but they were never exported to Soviet clients, being regarded as strategic assets.

This was back when the Argentine Air Force operated Boeing 707(s) as their primary long-range transport. I am not clear if they ever operated more than a single Boeing.
Its most nefarious role was taking political prisoners on one-way trips to the middle of the ocean during the Dirty War.
It might have been possible to to retrofit that Boeing 707 with under-wing Beechcraft refuelling pods like the Boeings operated by the Canadian Armed Forces.

From the 1970s to roughly 2004, the FAA operated a total of seven 707s as strategic transports, long-range reconnaissance with LOROP and IR cameras, electronic intelligence gathering, and presidential transport. Three were operational in 1982. Postwar, the FAA planned to convert two examples into tankers just as you describe but the project was shelved due to lack of money.

The 707s were considered strategic assets and not used as you described. You may be thinking of the Navy's infamous Lockheed Electra transports, which were recorded as being used for killing political prisoners.

 

[F.L.]

The 707s were considered strategic assets and not used as you described. You may be thinking of the Navy's infamous Lockheed Electra transports, which were recorded as being used for killing political prisoners.

From wiki :

In 1973, the Argentine Navy bought three Electras equipped with cargo doors. These were used during the "Dirty War" to toss political prisoners into the Rio de La Plata in the infamous death flights.

 

[batigol]

Argentina's government at the time was virulently anti-Communist and there was no chance they would have been interested in MiGs from the Soviet Union. Before buying Mirage III, the FAA studied the following types as replacements for its Sabre and Meteor fighters: F-100 Super Sabre, Saab Draken, F-104 Starfighter, E.E. Lightning, F-5A Freedom Fighter, and the F-4 Phantom. The FAA really wanted the Phantom, but it was not released for export to Latin America. Argentina is a very big country and almost all of the types listed were short-ranged, plus the F-4 offered a true multirole and BVR capability. You can read about this in the Nuñez Padin book Dassault Mirage IIICJ & IIIEA - Serie Fuerza Aerea Argentina Nro. 7, which I highly recommend.

 

[F.L.]

Mirage IIICJ IIIEA : Jorge Nuñez Padín : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive

Dassault Mirage IIICJ - IIIEA Serie Fuerza Aerea Argentina N° 7

archive.org

What a pity that this book does not exist in English or French !

 

[uk 75]

It would have been ironic if the Thatcher government had sold Argentina Royal Navy Phantoms.

 

[F.L.]

Guerre des Malouines : Clostermann rend hommage aux pilotes argentins

Pierre Clostermann restera admiratif devant le courage des pilotes argentins durant la guerre des Malouines. Son soutien lui valu de nombreuses critiques.

pierre.clostermann.org

A very interesting article on the subject, to take well in its context.
Here is the conclusion:

We have seen the French equipment, admirably led and served by first-rate pilots, demonstrate its qualities of robustness and efficiency and all the rest, all that has been written in the Anglo-Saxon press, is only commercial and interested literature. (sic)

May I conclude, as in the message of friendship that I addressed on May 15 to the Argentine pilots, who are our Latin brothers in the most French of South American countries :

"Causes are only worth the blood shed and the world no longer believes in anything but the truth of the witnesses who get killed for it".

 

[F.L.]

Aircraft Photo of C-407 | Israel Aircraft Industries Dagger A | Argentina - Air Force | AirHistory.net #178278

Aircraft photo of C-407 - Israel Aircraft Industries Dagger A - Argentina - Air Force, taken by Ian Howat at Port Howard Area [ Off-Airport ] in Falkland Islands on 19 October 1990. Shotdown by a Sea Harrier and Sidewinder during the Falklands War. RAF Seaking HAR 3 XZ597 of 78 Squadron in the...

www.airhistory.net

Aircraft Photo of C-407 | Israel Aircraft Industries Dagger A | Argentina - Air Force | AirHistory.net #178280

Aircraft photo of C-407 - Israel Aircraft Industries Dagger A - Argentina - Air Force, taken by Ian Howat at Port Howard Area [ Off-Airport ] in Falkland Islands on 19 October 1990. Shotdown by a Sea Harrier and a Sidewinder during the Falklands War. Aircraft belonged to Grupo 6 de Caza. Also in...

www.airhistory.net

 

[riggerrob]

Mybe this, but i dont know if still avaible in 1982.
I always liked the Bison

Bison tankers survived until 1994 but they were never exported to Soviet clients, being regarded as strategic assets.

This was back when the Argentine Air Force operated Boeing 707(s) as their primary long-range transport. I am not clear if they ever operated more than a single Boeing.
Its most nefarious role was taking political prisoners on one-way trips to the middle of the ocean during the Dirty War.
It might have been possible to to retrofit that Boeing 707 with under-wing Beechcraft refuelling pods like the Boeings operated by the Canadian Armed Forces.

From the 1970s to roughly 2004, the FAA operated a total of seven 707s as strategic transports, long-range reconnaissance with LOROP and IR cameras, electronic intelligence gathering, and presidential transport. Three were operational in 1982. Postwar, the FAA planned to convert two examples into tankers just as you describe but the project was shelved due to lack of money.

The 707s were considered strategic assets and not used as you described. You may be thinking of the Navy's infamous Lockheed Electra transports, which were recorded as being used for killing political prisoners.

I stand corrected. I just knew that political prisoners disappeared via a variety of shady methods.

Have Lockheed Electras or P-3 Orions ever been modified to serve as aerial tankers?

 

[batigol]

Mybe this, but i dont know if still avaible in 1982.
I always liked the Bison

Bison tankers survived until 1994 but they were never exported to Soviet clients, being regarded as strategic assets.

This was back when the Argentine Air Force operated Boeing 707(s) as their primary long-range transport. I am not clear if they ever operated more than a single Boeing.
Its most nefarious role was taking political prisoners on one-way trips to the middle of the ocean during the Dirty War.
It might have been possible to to retrofit that Boeing 707 with under-wing Beechcraft refuelling pods like the Boeings operated by the Canadian Armed Forces.

From the 1970s to roughly 2004, the FAA operated a total of seven 707s as strategic transports, long-range reconnaissance with LOROP and IR cameras, electronic intelligence gathering, and presidential transport. Three were operational in 1982. Postwar, the FAA planned to convert two examples into tankers just as you describe but the project was shelved due to lack of money.

The 707s were considered strategic assets and not used as you described. You may be thinking of the Navy's infamous Lockheed Electra transports, which were recorded as being used for killing political prisoners.

I stand corrected. I just knew that political prisoners disappeared via a variety of shady methods.

Have Lockheed Electras or P-3 Orions ever been modified to serve as aerial tankers?

Yes, one of the Navy's Electras was tested as a tanker in the mid 80s. It was modified with a single drogue and internal tanks but it was deemed unsuitable. It could only tank up one Super Etendard at a time and total fuel capacity was quite limited, and in the end the aircraft was refitted for maritime patrol.

 

[F.L.]

The question from another angle :
Could the Argentinian aircraft carrier "ARA Veinticinco de Mayo" have played a different and decisive role during the Falklands conflict ?
- With greater range, could the A-4s have effectively countered the Sea Harriers ? Would they have been able to defend the aircraft carrier against British attacks ?
- What type of fighters could have been acquired around 1980 to beat the Shars ? (Of course to operate from the ARA 25.)

 

[Zoo Tycoon]

Much rarer, but more potent as an fighter than a Skyhawk, is the Grumman F11 Tiger. It’s weights were broadly comparable to a Skyhawk so it just might have been compatible with operating from a modified Majestic class. With only 200 made (compared to c2500 A4’s) and the USN using them quite hard in both marine and land environments I don’t think any were still flying in 82. Now upgraded to a Super Tiger it would have been even more challenging.