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.
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.
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.
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…
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.
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.
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.
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.
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...*
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 very 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.
Between the declaration of the Monroe Doctrine and the USN naval expansion starting in the very late 19th Century, the Monroe Doctrine only survived with the tacit approval of the UK governments. Had the UK decided that their interests were harmed by the Monroe Doctrine, the USN for most of the 19th Century would have its blue-water fleet smashed to kindling or, later, iron scrap.
Of course, it would have been sensible for the US to recognize the second republic in the Western Hemisphere in 1804, instead of waiting 60 years.
Martin Pedascor (and Bullpup and AS-30) had Manual Command to Line Of Sight (MCLOS) guidance and 6km range. This means that in and around the Amphibious Area of Operations in San Carlos and the northern end of Falkland Sound, where there are hills 2000-3000' high, aircraft would have to fly at medium altitude to get line of sight on the target ships and approach to within 6km.
This would make them dead meat. Every radar would be able to detect them, Sea Harriers would be directed onto them, Sea Dart would be able to shoot them and short range SAMs and guns would be able to engage them
This is overly simplistic. Any missile attack against ships inside Falkland Sound could have taken the northern or southern routes, allowing them to skirt around the hills on West Falkland and drop back to sea level before starting their final run in, while still 5-10nm away from British ships.
See examples of routes taken below.
A 5-10nm offset would give the attackers enough time to identify the closest target, pop up to 150-200ft and engage. For an AS30 missile the optimal engagement distance was 6.5-9 km (15 to 20 second flight time at Mach 1.3+), as the attacker would still be 3-4km away on impact, giving enough standoff distance to turn away and evade, while still being close enough to manually course correct the missile’s path (which was really more of a guided rocket).
We know that both Sea Wolf and Sea Dart were useless in these conditions, from @Kiltonge ’s very interesting document on HMS Coventry’s sinking:
Sea Dart due to background clutter from land
Sea Wolf due to the 5km engagement distance (using back up TV mode - if using low altitude radar mode the engagement distance was even worse, only 2.2km). A Sea Wolf launched at 5km won’t impact until ~3km, which is insufficient to save the ship from being hit.
And anyway there were only 2 Sea Wolf shooters in the sound (Broadsword and Brilliant), and no Sea Dart shooters (both Coventry and Glasgow being with the carriers).
In addition to Falkland Sound, there were multiple opportunities for missile attacks against ships operating close inshore in the first 25 days, e.g. against Glamorgan, Alacrity and Arrow on May 1st, and against the T42/T22 combos (Glasgow/Brilliant and Coventry/Broadsword).
2-3 successes here would have weakened the RN escort force to such a degree as to likely render further inshore operations and landings too risky.
In open water against the carriers I’m a little less clear if such low level AS30 missile attacks would have been successful. Clearly Exeter was fairly effective with low level Sea Dart kills on May 30th (1 or 2 Skyhawks shot down at 8-13 miles distance), but the other Sea Dart ships with their older radars did not appear to have as much success, so prior to Exeter’s arrival on May 22nd I would have to think that AS30 attacks against the carrier screen could have worked. (The key being to ingress over open water at 50-100ft and pop up to 150-200ft only for the short 15-20s missile flight time, and attack in flights of at least 4 aircraft).
I agree there seems to be some ability to use the MP in Falkland sound against warships, but I don't think it would be easy. After all the Argentines had little to no intelligence to act upon, the warships were moving targets which made the lack of intelligence worse and the warships had a number of backup weapons ranging from Sea Cat to 4.5", 40mm and 20mm guns causing a crossfire that would throw off the pilot's tracking of a target.
21 pages of replies to what started as a poll whether MiG-21 would have been better against the Sea Harrier than what the Argentinian air force actually had during the Falklands war - answer a definite NO - leading to revisionist history, missiles and geopolitics discussions. To which I myself contributed as well
21 pages of replies to what started as a poll whether MiG-21 would have been better against the Sea Harrier than what the Argentinian air force actually had during the Falklands war - answer a definite NO - leading to revisionist history, missiles and geopolitics discussions. To which I myself contributed as well
As a Latin American i have the opinion without considering historical facts,the question could Argentina have flown MiG-21s versus harriers? it sounds weird even to be honest out of reality.
First because I was born in the 1970s, every one knew the only Pro Soviet Government in Latin America was Cuba.
The Only nation in Latin America to Have MiG-21s and MiG-23s in 1982 was Cuba.
When I was young I had Chilean friends exiled in Mexico due to the Pinochet dictatorship. my friends were leftists they hated the dictatorship and they always said they were persecuting leftists and Communists.
So this whole idea of Argentina operating MiG-21s is totally an absurd to me.
In Latin america each country is different and you can see it in the weapons they use. The USA in the 1980s had a policy of selling obsolete aircraft to Latin america, come on in 1982 the A-4 was obsolete.
The Mirage III or Mirage 5 were old aircraft, relics the most advanced in Latin America air force in the 1980s was Cuba, but that was because Cuba was in the soviet camp.
Argentina was never supported to have a real military capable to beat a real modern air force.
While Pulqui was a domestic program, there was no interest by the West to help them build it in numbers, and by political intrigue the West supported voices within the Argentine government to desist in building advanced aircraft.
So to be honest, the topic is absurd, now what is more real is what they had, they had the Super etendard to replace the obsolete A-4s.
But you already know there was an embargo, and the Pucara and A-4s were used to kill communists by the Dictatorship, so come on, to come and say how great was England fighting an embargoed nation with obsolete aircraft it is ridiculous, Argentina operated obsolete aircraft to start with and the USA never help them.
So honestly be a bit more realistic, England was ill prepared to face the Soviet Union and the Falklands war showed it since a nation operating obsolete aircraft was beating them and they needed an embargo to win that is the reality.
And the price the USA paid for their betrayal to its Servant Dictator Galtieri was the destruction of the Monroe doctrine and the ascend of Brazil as the leader of south America, and that was proven when Bush asked Brazil and Argentina to join the free trade agreement of the Americas and Brazil and Argentina said no and created mercosur and later regimes like Evo Morales and Maduro rose to power but Argentina did not help any more the USA thanks to the betrayal to Galtieri.
The Falklands war also forced nations to buy none western aircraft
Peru bought MiG-29s and Su-22s, Bolivia Chinese aircraft, even Mexico bought Mi-26 and Mi-17s, Venezuela bought Su-30s.
those are the consequences, and nowadays Trump`s policies will make south America go away more from the USA that is real
I will try this one more time. The UK would not have been able to retake the Falklands if Galtieri, Anaya et cetera would have waited half a year, a year, to invade. Soldiers better trained and equipped, Exocets and other equipment were on their way in. Argentina would have had enough resources to pull it off. The UK, in economic trouble, might even have wanted to give up the islands of its own accord. If only the Junta had been more patient. HMS Endurance was to be retired without immediate replacement. There had even been talk to sell Vulcans to Argentina.
That did not happen.
The inept, corrupt, kicking-'Communists'-out-of-aircraft-over-the-sea Junta badly needed a military success to divert attention from the mess they had landed Argentina in. The embargo only came about after the invasion, the reason no more German submarines, British type 42s, French Exocets and Super Etendards were available to Argentina was because the coffers were empty. France, Germany, the UK had been perfectly happy to sell weaponry to the dictators.
Act in haste, repent at leisure. Over a thousand dead and wounded on both sides, hungry, miserable Argentinian soldiers surrendering on the islands as a result. No civilised society would have meted out the punishment the Junta deserved, because they had deserved to be lynched. So some of them went to jail. And pardoned, a little later. They got off lightly.
The USA had an arms embargo on Argentina that took effect 1 Oct 1978 and was still in place in 1982. That was, at least in part, why Argentina went shopping in Europe. It was the reason the SE electronics had to be changed for these Argentinian aircraft, to eliminate US components, as I noted in an earlier post.
Argentina's Military Dictatorship Argentina: Before March 1976 For over a year prior to the March 1976 coup, U.S. government officials and other obser...
Again this was exploited by the RN. A number of Lynx HAS.2 helicopters were fitted with jammers removed from Canberras and deployed south. It was known as the "I-Band Jammer" during the war and later "Hampton Mayfair". It was old kit and its outdated valve electronics took a while to heat up to become effective. Flights of one or two Lynx were deployed on Hermes and Invincible. One such Lynx had been deployed to Atlantic Conveyor on 20 May just after she arrived in Falklands waters. Unfortunately she was unable to launch it in time on 25th May and it was destroyed as she burned. 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.
IIRC the helos were at very little risk. When the missile was detected by ESM and tracked as engaging they had plenty of time, when the missile was definitely seduced (or smoke trail spotted) all they had to do was climb sharply (something Lynx could do better than any other helo on earth) and when Exocet attempted to climb with them to maintain lock its gyros would tumble and it would crash out of control (it wasn't designed for that type of flight or manoeuvre). Any sharp manoeuvre by the crew would also have broken lock quite easily.
he theory is that with the Argentine missile, the fighters could launch the missile as soon as they reached the edge of the canal, in the same flight profile as before, but launching the missile from there and eliminating 10 to 20 seconds of exposure.
The RN, Exocet's biggest user. chose San Carlos because the anchorage was immune from Exocet attack....the radar on the missile would not pick out ships from the clutter, and the Super Etendard would not have time to do the necessary pre-launch sequence over the water before firing....the theory is garbage.
IIRC the helos were at very little risk. When the missile was detected by ESM and tracked as engaging they had plenty of time, when the missile was definitely seduced (or smoke trail spotted) all they had to do was climb sharply (something Lynx could do better than any other helo on earth) and when Exocet attempted to climb with them to maintain lock its gyros would tumble and it would crash out of control (it wasn't designed for that type of flight or manoeuvre). Any sharp manoeuvre by the crew would also have broken lock quite easily.
The RN, Exocet's biggest user. chose San Carlos because the anchorage was immune from Exocet attack....the radar on the missile would not pick out ships from the clutter, and the Super Etendard would not have time to do the necessary pre-launch sequence over the water before firing....the theory is garbage.
no one talked about firing an exocet! The theoretical evolution of the debate is about the alternative thesis if Argentina had the Martin Pescador missile... ok??
I will try this one more time. The UK would not have been able to retake the Falklands if Galtieri, Anaya et cetera would have waited half a year, a year, to invade. Soldiers better trained and equipped, Exocets and other equipment were on their way in. Argentina would have had enough resources to pull it off. The UK, in economic trouble, might even have wanted to give up the islands of its own accord. If only the Junta had been more patient. HMS Endurance was to be retired without immediate replacement. There had even been talk to sell Vulcans to Argentina.
That did not happen.
The inept, corrupt, kicking-'Communists'-out-of-aircraft-over-the-sea Junta badly needed a military success to divert attention from the mess they had landed Argentina in. The embargo only came about after the invasion, the reason no more German submarines, British type 42s, French Exocets and Super Etendards were available to Argentina was because the coffers were empty. France, Germany, the UK had been perfectly happy to sell weaponry to the dictators.
Act in haste, repent at leisure. Over a thousand dead and wounded on both sides, hungry, miserable Argentinian soldiers surrendering on the islands as a result. No civilised society would have meted out the punishment the Junta deserved, because they had deserved to be lynched. So some of them went to jail. And pardoned, a little later. They got off lightly.
I disagree with they have the enough resources for two simple realities of life.
A) that thesis claims the USA, France and England had bad intelligence services and they did not know when they sell weapons what are the customers are going to use them.
B) This also implies there was not a previous dispute to hint of a war coming with Argentina
That is not believable.
The other thing is not believable is the British soldiers were much better soldiers.
To prove you let us make a small imagination experiment.
Image it is not Argentina, but Frances versus the UK, let us suppose the USA still gives England AIM-9L but Israel supports France with Mirage V armed with Python 3
I ask you do you think England will win with that fleet they sent to the Falklands?
do you think once the harriers are gone and the carriers sunk the Royal marines will beat the french marines?
You know the answer the answer is England was in bad shape and the Falklands war show it, that they needed to rectify
The USA had an arms embargo on Argentina that took effect 1 Oct 1978 and was still in place in 1982. That was, at least in part, why Argentina went shopping in Europe. It was the reason the SE electronics had to be changed for these Argentinian aircraft, to eliminate US components, as I noted in an earlier post.
Argentina's Military Dictatorship Argentina: Before March 1976 For over a year prior to the March 1976 coup, U.S. government officials and other obser...
I doubt it France had more Etendard than Argentina and exocets too, they built them..
The same fleet that England sent to the Falklands did not have a chance versus France.
same applies versus Japan, plenty of F-15s and F-1s sorry but in 1982 England was in terrible shape, now perhaps their fleet theoretically are better thanks to F-35s, but in 1982, the French would had beaten them if they would had faced France.
As it already was noticed, this thread got off quite far from the original topic. Maybe at least back to the theme, which consequences another fighter type for Argentina (perhaps not too unrealistic ?) would have had in that conflict ?
1) Long ranged fighter with good fuel fraction (e.g. second hand US Navy Crusaders, F11F Tigers, new Mirage F1s)
2) Air refueling capable fighter, ideally with buddy pods as existing tanker resources were already over stretched
3) Cheap throwaway fighter with good short runway capability (low landing speed, brake chute, arrestor hook etc) in order to operate from Port Stanley’s 1,200m runway… likely an older type from the early 60s
4) Multirole fighter also able to perform anti shipping strikes
5) Ideally a fighter with a fairly modern air to air missile (1970s tech) to compete as much as possible with Aim 9L (ie. not Aim-9B, AA-2 Atoll or Shafrir)
Many of the classic fast jets mentioned on this thread don’t check these boxes (MiG-21, EE Lightning, Draken, Mirage III/Kfir, F-104). Ex-USN fighters or Mirage F1s might work. As I’ve mentioned, used Etendards (with Magic 1 AAMs, AS30 anti-surface missiles, Douglas buddy pods and brake chutes) are the only type that checks all boxes (IMHO).
1) Long ranged fighter with good fuel fraction (e.g. second hand US Navy Crusaders, F11F Tigers, new Mirage F1s)
2) Air refueling capable fighter, ideally with buddy pods as existing tanker resources were already over stretched
3) Cheap throwaway fighter with good short runway capability (low landing speed, brake chute, arrestor hook etc) in order to operate from Port Stanley’s 1,200m runway… likely an older type from the early 60s
4) Multirole fighter also able to perform anti shipping strikes
5) Ideally a fighter with a fairly modern air to air missile (1970s tech) to compete as much as possible with Aim 9L (ie. not Aim-9B, AA-2 Atoll or Shafrir)
Many of the classic fast jets mentioned on this thread don’t check these boxes (MiG-21, EE Lightning, Draken, Mirage III/Kfir, F-104). Ex-USN fighters or Mirage F1s might work. As I’ve mentioned, used Etendards are the only type that checks all boxes (IMHO).
The Nesher was a good option armed with Python 3, in the Bekka Valley, same June 1982, the Python 3 showed a good performance and the Etendard did the same in the Iran-Iraq war
The Python 3 is an Israeli heatseeking missile, being a further development of the Shafrir 2. Produced by Rafael Advanced Defense Systems, it was much improved and has seen widespread service. Notably in the 1982 Lebanon war, it performed very well, gaining between 35-50 kills to its name
The Nesher was a good option armed with Python 3, in the Bekka Valley, same June 1982, the Python 3 showed a good performance and the Etendard did the same in the Iran-Iraq war
The Python 3 is an Israeli heatseeking missile, being a further development of the Shafrir 2. Produced by Rafael Advanced Defense Systems, it was much improved and has seen widespread service. Notably in the 1982 Lebanon war, it performed very well, gaining between 35-50 kills to its name
Was Israel exporting Python 3s in time for Argentina to have a decent number of them in stockpile?
I still think the most realistic answer for the Argentine forces would have been to expand the airfield immediately upon invasion, to allow for refueling jets there and possibly basing some.
1) Long ranged fighter with good fuel fraction (e.g. second hand US Navy Crusaders, F11F Tigers, new Mirage F1s)
2) Air refueling capable fighter, ideally with buddy pods as existing tanker resources were already over stretched
3) Cheap throwaway fighter with good short runway capability (low landing speed, brake chute, arrestor hook etc) in order to operate from Port Stanley’s 1,200m runway… likely an older type from the early 60s
4) Multirole fighter also able to perform anti shipping strikes
5) Ideally a fighter with a fairly modern air to air missile (1970s tech) to compete as much as possible with Aim 9L (ie. not Aim-9B, AA-2 Atoll or Shafrir)
Many of the classic fast jets mentioned on this thread don’t check these boxes (MiG-21, EE Lightning, Draken, Mirage III/Kfir, F-104). Ex-USN fighters or Mirage F1s might work. As I’ve mentioned, used Etendards (with Magic 1 AAMs, AS30 anti-surface missiles, Douglas buddy pods and brake chutes) are the only type that checks all boxes (IMHO).
Was Israel exporting Python 3s in time for Argentina to have a decent number of them in stockpile?
I still think the most realistic answer for the Argentine forces would have been to expand the airfield immediately upon invasion, to allow for refueling jets there and possibly basing some.
You are right, but Israel already had provided Shrafir and Dagger to Argentina.
But Geopolitics always play a part in weaponry.
That is what i said the MiG-21 was only operated by Cuba and the MiG-29 by Peru, only when they decide to switch political sides, you can not get weapons without politics.
And this is why this topic is very difficult to handle, no weapons sale is without politics.
Do you think the USA will sell F-35s to Belarus?
or the Eurofighter consortium will sell Eurofighter Typhoons to North Korea?
The USA is not a real ally of Latin America, at least not in equal terms, so you will never see sales of F-35s to Mexico or Brazil in 2025, The USA always sell the cheapest and at least 2 generations behind combat aircraft to Latin America.
The only possibility to get Su-57s and MiG-21 now as well as then is ally with Russia and break with the USA.
In 1982 was not different, but at least the Python 3 was more real, since Israel has a long history of selling IAI products, and Argentina did have Israeli AAMs.
The most likely sellers in South america are always allied nations to the USA but that are urgent to sell aircraft such as Saab, or Dassault or IAI.
this is not going to Change at least for as long as turbomachine from Brazil does not make a descent jet engine, by 2050 it is possible Brazil might built competitive jet engines and we will not depend on what equipment we get.
For example a military version of the Brazilian Tupan could become the first true UCAV built in Latin American, the mistake of Argentina was simple make war to the nations that were selling weapons to Argentina.
Rule number one is make your own weapons that lesson was understood by China when they saw Argentina lose in 1982, since they have a similar situation with Taiwan.
see this Thus, the FAM returned to its first choice, the Israeli-made Kfir C-2 supersonic multipurpose fighter aircraft, in accordance with the proposal presented by the Israeli government, even going so far as to arrange a visit by its representatives in January 1980 to study the purchase and sale of twenty-four of these aircraft, with the possibility of assembling them in Mexico and turning them into a production platform for possible sales in Latin America. A Boeing 727 of the Mexican Air Force was flown to Israel and two pilots, Group General Javier Velarde Quintero and Captain Alberto Esquinca Gurrusquieta, carried out test flights in the aircraft.
The Kfir aircraft, which was a much improved evolution of the Mirage 5, of French origin and which presented a notable increase in performance over the original Mirages largely due to the adoption of canard planes and a much more powerful engine, in this case a General Electric J79 axial flow turbojet.
The North American engine itself presented an obstacle in the design of the Kfir that in the long run will not allow its arrival in Mexico, this engine being the cause of the restriction for its sale to third countries, since being equipped with a North American engine, for the sale of the aircraft authorization had to be requested from the North American State Department, which decided not to grant the re-export license for the J-79 engines, by not reaching a compensation agreement for General Electric. This lack of compensation on the part of Israel was the main obstacle for the Kfir not to reach Mexico, as simple as that, neither the non-existent Bucareli treaty, nor conspiracies are the causes.
For its part, the Ministry of National Defense, knowing that other countries such as Argentina were also unable to obtain the aircraft, caused the collapse of the Mexican acquisition, which in any case had not ceased its interest in the Northrop light fighter, which was newly built.
Por José Antonio Quevedo A finales del año 1976, fueron descubiertos nuevos yacimientos petrolíferos en los mares mexicanos lo que aumento las reservas petroleras, convirtiendo a México en uno de l…
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
www.infobae.com
fdra.blogspot.com
es.statista.com
www.intel.gov
old-wiki.warthunder.com
mexicoaeroespacial.mx
