Alternative fighter for Argentine AF & Navy during Falklands war.

[Scott Kenny]

To quote Forrest Gump 'Stupid is as stupid does'. The Falkland invasion - time, method, geopolitical environment - showed the Junta's grasp of reality was deficient. To put it politely.

Intelligent people can do remarkably stupid things, genuinely stupid people would have made less of a mess. I blame the parents.

I'm going to blame groupthink. Like the thought process that lead the Nixon advisors to be okay with breaking the law to get information on what the other party was talking about doing.

 

[F-14ATomcat]

To quote Forrest Gump 'Stupid is as stupid does'. The Falkland invasion - time, method, geopolitical environment - showed the Junta's grasp of reality was deficient. To put it politely.

Intelligent people can do remarkably stupid things, genuinely stupid people would have made less of a mess. I blame the parents.

Those are personal opinions, Do you know who was Frondizi? or Vernon Walters? or why Vernon Walters met Pinochet, or How many times did Galtieri go to Washington and when did he go? History is written you just need to look for it, the more you dig in history the more you will understand it.


I recommend you a good read

El viaje de Galtieri a Estados Unidos que bendijo al “general majestuoso”, aceleró la caída de Viola y derivó en la Guerra de Malvinas

Hace 42 años, el general que terminó decidiendo la invasión a las islas viajaba al país conducido por Ronald Reagan, mientras en Buenos Aires tambaleaba el sucesor de Videla. Un repaso por lo sucedido en aquellos días y sus consecuencias

www.infobae.com

To make alternative History beside an opinion you need History.

No embargo can be understood without history, no weapon program can be understood without politics.

Why the FAA A-4s did not have AAMs when it is known they could carry them?

The Harrier victories have to be understood upon the historical facts that allow them to win.


In 1983, through an agreement with the French company MATRA, tests were carried out to homologate weapons within the framework of the “Skyhawk-Matra-Magic” Operation, successfully launching an R550 Magic II “all aspect” missile (the Magic 2 entered in service in France in 1985) in Mar del Plata and Matra-Durandal BLG-66 Belouga bombs were dropped on a cement platform in Mendoza.

Skyhawks Illustrated #12505: A veteran of the controversial attack on HMS “Invincible”

Initially built for operation aboard American aircraft carriers, this particular Skyhawk had a rich operational history as it served in wartime, or near wartime, operations both in the United State…

www.gacetaeronautica.com

https://www.argentina.gob.ar/sites/default/files/2023/10/the-argentine-air-force-during-malvinas-war_ch0-6_.pdf

The Sea Harriers shot down three Skyhawks (Lieutenants Juan José Arrarás (C 226) and Danilo Rubén Bolzán, and Ensign Jorge Alberto Vázquez). Bolzán's aircraft was shot down by Lieutenant David Smith, while the other two Skyhawks fell victim to Lieutenant David Morgan. The fourth aircraft was damaged and lost a large amount of fuel,
but managed to return to base assisted by a KC-130 tanker aircraft.
In conclusion, we can say that the naval aircraft, of the 6,250 hours they flew, made 1,800 in combat area. They sank 34,000 tons. For each attack aircraft lost, 4,250 tons of enemy ships were sunk15,30. Four pilots (one Chief, three Officers) and two Petty Officers28 lost their lives.
In the case of the FAA, 505 combat sorties were planned, of which 455 (88%) were carried out.
Of this figure, 272 sorties (64%) reached their material objective. Thirty-four aircraft were lost. They flew 12,454 hours, of which 2,782 corresponded to combat units9,18.

https://www.centronaval.org.ar/boletin/BCN851/851-GERDING.pdf

In 1975, continuing with the re-equipment and modernization, the Air Force acquired, in addition to the North American F-86F Sabres, an additional batch of Skyhawks, of the improved A-4C model, in 25 units that arrived in the country between April 11, 1976 and 1978, being integrated into the IVth Air Brigade of El Plumerillo, province of Mendoza, becoming part of the 1st Fighter-Bomber Group formed in 1972, later the 4th Fighter Group. The A-4Cs are equipped with Jewish-origin IAI Shafrir I air-to-air missiles.
At the end of 1978, the A-4B/C were deployed on alert for the imminent conflict with Chile over the Beagle dispute, which was avoided thanks to the good auspices of the de facto Presidents of Argentina, Lieutenant General Don Jorge Rafael Videla, and of Chile, Captain General Don Augusto José Ramón Pinochet Ugarte. The A-4Qs of the COAN were also deployed to the Vicealmirante Zar Naval Base in Trelew, Chubut, to be later embarked on the ARA "25 de Mayo", from where in December 1978, Skyhawks armed with AIM-9B Sidewinders intercepted Chilean aircraft that were following the movements of the Argentine Navy's Sea Fleet on two occasions.

FAA/COAN: La incorporación e historial del A-4 Skyhawk

fdra.blogspot.com

 

[1635yankee]

Desperate people do stupid things. Galtieri and his junta were becoming inncreasingly unpopular, a trend even their vicious repression couldn't stem. He needed a success, soon, so he couldn't wait until the Nott Review made the UK incapable of recapturing the Falklands.

 

[Arjen]

I recommend you a good read

I did much of my reading about Argentinian politics of the day during the day, before and after. I experienced the UK insecurity around retaking the islands first hand - I stayed there for a while. When the smoke had cleared, what emerged was an image of the Junta having made a mess of the invasion, then abandoning their own soldiers.

 

[Archibald]

I am not a skeptic... for example, I believe very strongly that the Invincible was hit. I don't believe it sank, but rather that it was hit. The decline in air operations in the chronology reinforces this, as well as the 50-year secrecy decreed by the British regarding the files... including the belief that American aid to the British went well beyond what is known, hence the importance of secrecy...*

No and no. This has been debunked.

 

[Kiltonge]

Did the Coventry/Broadsword Type 64 combo assist with any Sea Harrier interceptions before Coventry was sunk?

Yes, repeatedly on 24 May.

On 25 May Coventry was vectoring a CAP in against the second pair of Skyhawks but they were ordered to haul-off to allow Sea Dart to engage.

Incidentally, on two previous occasions that week Coventry had turned bow-on to threat when engaging with Sea Dart, forcing Broadsword to adjust her course, so when she did so again on 25 May and cut across Broadsword it was not novel.

 

[Rule of cool]

Yes, repeatedly on 24 May.

On 25 May Coventry was vectoring a CAP in against the second pair of Skyhawks but they were ordered to haul-off to allow Sea Dart to engage.

Incidentally, on two previous occasions that week Coventry had turned bow-on to threat when engaging with Sea Dart, forcing Broadsword to adjust her course, so when she did so again on 25 May and cut across Broadsword it was not novel.

Thanks, I presumed as much. There is a tendency when gaining expertise to look closer and closer at certain aspects like Sea Dart or whatever and forget that that things is part of a greater system.

Your attachment is interesting as I've been looking at the secondary weapons on the Type 22 and 42. The Type 22 had what I think was a standard WW2 20mm Oerlikon cannon on each side, which postwar was upgraded to a fancier single 20mm oerlikon then a pair of twin 30mm gun mounts. The Type 22 had a pair of single 40mm bofors for 'junk busting' in the Indian Ocean, which apparently interfered with the Sea Wolf setup. Yet it appears that at least with that first wave the 4.5', 40mm and 20mm served a useful purpose.

 

[F-14ATomcat]

I did much of my reading about Argentinian politics of the day during the day, before and after. I experienced the UK insecurity around retaking the islands first hand - I stayed there for a while. When the smoke had cleared, what emerged was an image of the Junta having made a mess of the invasion, then abandoning their own soldiers.

Let me tell you my opinion using what most people use, logic and History by Argentine sources

A) The USA, France and England are nuclear powers and are in NATO and There is article 5.

B) to Challenge these NATO powers you need as Castro did bring ICBMs from the Soviet Union.



C) unless Galtieri and the Junta were doing Ayahuasca, crack or fentanyl there is no Chance he acted due to passion, not even being paranoid, this will lead any one with some brain to understand the USA and France did know because there are foreign relations and espionage plus the USA has satellites.

The war you can blame it only on misreading of Galtieri about Washington`s reaction in a very pro Western view or as many in Argentina and Latin America say a trap.


Even Maduro understands it


and in modern political language, there are softer ways to do politics


Angra II Brazilian nuclear Plant

 

[Kiltonge]

Your attachment is interesting as I've been looking at the secondary weapons on the Type 22 and 42.

It's from the declassified official inquiry into the loss of HMS Coventry. Quite a lot is redacted but it is fascinating to read about the interactions of the 22 / 42 and their radars in detecting and tracking the incoming raids, including dead-reckoning their tracks over West Falkland.

https://www.hmscoventry.co.uk/d118/wp-content/uploads/2022/04/HMS-Coventry-Board-of-Inquiry.pdf

 

[Scott Kenny]

Let me tell you my opinion using what most people use, logic and History by Argentine sources

A) The USA, France and England are nuclear powers and are in NATO and There is article 5.

Article 5 EXPLICITLY does not apply to anything south of the Tropic of Cancer, 23deg N.

 

[Rule of cool]

Article 5 EXPLICITLY does not apply to anything south of the Tropic of Cancer, 23deg N.

True, but the US and UK are formal allies so it's unlikely that the US wouldn't side with the UK despite not becoming a combatant alongside the UK.

Apparently Haig told Galtieri that the British would not only fight but would win, and Galtieri simply did not believe that.

 

[Scott Kenny]

True, but the US and UK are formal allies so it's unlikely that the US wouldn't side with the UK despite not becoming a combatant alongside the UK.

Apparently Haig told Galtieri that the British would not only fight but would win, and Galtieri simply did not believe that.

That's the argument between Monroe Doctrine and NATO treaties...

 

[Rule of cool]

That's the argument between Monroe Doctrine and NATO treaties...

Does the Monroe Doctrine apply to the Falklands War? It's not as if Britain was a rival looking to squeeze into the western hemisphere in order to weaken the US.

 

[Scott Kenny]

Does the Monroe Doctrine apply to the Falklands War? It's not as if Britain was a rival looking to squeeze into the western hemisphere in order to weaken the US.

It's still a statement of "The Americas are OURS, and we will smack any hand that reaches for them."

Note how limited US assistance was to the Brits (openly), only getting a batch of new AIM-9Ls.

 

[1635yankee]

That's the argument between Monroe Doctrine and NATO treaties...

The difference is that NATO is a multi-national treaty; the Monroe Doctrine is a unilateral US declaration.

 

[EwenS]

It's still a statement of "The Americas are OURS, and we will smack any hand that reaches for them."

Note how limited US assistance was to the Brits (openly), only getting a batch of new AIM-9Ls.

This was 1982 not 2025.

Consider MoD media policy. Unlike coverage of wars today, the MoD controlled how many journalists were able to be sent south, because there was no other way of getting there, and exactly what they were able to report with everything having to go through communication nets controlled by British forces. The Argentinians banned British journalists from entering the country. The two main TV companies (BBC & ITV) had to agree to pool their footage and there were often delays in getting it back.

There is an academic paper here on the British Falklands Media Policy and how it developed.

https://kar.kent.ac.uk/50411/1/198J.%20M.%20Thornton%20PhD.pdf

And stop and think about it for a moment. The AIM-9L story was a good misinformation story talking up the efficacy of the TF air component (good propaganda in an earlier time?). No one was going to talk openly about anything related to intelligence.

And as for logistical support, no one really wanted to to let on just how important Ascension was, to where much of it was delivered, because it was pretty much undefended. There was no harbour as such. Ships anchored offshore with aviation fuel being pumped ashore and a lot of stores being moved around by helicopter. The Argentinian Navy had 4 subs at the start of the war including two modern German built Type 209 that presented a real threat (Only one was operational but that doesn't seem to have been known, with IIRC the Argentinians going to some lengths to hide her). Air defence was in the hands of a couple of the Harriers flown out from Britain at the end of April, to deal with any B707 snoopers that appeared (they were used to find the TF as it sailed south). I can't recall any reports by journalists from Ascension Island itself. Were they even allowed ashore?

So much was hidden under what today would probably be called "operational security". Journalists would probably not accept the same restrictions today, and would have access to their own civilian commercial satellite links.

Edit - a flight of 3 Phantom FGR.2 were flown out to Ascension 24-26 May 1982.

 

[Rule of cool]

There is an academic paper here on the British Falklands Media Policy and how it developed.

I wrote one myself for my undergrad.

 

[uk 75]

As this thread is still sambaing on I found this well written and sourced wikipedia article

British nuclear weapons and the Falklands War - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

I would add that in conversations after her retirement Lady Thatcher suggested she had not been as keen to use nuclear weapons as her critics thought.

 

[Kiltonge]

The idea was that the missile would home on the poor Lynx and its crew to act as a decoy. Not something the crews were very happy about.

The Lynx would start hovering about 10m and rise to above the Exocet's terminal phase altitude of 15m, so would be unharmed. The Exocet's HoJ mode worked in azimuth but not elevation.

 

[F-14ATomcat]

The difference is that NATO is a multi-national treaty; the Monroe Doctrine is a unilateral US declaration.

The Monroe doctrine fell in 1982 due to the Falklands war, that war planted the seeds of the american decadence in Latin America.

By supporting England, Argentina went form being pro-American to have Brazil as its main trading partner.

As of the first quarter of 2024, Brazil is Argentina's main trading partner, with a total trade exchange of 5.909 billion US dollars.

Argentina: principales socios comerciales 2024 | Statista

Al primer trimestre de 2024, Brasil es el principal socio comercial de Argentina, con un intercambio comercial total de 5.909 millones de dólares estadounidenses.

es.statista.com

In 1982 Only Cuba and Nicaragua, had governments with an anti-american attitude, by 2025 you have Cuba , Venezuela, Bolivia, Nicaragua.




Funny to see that in 1982 the communist or left wingers were controlled by the Soviet Union, the Soviet Union fell, but communists and leftists started ruling, that was a good price for abandoning Galtieri.

Nothing is free



Sadly The USA paid the price for allowing England to win, a few AIM-9L that allowed the Victory for the Harriers have basically destroyed the Monroe doctrine, Venezuela basically would have been the main oil source for the USA, but abandoning the Argentine Junta was the seed of the destruction of the Monroe doctrine.

 

[ArtosStark]

It's still a statement of "The Americas are OURS, and we will smack any hand that reaches for them."

Note how limited US assistance was to the Brits (openly), only getting a batch of new AIM-9Ls.

The Monroe Doctrine as a concept ends up getting applied to a lot of things it does not cover. Monroe’s statement was that the US would view any further efforts to control sovereign states in the Americas by European powers as threats to US security.

It explicitly stated that in return for this forbearance on the part of European powers the US would refrain from interference with any existing European Colonies or with the internal affairs of any European state. In other words the Monroe Doctrine wouldn’t actually have applied to the Falklands. If you want to be pedantic about it you could also argue that the US is in breach of its responsibilities under the Doctrine since they be et much interfered with Spanish Colonies (some of which are now under American rule) and have had a considerable influence on the internal matters of at least the German state. But that’s kind of beside the point.

It’s also notable that the Monroe Doctrine was laid out with the encouragement of the British Government of the day and that for most of the 19th Century it was the RN, not the USN, which was its primary enforcer. In other words the Monroe Doctrine was not a blanket statement of US influence only within the American supercontinent. It was a little more nuanced than that.