Alternative fighter for Argentine AF & Navy during Falklands war.

[Rule of cool]

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.

I agree, Port Stanley is hideously vulnerable to all sorts of attacks, but needs to be far more useful to make such fortification worthwhile.

 

[dmbrundle]

I agree, Port Stanley is hideously vulnerable to all sorts of attacks, but needs to be far more useful to make such fortification worthwhile.

And yet the first thing the British did after victory in 1982, was to fix up Port Stanley Airport as a base for fast jets.

 

[Archibald]

Options:

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).

How about A-4M ? http://www.joebaugher.com/usattack/newa4_17.html That variant was specifically designed to fly out of short runways. Production run stretched ten years, 1969-79. Last "fresh" Skyhawk, February 27, 1979.

 

[dmbrundle]

How about A-4M ? http://www.joebaugher.com/usattack/newa4_17.html That variant was specifically designed to fly out of short runways. Production run stretched ten years, 1969-79. Last "fresh" Skyhawk, February 27, 1979.

The A-4 would have been a good choice for forward basing in Stanley, supported by Trackers it would have caused great difficulty for the British task force. Argentina was unable to effectively prosecute the conflict because they were unable to complete the F2T2EA target sequence and forced to improvise. An asset like the tracker based forward would have enabled them to find, fix and track the British fleet.

A relatively modest extension of the runway would have enabled them to do it and they'd already done a runway in the '70s to operate fixed wing aviation.

 

[alejandrogrossi]

How about A-4M ? http://www.joebaugher.com/usattack/newa4_17.html That variant was specifically designed to fly out of short runways. Production run stretched ten years, 1969-79. Last "fresh" Skyhawk, February 27, 1979.

Archibal
A-4M is more moder version of our A-4B/ C/ Q.
Of course the have 2 pylons per wing (like the C), but the have similar speed than the older A-4.

 

[alejandrogrossi]

The A-4 would have been a good choice for forward basing in Stanley, supported by Trackers it would have caused great difficulty for the British task force. Argentina was unable to effectively prosecute the conflict because they were unable to complete the F2T2EA target sequence and forced to improvise. An asset like the tracker based forward would have enabled them to find, fix and track the British fleet.

A relatively modest extension of the runway would have enabled them to do it and they'd already done a runway in the '70s to operate fixed wing aviation.

For the island, insted of MB339, perhaps

 

[H_K]

The A-4 would have been a good choice for forward basing in Stanley, supported by Trackers it would have caused great difficulty for the British task force.

I have a slight preference for the Etendard IVM over the A-4 due to its Aida ranging radar, which gave some limited surface detection capability (15-20nm detection range on a midsized / large vessel in a forward 25 degree arc) and greatly helped with providing accurate range info for AS-30 shots.

The AS-30 was also a much more suitable weapon for low altitude anti-shipping strikes than the A-4's AGM-12 Bullpup, which was more of a powered glide weapon that had to be ejected from medium altitude (which would be suicidal against Sea Dart). Whereas AS-30 was rail launched and supersonic for its entire ~20s flight time (M1.3 - 1.6) so could be fired from low altitude (150-200ft).

Low level AS-30 launch from Marineflieger F-104G:

 

[carvalho2008]

For the island, insted of MB339, perhaps

It is an excellent alternative because:

a) In an alternative reality, there is no point in including models that would change other realities that occurred in real history.

b) It is a fighter that in an alternative reality would exclusively replace the Pucará and MB 339, thus maintaining the number of successful attacks and sinkings by the A-4 and Daggers, but adding its own capacity, being able to act with a single logistics on the islands, which is very important, attacking in CAS, regarding naval targets, in a flight profile and validated very similar to the A-4s that came from the continent. It would be able to repeat the same planned flight envelopes.

In other words, it is a fighter that only adds strength, and avoids the slightest impact on the real timeline with other planes, budgets, etc.

 

[H_K]

It is a fighter that in an alternative reality would exclusively replace the Pucará and MB 339, thus maintaining the number of successful attacks and sinkings by the A-4 and Daggers, but adding its own capacity, being able to act with a single logistics on the islands, which is very important, attacking in CAS, regarding naval targets, in a flight profile and validated very similar to the A-4s that came from the continent. It would be able to repeat the same planned flight envelopes.

We've discussed this before. Armed trainers like A-37B Dragonflys and MB-339s are too slow to survive against well defended naval targets. The A-37B for example has a max level speed of ~395 knots at sea level (with 2x Mk-82s or 2x 19-round rocket launchers), and a max release speed of 350 knots so would have to *slow down* (!) during the most dangerous part of the mission. Max speed once rockets expended was even slower... 300 knots. Suicide!

Compare to an A-4 which would fly at 450-500 knots on ingress and 500-550 knots on egress, with stores and tanks still on. "Speed is life" and the chances of surviving go down exponentially at slower speeds - it's not a linear relationship - so there is a huge difference between 300-400 knots and 450-550 knots.

Not to mention that an A-37B or MB-339 is NOT a fighter and has no chance against a Sea Harrier so not relevant to this thread.

 

[Rule of cool]

And yet the first thing the British did after victory in 1982, was to fix up Port Stanley Airport as a base for fast jets.

Perhaps I should have clarified; held by the Argentine's Port Stanley airport was vulnerable to the RN.

The Argentine's had no counter to the RNs SSNs and so drastically restricted merchant shipping to the islands when the MEZ was declared and after the Belgrano was sunk the Navy went back to port for the duration. This meant the RN carriers approached to within 70 miles on occasion and surface warships bombarded the airstrip with their guns. At the cessation of operations, Stanley Airport had suffered three Vulcan strikes, nine multi-aircraft attacks by Sea Harrier/GR.3 and over 1,000 4.5″ shells from Royal Navy vessels.

That same level of Sea Control mean that the same base when used by the British was not as vulnerable to attack. Naval vessels could not survive long in the open sea when RN SSNs are about, so the only attack option is aircraft, but not only did the British extend the Port Stanley runway they also installed radars on Mt Alice and Byron Heights West Falkland and Mt Kent on East Falkland. These 'up threat' radars could not be duplicated by the Argentine's as their open flank was the ocean; unless they wanted to station a radar picket ship out to sea where the RN would sink it.

Of course the Argentines could have done a better job of defending the airfield, but their leadership didn't think that was needed until the ordnance started falling.

 

[carvalho2008]

We've discussed this before. Armed trainers like A-37B Dragonflys and MB-339s are too slow to survive against well defended naval targets. The A-37B for example has a max level speed of ~395 knots at sea level (with 2x Mk-82s or 2x 19-round rocket launchers), and a max release speed of 350 knots so would have to *slow down* (!) during the most dangerous part of the mission. Max speed once rockets expended was even slower... 300 knots. Suicide!

Compare to an A-4 which would fly at 450-500 knots on ingress and 500-550 knots on egress, with stores and tanks still on. "Speed is life" and the chances of surviving go down exponentially at slower speeds - it's not a linear relationship - so there is a huge difference between 300-400 knots and 450-550 knots.

Not to mention that an A-37B or MB-339 is NOT a fighter and has no chance against a Sea Harrier so not relevant to this thread.

I strongly doubt that A-4s and Daggers flew at 450-500 knots in the main theater, which was San Catlos...too low and with too many turns for that speed in a narrow space...the planes did not fly in a straight line...but undulating along the terrain and upon reaching the shore, they had to lower even more and start turning in the direction of the target ships...it was not a straight line...it was a speed with constant correction of the control stick...they did not reach that speed at all...

Even in the open ocean, no one here answered the question I presented based on the transcript of the attack on the Invincible, where after the Exocet was fired by the etendards, the A4s took more than 60 seconds to reach the location of the ships. So, considering the missile launch distance, the missile speed and the lag time for the A-4s, they were not at more than 400 knots of speed at the very low altitude that they needed...

One thing is the hypothetical speed in ideal conditions, another is the real one in the restricted and heavy conditions and practically skimming the sea as they were...

I have no concerns whatsoever about the Sea Harrier...they were not where they needed to be...with or without the Harrier the A-4s passed and as already mentioned...any aircraft at 350-400 knots would pass...simply because they were not seen...

500 Knots?

500 knots?

well....one Crippa....Two Crippa....14 Crippas.....

 

[H_K]

Even in the open ocean, no one here answered the question I presented based on the transcript of the attack on the Invincible, where after the Exocet was fired by the etendards, the A4s took more than 60 seconds to reach the location of the ships. So, considering the missile launch distance, the missile speed and the lag time for the A-4s, they were not at more than 400 knots of speed at the very low altitude that they needed...

The 2 surviving A-4 pilots from Zonda flight stated that they were flying at 450 knots (same speed as the Super Etendards), then accelerated to 480/500 knots behind the Exocet during the attack phase.

 

[alejandrogrossi]

We've discussed this before. Armed trainers like A-37B Dragonflys and MB-339s are too slow to survive against well defended naval targets. The A-37B for example has a max level speed of ~395 knots at sea level (with 2x Mk-82s or 2x 19-round rocket launchers), and a max release speed of 350 knots so would have to *slow down* (!) during the most dangerous part of the mission. Max speed once rockets expended was even slower... 300 knots. Suicide!

Compare to an A-4 which would fly at 450-500 knots on ingress and 500-550 knots on egress, with stores and tanks still on. "Speed is life" and the chances of surviving go down exponentially at slower speeds - it's not a linear relationship - so there is a huge difference between 300-400 knots and 450-550 knots.

Not to mention that an A-37B or MB-339 is NOT a fighter and has no chance against a Sea Harrier so not relevant to this thread.

H.K.
its not plane to replace the A-4.
replace the Pucara and the MB339 (light strike)

 

[alejandrogrossi]

The 2 surviving A-4 pilots from Zonda flight stated that they were flying at 450 knots (same speed as the Super Etendards), then accelerated to 480/500 knots behind the Exocet during the attack phase.

The A-4, remain tha main strike force, in my scenario.
I change the Mirage and the Daggers.
The other choise for the COAN, replace the MB339 for Etendart IV. Its not bad at all.

replace the practice bomb by 2 x 500pounds.
Thinking is better that the A-37.
Its has IFR, and some AA capacity.
So COAN have the A-4Q /SUE and in place of MB339: Etendart IV.

 

[Scott Kenny]

Of course the Argentines could have done a better job of defending the airfield, but their leadership didn't think that was needed until the ordnance started falling.

That's entirely the problem!

The leadership didn't think "how to HOLD the islands", because the enemy gets a vote in your plans too. They were assuming that UK would roll over and take the loss.

 

[F-14ATomcat]

Sea Harrier FRS.1 + FA.2

g limits: +7.8 -4.2
Rate of climb: 50,000 ft/min (250 m/s)
Wing loading: 130.28 lb/sq ft (636.1 kg/m2)
Thrust/weight: 1.22

Sea Harrier FRS.1 FA.2 Royal Navy Fleet Air Arm FAA

sea harrier frs.1 fa.2 bae royal navy fleet air arm faa aircraft carrier hms

www.seaforces.org

​

A-4E Skyhawk​

Initial climb rate​

10,300ft ft/min (3,140 m/min)

Technical Data | The Skyhawk Association

A-4 Skyhawk​

Rate of climb: 8,440 ft/min (43 m/s)
Wing loading: 70.7 lb/ft² (344.4 kg/m²)
Thrust/weight: 0.51
g-limit: +8/-3 g

Douglas A-4 Skyhawk | Hickory Aviation Museum

Browse the aircraft collection at Hickory Aviation Museum, located at the Hickory Regional Airport (HKY) in Hickory, North Carolina.

www.hickoryaviationmuseum.org

https://mapsairmuseum.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/A-4D-Skyhawk.pdf

. Studied in Soviet tactics their skill and aggressiveness prepared F-18 and F-14 crews to face real combatants. With an impressive 760 degree per second roll rate – faster than an F-16 – the A-4 “Scooter” could roll-over and get a clear shot before the larger fighter knew it was there.

TA-4J Skyhawk

Built primarily as an advanced pilot trainer for the U.S. Navy, this aircraft’s earlier, single-seat cousins the “B, C, E, & F” model’s, were used extensively in the Vietnam War […]

www.marchfield.org

 

[carvalho2008]

The 2 surviving A-4 pilots from Zonda flight stated that they were flying at 450 knots (same speed as the Super Etendards), then accelerated to 480/500 knots behind the Exocet during the attack phase.

given the speed of the missile, the time lag that took more than 1 minute for the A4s to arrive doesn't add up...

 

[H_K]

Rate of climb: 50,000 ft/min (250 m/s)
Thrust/weight: 1.22

Those Sea Harrier numbers are completely wrong. Looking at the AV-8A SAC, with 2 AAMs and a combat weight of 17,200lbs, using Maximum military thrust (15 minute rating):

Climb rate is 16,700ft/m
Thrust/weight is 0.95

The respective numbers for the A-4M at 14,700lbs (clean) are 15,600 ft/m and T/W 0.76.

Not a perfect comparison but close enough. In practice the A-4 has more lift and less drag, which offsets the lower thrust/weight and means it would be competitive in both a turning fight and (for the A-4M with its more powerful engine) in the vertical. Finally the Harrier’s medium bypass turbofan loses oomph at altitude so from 20,000ft up the A-4M actually has a (slightly) better climb rate.

AAHS Members Area - U.S. Navy SAC Records

 

[F-14ATomcat]

Those Sea Harrier numbers are completely wrong. Looking at the AV-8A SAC, with 2 AAMs and a combat weight of 17,200lbs, using Maximum military thrust (15 minute rating):

Climb rate is 16,700ft/m
Thrust/weight is 0.95

The respective numbers for the A-4M at 14,700lbs (clean) are 15,600 ft/m and T/W 0.76.

Not a perfect comparison but close enough. In practice the A-4 has more lift and less drag, which offsets the lower thrust/weight and means it would be competitive in both a turning fight and (for the A-4M with its more powerful engine) in the vertical. Finally the Harrier’s medium bypass turbofan loses oomph at altitude so from 20,000ft up the A-4M actually has a (slightly) better climb rate.

AAHS Members Area - U.S. Navy SAC Records

That is my point the Harrier was not that agile it has a tiny wing for vertical take off, the A-4 then with Python 3 would had beaten it.

So I do not think under the political constraints Argentina was could had another aircraft, from the beginning Argentina was constrained by the USA by selling them crap, like the F-16s they bought now, old junk that will not beat the Eurofighter or F-35.

Gripen was chosen by Brazil just because they can built some of it in Brazil.

In 1982 it was the same, no matter how you think this or that fighter would had made a difference, it will be a moot point.


Any realistic alternative outcome should be based upon the Etendard and A-4 or IAI Nesher they had.

The real alternative is not based upon a different fighter, but upon missiles they had and tactics.

For Argentina the best outcome in an alternative reality was if Argentina had built an operational domestic design of the Condor I or Martin Pescador by 1981.

If they wanted perhaps Python 3 perhaps a skirmish with Chile would had released the Python 3, but as far I consider, their defeat was logical due to real geopolitics, no matter how we theorize only simple Missiles such as Shrafir if they would had enough or Exocets would had made a difference, to at least gain some time if Washington would had been smarter, but they were not and by Geopolitics Argentina was embargoed from the start by Geopolitics and History; in 1982 they never had a chance of getting Mirage 2000 or F-16s, the Etendard was the most they could had gotten.

 

[alejandrogrossi]

That is my point the Harrier was not that agile it has a tiny wing for vertical take off, the A-4 then with a Python 3 would had beaten it.

So I do not think under the political constraints Argentina was could had another aircraft, from the beginning Argentina was constrained by the USA by selling threm crap, like the F-16s they bought now, old junk that will not beat the Eurofighter or F-35.

Gripen was chosen by Brazil just because they can built some of it in Brazil.

In 1982 it was the same, no matter how you think this or that fighter would had made a difference, it will be a moot point.


Any realistic alternative outcome should be based upon the Etendard and A-4 or IAI Nesher they had.

The real alternative is not based upon a different fighter, but upon missiles they had and tactics.

For Argentina the best outcome in an alternative reality was if Argentina had built an operational domestic design of the Condor I or Martin Pescador by 1981.

If they wanted perhaps Python 3 perhaps a skirmish with Chile would had released the Python 3, but as far I consider, their defeat was logical due to real geopolitics, no matter how we theorize only simple Missiles such as Shrafir if they would had enough or Exocets would had made a difference, to at least gain some time if Washington would had been smarter, but they were not and by Geopolitics Argentina was embargoed from the start by Geopolitics and History; in 1982 they never had a chance of getting Mirage 2000 or F-16s, the Etendard was the most they could had gotten.

F-14A
You must remeber that not al the ffleet of A-4 was "C" model (2 pylons per wing)
Our "B" and "Q" naval version of "B" have 1
So someting like this, but with Python 3 only is for the C

This is the AA configuration for the B and Q
This is a Q on the carrier

If all our A-4 was "C" the idea of some in AA role could be possible.

 

[F-14ATomcat]

F-14A
You must remeber that not al the ffleet of A-4 was "C" model (2 pylons per wing)
Our "B" and "Q" naval version of "B" have 1
So someting like this, but with Python 3 only is for the C

This is the AA configuration for the B and Q
This is a Q on the carrier


If all our A-4 was "C" the idea of some in AA role could be possible.

I do understand you, that is why I say constraints, Argentina in 1982 was the technological leader of all the Spanish speaking nations perhaps except Spain it self, also Argentina being so far from the USA was much more free to have independent policies in matters of technology.

For example you had Condor II which was very advanced for our countries.



The following can be seen: Tonatiuh, Mitl, Tototl, Huite rockets; and other versions of combinations in two stages.
All based on first generation solid composite fuel (based on ammonium perchlorate and PVC plastisol)

Mexico participated in the early days of the space race, and for almost 20 years, starting in 1957, made several attempts to explore the atmosphere and outer space.

But it was less successful than other competing countries, despite successfully launching several sounding rockets. Its last effort was the Mitl II, launched in 1975 from a mobile platform, which reached over 100 kilometers in height before falling to earth.

More than three decades later, Mexico is preparing to return to outer space, but not with ships or astronauts.

Después de 36 años, México busca volver a la carrera espacial - BBC News Mundo

Luego de una larga interrupción, creó una agencia espacial para desarrollar tecnología propia y fabricar sus propios satélites.

www.bbc.com

http://galia.fc.uaslp.mx/museo/espacio/documentos/tecnicos/002.pdf

I mean you had Pulqi and even the Pampa IA-63 was on the making.

An investigation published by the newspaper Infobae, which uncovered a thesis containing details of secret decrees signed by Raúl Alfonsín, revealed the participation of businessmen from Mendoza in the creation of the Condor Missile.

The Condor and the Condor II were developed as part of Argentine aeronautical research between the 1980s and 1990s, but the possibility that the country had this kind of weaponry generated pressure (mainly from the United States) to abandon the project.

Las reconocidas empresas mendocinas que fabricaban el misil Cóndor

Una investigación reveló la importante participación mendocina en el armado del misil balístico más cuestionado del país.

www.mendozapost.com

(the same you had with Condor we had it with our Mitl)

But the a-4 and Etendard was the most you could had gotten in the 1970s, so it is almost impossible you had gotten something better than the A-4.

The A-4 in my opinion was a "good aircraft", for example in an alternative reality, with martin Pescador and a few AAMs perhaps Argentina could had made a difference

 

[Scott Kenny]

Refitting all the A-4s to the -C variant could have helped, though I'd need to see what happens to range when you are carrying a pair of sidewinders in addition to 2x fuel tanks and 1x missile/bomb.

 

[alejandrogrossi]

Refitting all the A-4s to the -C variant could have helped, though I'd need to see what happens to range when you are carrying a pair of sidewinders in addition to 2x fuel tanks and 1x missile/bomb.

I think thta is posible to change the wing. A-4C wing to all the B/Q.
I dont known if have diferent engine. i known that the C have more avionics

 

[alejandrogrossi]

Refitting all the A-4s to the -C variant could have helped, though I'd need to see what happens to range when you are carrying a pair of sidewinders in addition to 2x fuel tanks and 1x missile/bomb.

Scott
I think that you can take off with less fuel, and completed in the AAR.
But if we have, all the Dagger replace by A-4C (equal numbers) we need more tankers.
Two more, at lest
If is not H some F

 

[Rule of cool]

The Argentine Air Force had a pair of B707s that could be converted to IFR tankers, but this is stretching credibility.

 

[Rule of cool]

The more we crawl down rabbit holes like making the A4 into a Python toting dogfighter the more I think about the much easier ways the Argentines could have done better with what they had in their inventory.

For example they deployed some 36 x 105mm artillery pieces (2 regiments) to the islands, but when these were shown to be ineffective to counter the RN's guns 2 (or 4?) 155mm pieces were flown out. A better strategy would have been to deploy a regiment of 155mm artillery pieces at the very start.

 

[F-14ATomcat]

The more we crawl down rabbit holes like making the A4 into a Python toting dogfighter the more I think about the much easier ways the Argentines could have done better with what they had in their inventory.

For example they deployed some 36 x 105mm artillery pieces (2 regiments) to the islands, but when these were shown to be ineffective to counter the RN's guns 2 (or 4?) 155mm pieces were flown out. A better strategy would have been to deploy a regiment of 155mm artillery pieces at the very start.

Let me tell you a few factors about Latin America and you can understand why we have the air forces we have.

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t26wEnsm2z4


If you look these are all the fighter aircraft operated in Latin america but in Spanish they say most air forces have obsolete aircraft and some nations do not even fighters so they are not even included such as Bolivia and Guatemala

The first question is why that happens first?

The answer some nations are small and they do not feel threatened by their neighbors.

Costa rica Does not even have an army.

The Medium to big nations have fighters.

Peru MiG-29s and Mirgae 2000, Venezuela Su-30s, Cuba MiG-29s and MiG-23, MiG-21s (Cuba has few operational aircraft due to obsolecense ) Colombia has Kfir, Brazil has F-5s, Gripen, Chile, Venezuela and Argentina have F-16s.
Mexico F-5s..
No one operates 5th Generation fighters, so you could saywe are at least 1 generation behind.

Mexico only has 3 F-5s, practically Mexico has no fighters, Honduras has F-5s.

In 1982 was no different.

The reason are varied but basically is poverty, lack of a real threat, geopolitical constraints (the USA did not want wars in the Americas so always so at least one generation behind aircraft) and the local military industry was never supported by the USA and always supported voices within Latin America to desist from building military aircraft.

In 1982 the most advanced air forces in Latin America were Brazil and Argentina and to a lesser extend Chile due to their local aviation Industries.

If the Falklands war would not had happened, very likely Argentina would had gotten Mirage 2000s or F-16As by 1990.

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YnTTeDcy4pc


However the Falkland war destroyed the dictatorship in Argentina in 1983, so is very unlikely there would have been a Falkland war in the 1990s, the Argentine dictatorship killed at least 30,000 people in Argentina from the mid 1970s to 1983.

This video if you watch it you will see a kind of neutral view of the war with a Latin American view

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3wXs7yth5-U


So for what I see, very likely the War had only one option a war in 1982, and that leaves the A-4s and Mirage III as the only possible fighters and also the only time and year for that war at least in the XX century.

However they mentioned that if Argentina would had taken the Falklands, they planned attack Chile to get the Islands in the Patagonia, but Argentina did not have Foreign Relations with Cuba, so Soviet help was only neutrality in the conflict. So no Soviet Fighters were possible. (however some sources claimed a little Soviet help did happen.

 

[Rule of cool]

I'm aware of all that, and would add that South America wasn't a front line region in the Cold War, in the way Europe, South East Asia and the Middle East were. The countries there weren't psychotically at each others throats like other regions either, so they didn't need to go broke getting all the latest kit.

If in the mid-late 70s someone told Argentine leadership they'd need to arm up to take on Britain in a high-intensity shooting war would they be laughed at, or taekn seriously?

 

[Pioneer]

After following this Thread, I've come to the conclusion that Argentina perhaps should have bitten the bullet sometime before the despotic decision to invade the Falklands and consolidated it's ORBAT to a quality vs quantity structure. Perhaps, it could have either mothballed, sold or incorporate as part of a deal it's odd assortment of Dassault Mirage III's, IAI Dagger's and Douglas A-4 Skyhawk's for say 36-40 x Dassault Mirage F1's (24 x F1E's multi-role fighter's; 10 xF1E's Exocet missile-capable version equipped with Cyrano IVQ/C5 radar; 4 x F1R tactical recon and 8 x F1D two-seat trainer's)
All these Mirage F1's are equipped with flight refueling receivers.

The reality is, compared to the Mirage III, the Mirage F1 offers around 40% more internal fuel capacity, affording a patrol endurance almost trebled at high altitude and gives a higher supersonic dash duration and at low level, the tactical range is doubled; has 16% more thrust, and offers far greater manoeuvrability.

Perhaps, instead of trying to aquire Exocet missiles, the Argentinian military might be better off adopting and adapting Martel AS.37 ant-radiation missiles for use against shipping. Sure, no doubt, not as long range or as effective as Exocet, they offer a stand-off anti-ship capability regardless, negating the need for Argentinian aircraft to flying within British ships short-range SAM and AAA defences.

Regards
Pioneer

 

[Kiltonge]

It does seem a lot of what-iffery versus just bolting-on a refuelling probe to the Mirage IIIs & Daggers. IAI already had one with the necessary plumbing for the Kfir.

The Mirage and Skyhawk fleet is probably one of the best mixes that a nation on a tight budget could put together in that era. Certainly in terms of combining capability and maintainability. Spares were prolific and cheap, both were cleared for a range of accessible weapons.

 

[Rule of cool]

After following this Thread, I've come to the conclusion that Argentina perhaps should have bitten the bullet sometime before the despotic decision to invade the Falklands and consolidated it's ORBAT to a quality vs quantity structure. Perhaps, it could have either mothballed, sold or incorporate as part of a deal it's odd assortment of Dassault Mirage III's, IAI Dagger's and Douglas A-4 Skyhawk's for say 36-40 x Dassault Mirage F1's (24 x F1E's multi-role fighter's; 10 xF1E's Exocet missile-capable version equipped with Cyrano IVQ/C5 radar; 4 x F1R tactical recon and 8 x F1D two-seat trainer's)
All these Mirage F1's are equipped with flight refueling receivers.

The reality is, compared to the Mirage III, the Mirage F1 offers around 40% more internal fuel capacity, affording a patrol endurance almost trebled at high altitude and gives a higher supersonic dash duration and at low level, the tactical range is doubled; has 16% more thrust, and offers far greater manoeuvrability.

Perhaps, instead of trying to aquire Exocet missiles, the Argentinian military might be better off adopting and adapting Martel AS.37 ant-radiation missiles for use against shipping. Sure, no doubt, not as long range or as effective as Exocet, they offer a stand-off anti-ship capability regardless, negating the need for Argentinian aircraft to flying within British ships short-range SAM and AAA defences.

Regards
Pioneer

I doubt Argentina could afford the up front cost of a large F1 fleet. This is typical of less affluent countries and is what sets them apart from a country like Australia which has a similar number of combat jets but with only 2 types acquired in large-ish numbers.


I'd forgotten about the Martel, apparently the Mirage III could carry it, it would likely be good for taking long range potshots from high altitude. Even a handful could be a thorn in the side of the RN, causing them to turn off radars as attack aircraft came in.

 

[F-14ATomcat]

The thread is not alternative history, since is based upon an absurd, this thread should be re-named Fighters that could beat the Harrier in 1982, this is not alternative history since is based upon a fallacy, I recommend you better call it What fighters could beat the Harrier in the 1982 or the 1980s,? since Argentina never was going to get other fighters or other weapons, and all reasons are political and not technical.

The outcome and reason of their defeat is political and not technical, so better focus in what fighters showed a superiority over the harrier in 1982 and skip absurd theoretical options that never happened or were never going to happen.

 

[Apophenia]

Methinks thou doth protest too much.

He posts 76 times in one thread ... and then decides it doesn't meet his definition of 'Alternative History'?

 

[F-14ATomcat]

Methinks thou doth protest too much.

He posts 76 times in one thread ... and then decides it doesn't meet his definition of 'Alternative History'?

History is history, but in this thread you want to avoid politics then the line is quite blur, why? because politics create arguments they want to avoid, add in wars you have two human groups in opposite sides in politics and History and resentment start the fire of confrontation, then the Topic title is wrong, since you might not have thought about it but for Latin Americans many of the things here expressed are offensive due to our own view.

So if you want to avoid conflicts then Change the topic title, and Harrier versus other fighters in the 1980s is much more neutral, and avoid politics better and keeps technical jargon more often.

You might have not thought, but British or western apologetics are quite boring too, so to be in a more fair and technical topic what fighters could had beaten Harrier in the 1980s is by far more technical, less controversial and gets less often into politics that might be offensive to both Latin Americans and British people

 

[Rule of cool]

I don't think people mind politics if it's closely tied to the technical aspects, and there's been a lot of that sort of thing in this thread. I for one never thought about US chips in French aircraft and missiles and how they'd have to be removed for an embargoed country all the way back in 1982 which affects aircraft-missile integration. There's also been discussion on how Argentina would never get Migs due to political factors.

However the history of Spanish empire or the Mercosur treaty is a long way Port Stanley airport in 1982.

 

[F-14ATomcat]

I don't think people mind politics if it's closely tied to the technical aspects, and there's been a lot of that sort of thing in this thread. I for one never thought about US chips in French aircraft and missiles and how they'd have to be removed for an embargoed country all the way back in 1982 which affects aircraft-missile integration. There's also been discussion on how Argentina would never get Migs due to political factors.

However the history of Spanish empire or the Mercosur treaty is a long way Port Stanley airport in 1982.

It is related, the weapons Argentina got are based upon politics, and these are related to History, so technically in this thread you are always going to get controversy, because this thread regardless you deny it, it has already embedded a political view, so You can not hide the sun with one finger but well continue your discussion, no need to go further.
Just remember IA Lavi was excellent technically but was cancelled by Politics.
Many aircraft programs are technically good such as Mirage 4000 or Yak-41, but politics and economics affect them.

There is common politics affect an aircraft program


Saludos

 

[H_K]

I'd forgotten about the Martel, apparently the Mirage III could carry it, it would likely be good for taking long range potshots from high altitude. Even a handful could be a thorn in the side of the RN, causing them to turn off radars as attack aircraft came in.

Martel was not available for export outside NATO due to the UK’s veto.

This is why Matra developed Martel into Armat, replacing all the British components to turn it into an all-French missile that could be exported to Mirage users (Iraq being the launch customer).

Armat deliveries to Iraq started in late 1981 and the first shots by operational pilots in early 1982 were failures, as was the first warshot against an Iranian radar in August 1982. It took a lot of trial and error and technical assistance by French trainers to get the Iraqis to use it properly, and I’m not sure it was a realistic option for Argentina in the timeframe needed (especially as it would require purchase of the expensive Mirage F1EQ).

Getting more Exocet delivered earlier would probably be a much easier scenario.

This blog has lots of fascinating details on Armat’s development and Mirage F1EQ use by the Iraqis:

Les programmes secrets avec l’Irak, 1977-1984 : le “Bazar” de Bagdad. Episode 1/3

Grâce au « Mirage » F1 et à ses équipements, notamment le missile antiradar « Armât » – nom de code « Bazar » -, l’avia…

henridewaubertdegenlis.wordpress.com

 

[Pioneer]

Martel was not available for export outside NATO due to the UK’s veto.

This is why Matra developed Martel into Armat, replacing all the British components to turn it into an all-French missile that could be exported to Mirage users (Iraq being the launch customer).

Armat deliveries to Iraq started in late 1981 and the first shots by operational pilots in early 1982 were failures, as was the first warshot against an Iranian radar in August 1982. It took a lot of trial and error and technical assistance by French trainers to get the Iraqis to use it properly, and I’m not sure it was a realistic option for Argentina in the timeframe needed (especially as it would require purchase of the expensive Mirage F1EQ).

Getting more Exocet delivered earlier would probably be a much easier scenario.

This blog has lots of fascinating details on Armat’s development and Mirage F1EQ use by the Iraqis:

Les programmes secrets avec l’Irak, 1977-1984 : le “Bazar” de Bagdad. Episode 1/3

Grâce au « Mirage » F1 et à ses équipements, notamment le missile antiradar « Armât » – nom de code « Bazar » -, l’avia…

henridewaubertdegenlis.wordpress.com

Cheers H_K, for the interesting info!
So that rules out both Martel and its non-British derivative - the Armat.

P.S. the blog is intriguing and insightful!

Regards
Pioneer

 

[EwenS]

Getting more Exocet delivered earlier would probably be a much easier scenario.

The Argentine order for the SE with its AM-39 Exocet missiles wasn't placed until July 1979. That is after the US arms embargo, passed by Congress in Aug 1977, and which took effect on 1 Oct 1978. That seems to have been what triggered the Argentinian search for a new carrier strike aircraft.

The first 5 were delivered in late 1981 to Argentinian pilots training alongside the Aeronavale in France in late 1981. Those 5 arrived in Argentina before the end of the year. And, as I previously noted, certain new electronics had to be developed for them.

While the prototype SE first flew in 1974, the first production aircraft were not delivered to the Aeronavale until June 1978 with the first unit becoming operational in Feb 1979. Production was running at about only 2 per month with 15 delivered in the first year. The French order was for 60 later increased to a final 71. The last production aircraft came off the line in 1983 for a total production run for both France and Argentina being 85 over those 5 years.

So I'm really not sure that delivery of the SE to Argentina could have been speeded up very much at all. Unless of course:-
1. The Argentinians were prepared to take a punt on an untried aircraft; or
2. the French could have been persuaded to somehow prioritise Argentinian deliveries over their own. (Seems a bit unlikely given their need to replace the Etendard IVM)

Similarly the air launched AM-39 Exocet only entered French service in 1979. The Argentinian order was for only 10 IIRC. The French embargo delayed delivery to Peru in case they were passed on to Argentina.

 

[Rule of cool]

Argentina really was an early adopter of the Super Etendard and Exocet, as early as Canada and Australia were of the F/A18 or the European F16 consortium.

Maybe Argentina could have gotten a handful more Exocets by April 1982, but as has been noted their initial order was small and nobody would have thought they'd need a lot of Exocets by then.