What they needed was a) An aircraft that could take off from 25 de Mayo in low wind conditions, and b) a more effective anti-ship weapon than the Mk82 Snakeye.
A) could have been solved for with the A-4F, which was much better suited than the old A-4Q, thanks to more thrust (which increased acceleration by ~20% and reduced wind over deck requirements) and a more efficient engine (which allowed for ~15% more range).
B) could have been solved for by replacing the planned weapon load of 4x Mk82s with 1x AS-30 missile. That might have been possible if Argentina had bought the AS-30 for its Mirages and then found a way to rig the Skyhawks to fire it. The 520kg AS-30 had a big 240kg warhead, Mach 1.4 impact speed and flight time of only 23s when fired at 10km, allowing the attacking aircraft to stay outside of the range of close-in weapons.
Also 1x AS-30 would have weighed half as much as 4x Mk-82s, further improving take off capability. So combining the A-4F with a missile like the AS-30 would have been quite compelling… and the pilots would have been much more likely to make it back!
Much rarer, but more potent as an fighter than a Skyhawk, is the Grumman F11 Tiger. It’s weights were broadly comparable to a Skyhawk so it just might have been compatible with operating from a modified Majestic class. With only 200 made (compared to c2500 A4’s) and the USN using them quite hard in both marine and land environments I don’t think any were still flying in 82. Now upgraded to a Super Tiger it would have been even more challenging.
It would be possible that the Argentine Navy bought second-hand Tiger from the US Navy in the mid/late 60s and used them until the 1980s/90s. Modified with more advanced Sidewinder, this could be an interesting alternative to the Skyhawk for fighter duty.
A) could have been solved for with the A-4F, which was much better suited than the old A-4Q, thanks to more thrust (which increased acceleration by ~20% and reduced wind over deck requirements) and a more efficient engine (which allowed for ~15% more range).
Could they have bought Mirage F1s instead of Daggers, or in addition to? Did they have the money? As i understand the Super-530F would be operational in 1982. Again from what i can gather most SH kills were against attack aircraft, Daggers, A-4 etc, they were not really challenged air to air by argentinian escorts (apart from the Mirage-IIIEA episode), because of the IIIEAs limited radius?
The F1s could have at least lobbed Super-530Fs at the SH putting them on the defensive, allowing more attackers to get through, maybe get a few kills too. Presumably the Mirage F1 would have a bigger combat radius allowing it to provide more efficient, closer escort for the strikes?
About that F11F for 25 de Mayo, as i understand it was underpowered, if let's say they bought some in the 1960s, could they re-engine them, and if so what you think could fit? I see Avon seems to fit (but it's british, though i don't know, buy some from Sweden or something). Would the Atar-09C or K fit? Another option could be an afterburning J-52, but could have been a costly endeavour to develop an afterburning version just for say 24 or so planes.
PS: Oh and yeah, not quite fighter related, but most useful if they would have received all the Super Etendards and the Exocets on order before the war. Ouch for RN!
Fact was that, by 1982, France was doing a maximum effort on the Mirage F1s sold to Iraq to fight Iran: the EQ series. Now, would France sell F1EQ to Argentina ? Nope, for two reasons
- Monroe doctrine, it would unnerve Uncle Sam
-The Falklands, same for the British
As far as NATO was concerned, France had to put some brakes on sales to Argentina. At least not to the level of Iraq. Everybody in the western hated the guts of Iran mullahs. Argentina junta was not beloved either, but for the above reasons, it couldn't go into a buyout spree, Saddam style.
-Also the lack of oil dollars, to be honest.
But if you want to get a glimpse of what "ultimate Mirages" France could have sold to Argentina, check the F1EQs. That was a maximum effort by Dassault at the time, and those F1s were extremely advanced, with all the goodies.
Well the delivery of the SuEs and Exocets just before the war ran contrary to what you say. The deliveries WERE stopped during the war, but the rest were delivered anyway shortly after the war. So if let's say the contract is signed a year earlier, or the argentinians ask the feench for faster delivery, you can have all 14 SuEs and 30 Exocets on hand in 1982.
And the israeli Daggers would not have been sold without american blessing. So it seems the israelis, french and americans didn't really give a toss about the UK's feelings before the war. They even delivered their Mirage-IIICJ to Argentina shortly after the war.
Ironically the french lost a good dollar from the Dagger deal, which are really Mirage-5s they themselves delivered covertly to the israelis. Dassault could have sold 36 Mirages to Argentina instead of the Daggers, though admitedly more expensive.
There is also the bad boy Mirage-50 to consider, which was just becoming available at this time, thought Mirage-IIIs with K50 engines were sold to South Africa years earlier, about 1975 or so, can't recall now.
So how about this, about 1975-77 or so, contracts are signed for 24 air defence Mirage F1EAs with Super-530F capability, and 36 ground attack Mirage-50s of which some could have Agave radars for AM-39 compatibility, see Chile or Pakistan. They all could be delivered by 1982.
OR instead of the Daggers they could order 36 Mirage F1As like Libya and South Africa, which have IFR as well.
Parallel or in addition to all this, they could buy some Python-3 missiles from the israelis, it was operational at this time, which was quite comparable to AIM-9L as i understand.
Whichever variant, you have a much stronger argentinian air capability against the UK, which is going to hurt them even more than OTL.
PS: Oh and yeah, not quite fighter related, but most useful if they would have received all the Super Etendards and the Exocets on order before the war. Ouch for RN!
PS: I see the OP asks mostly about soviet aircraft, though seeing the reply earlier about the soviets not been too keen to have dealings with the argentinian junta, i built my scenario around french aircraft.
However, the MiG-23MF with R-23 and R-60 were definitely operational in Syria in 1982, in fact an F-15 was nearly shot down by an R-60 that hit it, launched from a MiG-21bis. And the MiG-25P with the R-40 too, if you want to go that way.
The Peru situation, that bought soviet aircraft is interesting too. Suppose for a moment the same for Argentina, they could have bought 36 MiG-23BN or Su-22Ms intead of the Daggers, and 24 MiG-23MF for air defence. The soviet aircraft are quite a lot cheaper, and/or they could have paid USSR in various products.
PS: Not quite clear if the MiG-23 with 800l wing tanks have the radius to reach the Malvinas, but if so MiG-23MF vs SH is about the same situation as with Mirage F1, send BVR R-23s at the SH to keep them defensive, if the opportunity arrises follow on with R-60s, but accelerate out of the way instead of engaging in dogfights, classic boom and zoom tactics.
Anyway, the USSR was incapable of supplying carrier-based jets. And at the time, carrier-born air superiority fighters weren't widely available. Israel could perhaps have supplied Skyhawk IIs, as it did to Indonesia.
I think the Su-22 would have been a good aircraft for this conflict. However, the MiG-23BN might have been more problematic.
The Argentines needed either a fighter/bomber capable of operating from Port Stanley or an inflight refueling plane force (KC97s perhaps) to give their aircraft longer times over the islands.
Spain operated AV8 Harriers purchased under Franco so Argentina might have done the same for its carrier and other squadrons.
Having looked at a list of all the carrier-born jets, the possibilities for the 25 de Mayo in the late 70s are very limited.
Modernised F11F or A-4 may be the best solution.
There are very few fighters capable of guaranteeing effective BARCAPs to protect the 25 de Mayo against British attack.
Fact was that, by 1982, France was doing a maximum effort on the Mirage F1s sold to Iraq to fight Iran: the EQ series. Now, would France sell F1EQ to Argentina ? Nope, for two reasons
- Monroe doctrine, it would unnerve Uncle Sam
-The Falklands, same for the British
As far as NATO was concerned, France had to put some brakes on sales to Argentina. At least not to the level of Iraq. Everybody in the western hated the guts of Iran mullahs. Argentina junta was not beloved either, but for the above reasons, it couldn't go into a buyout spree, Saddam style.
-Also the lack of oil dollars, to be honest.
But if you want to get a glimpse of what "ultimate Mirages" France could have sold to Argentina, check the F1EQs. That was a maximum effort by Dassault at the time, and those F1s were extremely advanced, with all the goodies.
Archibal.
I think the only F-1 that can buy its the F-1AZ (idem like the SAAF)
From Wiki:
"...The South African Air Force (SAAF) flew both the Mirage F1AZ ground-attack version as well as the radar-equipped Mirage F1CZ fighter. The first two examples of the first order (48 aircraft, comprising 32 F1AZ and 16 F1CZ) were delivered on 5 April 1975."
Maybe in replace of the Dagger.
But again, main role attack, the have IRF probe. But we no have enough tanker.
We can do this
Replacein the S.50 with an A-4
But is one less plane for strike mission, and the no hace much endurance, like a Kc-130 or Kc707
Having looked at a list of all the carrier-born jets, the possibilities for the 25 de Mayo in the late 70s are very limited.
Modernised F11F or A-4 may be the best solution.
There are very few fighters capable of guaranteeing effective BARCAPs to protect the 25 de Mayo against British attack.
FL.
The aair group of the ARA 25 de mayo in the waer consist on 8/6 A-4Q 4/6 S-2E ans 4/3 Sea King and 1/2 Alouette
I dont know if the F-11f fix inthe the lift of the CV, but looking the small air group, the A-4 is the best opition.
Perhaps a better A-4.
Inted of the A-4Q (ex B)
You can see, int his photo the limitacion of the A-4Q (ex B)
Maybe the A-4C(A-4D-2N)
(Pre war)
(1978/79 local upgrade with Omega VLF / IFF and the possiblity of Shafir
This is a phot forn the war
That configuration was 2x20mm + 2 drops tank and 2 Shafir missiles.
Having looked at a list of all the carrier-born jets, the possibilities for the 25 de Mayo in the late 70s are very limited.
Modernised F11F or A-4 may be the best solution.
There are very few fighters capable of guaranteeing effective BARCAPs to protect the 25 de Mayo against British attack.
FL.
The aair group of the ARA 25 de mayo in the waer consist on 8/6 A-4Q 4/6 S-2E ans 4/3 Sea King and 1/2 Alouette
I dont know if the F-11f fix inthe the lift of the CV, but looking the small air group, the A-4 is the best opition.
Perhaps a better A-4.
Inted of the A-4Q (ex B)
The A-4F with AS-30 seemed to us to be the best choice for ground attack.
And something similar to A-4G for air superiority.
Operating with a good fuel margin would already make the A-4 much more efficient.
Fact was that, by 1982, France was doing a maximum effort on the Mirage F1s sold to Iraq to fight Iran: the EQ series. Now, would France sell F1EQ to Argentina ? Nope, for two reasons
- Monroe doctrine, it would unnerve Uncle Sam
-The Falklands, same for the British
As far as NATO was concerned, France had to put some brakes on sales to Argentina. At least not to the level of Iraq. Everybody in the western hated the guts of Iran mullahs. Argentina junta was not beloved either, but for the above reasons, it couldn't go into a buyout spree, Saddam style.
-Also the lack of oil dollars, to be honest.
But if you want to get a glimpse of what "ultimate Mirages" France could have sold to Argentina, check the F1EQs. That was a maximum effort by Dassault at the time, and those F1s were extremely advanced, with all the goodies.
Archibal.
I think the only F-1 that can buy its the F-1AZ (idem like the SAAF)
From Wiki:
"...The South African Air Force (SAAF) flew both the Mirage F1AZ ground-attack version as well as the radar-equipped Mirage F1CZ fighter. The first two examples of the first order (48 aircraft, comprising 32 F1AZ and 16 F1CZ) were delivered on 5 April 1975."
Maybe in replace of the Dagger. View attachment 701758
But again, main role attack, the have IRF probe. But we no have enough tanker.
We can do this View attachment 701761
Replacein the S.50 with an A-4 View attachment 701762
But is one less plane for strike mission, and the no hace much endurance, like a Kc-130 or Kc707
That's all very interesting.
Veinticinco de Mayo could carry a dozen Skyhawks, so in wartime, perhaps it could have taken 16 ?
A possible scenario for attack operations might look like this with Skyhawk: 4 for attack against British fleet.
4 for escort duty with air-to-air missiles. 4 in CAP for the ship's defence. (probably only 2) 4 in reserve & maintenance. (probably only 2) edited : 12 Skyhawk is the maximum the ARA 25 can carry. (so 2 in CAP & 2 in reserve)
The main thing would have been to organise the catapults around the Trackers' anti-submarine operations.
That's all very interesting.
Veinticinco de Mayo could carry a dozen Skyhawks, so in wartime, perhaps it could have taken 16 ? View attachment 701795View attachment 701800
A possible scenario for attack operations might look like this with Skyhawk: 4 for attack against British fleet.
4 for escort duty with air-to-air missiles. 4 in CAP for the ship's defence.
4 in reserve & maintenance.
The main thing would have been to organise the catapults around the Trackers' anti-submarine operations.
FL
The link told the story of the attack to the HMS Invencible.
The last week, I have the pleasure to hear and know on of the pilot (Alférez /Ensing Gerardo Isaac) Nor Retire brigadier, in a conference in the Museo Nacional de Aeronáutica
That's all very interesting.
Veinticinco de Mayo could carry a dozen Skyhawks, so in wartime, perhaps it could have taken 16 ? View attachment 701795View attachment 701800
A possible scenario for attack operations might look like this with Skyhawk: 4 for attack against British fleet.
4 for escort duty with air-to-air missiles. 4 in CAP for the ship's defence.
4 in reserve & maintenance.
The main thing would have been to organise the catapults around the Trackers' anti-submarine operations.
That's all very interesting.
Veinticinco de Mayo could carry a dozen Skyhawks, so in wartime, perhaps it could have taken 16 ? View attachment 701795View attachment 701800
A possible scenario for attack operations might look like this with Skyhawk: 4 for attack against British fleet.
4 for escort duty with air-to-air missiles. 4 in CAP for the ship's defence.
4 in reserve & maintenance.
The main thing would have been to organise the catapults around the Trackers' anti-submarine operations.
Is it conceivable that, like the two British aircraft carriers which each carried a few more Sea Harriers than their maximum, ARA 25 de Mayo could take on 4 aircrafts more ? Or was 12 Skyhawk is the absolute maximum possible ?
Do you know the capacity of the hangars ?
Former Argentine A-4 Pilots remember the (controversial) strike they undertook on Royal Navy aircraft carrier HMS Invincible during the Falklands War
theaviationgeekclub.com
Didn't HMS Invicible returned intact ? Photos were made when it returned Great Britain. No ?
Main weakness of that story is, while there is no question the mission happened and the pilots were brave, their testimony doesn't sounds reliable and there is no other proof, independant. No verification. I mean, had HMS Invincible been bombed or holed by an Exocet, damage would have been seen when it returned G.B. No ?
Harriers and Hermes in argentinian service is fascinating enough, but... Vulcans? How? When? Why? There isn't much online except a short aticle about negotiations happening in 1981 for 12 Vulcans, which was eventually turned down by the british.
Re the attack on the carrier, were british ships laying smoke screens for protection in 1982? Obviously an attack hapened since 2 pilots died, they either attacked the carrier and missed (and in the adrenalin rush of the attack they saw what they hoped to see) or they attacked another ship with the same results.
I recall reading a snippet in some magazine re the argentinian pilots, something to the effect of "their almost suicidal courage and determination would have made even Takijiro Onishi (of kamikaze fame) proud". One can imagine what they could have achieved with better equipment.
Perhaps the HMS Invincible suffered only minor damage that could be repaired before the return to the UK, but it was enough to give the Argentine pilots the impression that it had been badly damaged. In any case, all they saw was smoke.
FL
The link told the story of the attack to the HMS Invencible.
The last week, I have the pleasure to hear and know on of the pilot (Alférez /Ensing Gerardo Isaac) Nor Retire brigadier, in a conference in the Museo Nacional de Aeronáutica
I think that with a good margin of fuel and an adequate time on zone, they would have done a lot of damage.
The Mirage III/5 was a very good aircraft, and the Magics missile was reasonably efficient.
Only the lack of fuel made Mirage easy prey for the Shar.
Re the attack on the carrier, were british ships laying smoke screens for protection in 1982? Obviously an attack hapened since 2 pilots died, they either attacked the carrier and missed (and in the adrenalin rush of the attack they saw what they hoped to see) or they attacked another ship with the same results.
I don't see any suggestion that ships laid smoke deliberately, but engines at high power plus chaff and weapons firing might well look like a smoke screen to an excited observer.
It seems pretty well established that the Escuadron I Skyhawks attacked HMS Avenger, which was off to the south of the carriers that day on a special forces insertion mission and would likely have been the first ship encountered on their track north of Stanley. It may seem improbable that the Argentine pilots could confuse a 3,000-ton frigate for a 20,000-ton carrier, but consider that these were Air Force pilots without much experience against ships. It would not be that hard in the stress of the moment to misread the smaller ship's superstructure and helo deck for Invincible's long island and relatively short flight deck aft of the island. The situation was extremely hectic what with Sea Darts from HSM Exeter flying through their formation, likely killing one of them and possibly a second; assorted AA going off, including 114-mm rounds from Avenger; chaff clouds from Avenger as an anti-Exocet measure; etc.
There is a quite thorough analysis of the British evidence (on an Argentine website, no less). I think it makes a very strong case for the British narrative -- many witnesses, who apply a sensible level of skepticism to their own claims. For example, in the moment, Avenger claimed one Skyhawk or Exocet kill with the main gun, but on review, the ship's officers admit this is unlikely, and that the explosion seen was almost certainly Exeter's Sea Dart at work.
Re the attack on the carrier, were british ships laying smoke screens for protection in 1982? Obviously an attack hapened since 2 pilots died, they either attacked the carrier and missed (and in the adrenalin rush of the attack they saw what they hoped to see) or they attacked another ship with the same results.
I don't see any suggestion that ships laid smoke deliberately, but engines at high power plus chaff and weapons firing might well look like a smoke screen to an excited observer.
It seems pretty well established that the Escuadron I Skyhawks attacked HMS Avenger, which was off to the south of the carriers that day on a special forces insertion mission and would likely have been the first ship encountered on their track north of Stanley. It may seem improbable that the Argentine pilots could confuse a 3,000-ton frigate for a 20,000-ton carrier, but consider that these were Air Force pilots without much experience against ships. It would not be that hard in the stress of the moment to misread the smaller ship's superstructure and helo deck for Invincible's long island and relatively short flight deck aft of the island. The situation was extremely hectic what with Sea Darts from HSM Exeter flying through their formation, likely killing one of them and possibly a second; assorted AA going off, including 114-mm rounds from Avenger; chaff clouds from Avenger as an anti-Exocet measure; etc.
There is a quite thorough analysis of the British evidence (on an Argentine website, no less). I think it makes a very strong case for the British narrative -- many witnesses, who apply a sensible level of skepticism to their own claims. For example, in the moment, Avenger claimed one Skyhawk or Exocet kill with the main gun, but on review, the ship's officers admit this is unlikely, and that the explosion seen was almost certainly Exeter's Sea Dart at work.
Perhaps the HMS Invincible suffered only minor damage that could be repaired before the return to the UK, but it was enough to give the Argentine pilots the impression that it had been badly damaged. In any case, all they saw was smoke.
FL
The link told the story of the attack to the HMS Invencible.
The last week, I have the pleasure to hear and know on of the pilot (Alférez /Ensing Gerardo Isaac) Nor Retire brigadier, in a conference in the Museo Nacional de Aeronáutica
F.L.
It´s dificult to put in english.
His story was his about her personal expirence in the war.
Others missions, the luck that he had (He change two times of numeral side, and the pilot on his original position was shot donw. Even in the Invencible mission)
About the mission
He said that the attack was stern to bow (i´m talking from memory) and he saw an asimetric silouette.
No like this
I think that with a good margin of fuel and an adequate time on zone, they would have done a lot of damage.
The Mirage III/5 was a very good aircraft, and the Magics missile was reasonably efficient.
Only the lack of fuel made Mirage easy prey for the Shar.
F.L.
I always think -in what if scenario- real (from the budget side)
Reemplace the M5 Dagger (equal number 1 to 1 with more A-4 (you choose. Ex B or D-2N) or F-100D ( old yes but with more range / AAR and more load) and perhaps Canberras B MK62 by S-2 or even S1 (again more range and AAR)
And of course 1 or 2 KC-130
No M-IIIE insted F-8
In my FAA (what if)
No Dagger
Equal number of
or
No M-IIIE
this
And why not
(I love the Buccaneer -the S-2-)
but i put the S1 because it was the less power version.
And 1 or 2 another KC-130
So we can refuel more planes
The F-100D refuel from KC-97, so I think the can do from a C-130. The same was from the F-8.
I dont know about the S1/S2.
This is all about the weapons systems. Not change about training or armaments in selft
But this a big what if.
The term Isaac has used in previous published interviews was "target fascination" more often referred to, I believe, as "target fixation".
Having read the pilots' stories in "Handbrake" by Mariano Sciaroni & Alejandro Amendolara, I can just about begin to see how the confusion about which ship they attacked could have arisen.
Ureta stated that the direction of his attack was from about 30 degrees on the port quarter of the ship (he noted the bow was to he left side of his attack path) he was attacking and he "passed over the stern, almost touching the white dome on the stern of the aircraft carrier, the radar of the Sea Dart missile system."
Isaac made this comment "I grabbed the carrier from astern and it was totally covered in smoke, I could see the island, so when I had it overhead, I pressed the trigger, I couldn't get out out from above , it was too close, so I turned right and passed it on the right side."
This is Invincible on her return from the South Atlantic in 1982 from roughly the angle that Ureta believed he attacked from. Firstly from sea level:-
Now from a slightly higher altitude
Ureta's attack was probably nearer the former than the latter given the attacking height. The stand out feature he picked out was the Sea Dart dome, but as you can see it was grey not white as he claimed, but the satcom domes were.
But the British version says the A4Qs attacked the frigate Avenger from almost ahead, and at or below bridge level
Now take a look at the Type 21 frigate Avenger from an angle 30 degrees on the starboard bow. See below.
Note the big dome shaped object that Ureta was so focussed on. Not the radar dome on the Invincible but the turret for the 4.5" Mk8. Note how from this angle the colour appears lighter than the rest of the ship. I find that element curious.
Now note the big bow wave and stern wake. How do we explain this away? Well Avenger's Captain had intended to put his stern to the attack that he understood, from information passed by Exeter, was coming from the north and was in the form of an Exocet attack. It wasn't. It was coming from the south. At this point it was 3 minutes from the initial alert (in an attack that lasted about 6 minutes) and he had the A4Qs on radar at 22 miles. Rather than attempt to turn the ship and be caught broadside on to the attack, Avenger's Captain decided to point the bow to the attack and reduce speed to the minimum. So any bow wave and stern wake would quickly reduce making the ship much less noticable. And with the chaff cloud that he had already put up to defeat a missile attack from the wrong direction now astern, he fired more chaff to surround his ship ("I had discarded all desires to economise its use" he later noted) and only moving slowly was manoeuvering within that chaff cloud. Could that be mistaken for the "smoke" the Argentinian pilots believed that they saw around the ship they attacked?
And Avenger did report one aircraft passing close ahead of her bow.
Some of the other details of how aircraft moved relative to the target ship don't match up but those ship's crew that did witness it were busy becoming part of the deck as the Skyhawks passed by/over, the ship was still moving slowly, and the Argentinian pilots were concentrating on escaping. So maybe that isn't so surprising.
I have no doubt that the Argentinian pilots honestly believed that they were attacking Invincible. But it was well known in WW2 that pilots of all nations had a habit of overestimating the size of the ships that they were attacking. Destroyers became cruisers. Cruisers became battleships. Has anything changed since then? Did a frigate become the carrier that the Argentinian pilots were expecting (hoping?) to see? Figure in the effects of "target fascination" and their total focus on delivering their bombs from low level. How much of the picture of their target did they really take in that day?
The other thing about this incident is that if indeed it happened the way the Argentinians say it did with Invincible being hit, how has the British Govt managed to cover up the casualties and deaths that must have been inevitable had the ship been hit? How with a crew of over 1,000 personnel has no one spoken of it in over 40 years? All this in a time of ever increasing media interest in conspiracy theories to create headlines.
I have no doubt that the Argentinian pilots honestly believed that they were attacking Invincible. But it was well known in WW2 that pilots of all nations had a habit of overestimating the size of the ships that they were attacking. Destroyers became cruisers. Cruisers became battleships. Has anything changed since then? Did a frigate become the carrier that the Argentinian pilots were expecting (hoping?) to see? Figure in the effects of "target fascination" and their total focus on delivering their bombs from low level. How much of the picture of their target did they really take in that day?
Yes, a few things have changed since then. The aircraft are faster, meaning that the pilots have less time to assess the size of the target. And pilot workload is higher (no second crewmember, more complex avionics to manage), meaning that the pilots have less opportunity to use that time to assess the size of the target.
I think that with a good margin of fuel and an adequate time on zone, they would have done a lot of damage.
The Mirage III/5 was a very good aircraft, and the Magics missile was reasonably efficient.
Only the lack of fuel made Mirage easy prey for the Shar.
F.L.
I always think -in what if scenario- real (from the budget side)
Reemplace the M5 Dagger (equal number 1 to 1 with more A-4 (you choose. Ex B or D-2N) or F-100D ( old yes but with more range / AAR and more load) and perhaps Canberras B MK62 by S-2 or even S1 (again more range and AAR)
And of course 1 or 2 KC-130
No M-IIIE insted F-8
In my FAA (what if)
No Dagger
Equal number of View attachment 701820
or View attachment 701819
And why not
(I love the Buccaneer -the S-2-)
but i put the S1 because it was the less power version. View attachment 701818
And 1 or 2 another KC-130
So we can refuel more planes
The F-100D refuel from KC-97, so I think the can do from a C-130. The same was from the F-8.
I dont know about the S1/S2.
This is all about the weapons systems. Not change about training or armaments in selft
But this a big what if.
Interesting scenario. Would the americans sell Argentina all that stuff?
In my scenario i mostly stick with the french option, so i do have a question. The IA58 Pucara program must have cost a lot of money, but any rough idea how much? And how many Mirages could be bought with that money?
I have read that Argentina was initially planning to have a fleet of 100 Mirages. I also understand they felt the need for a COIN aircraft, hence the IA58.
But instead of the IA58, if they bought say 36 or so OV-10 or AT-37s for COIN operations, and money is left over for more/better Mirages, then that is a net increase of capability no?
So how about this, in the early seventies they increase the buy of Mirage IIIEAs to 20-24. Then in the late seventies they buy 20-24 Mirage F1EAR for air defence with Super-530F missiles, and say 30-36 Mirage F1AR IFR capable attackers instead of the Daggers. And perhaps a handful more KC-130, or more/modified buddy-buddy refueling pods to use for the Mirages too.
So while there is an overall slight numerical decrease, there is a much increase combat capability, and the capability to put more aircraft over Malvinas for longer (due to longer ranged/refuelled Mirages). And we also have the ATL air combat scenario in which the SH FRS1 are faced with BVR capable Mirage F1s, and frankly i think the Sea Harriers won't be able to cope with such an opponent (if the F1 is used smartly, as in stay fast, lob Super-530Fs whenever possible, follow on with Magics if opportunity arises, but DON'T get into a turning fight)
Interesting scenario. Argentina's OTL Mirage IIIs were R-530 capable, but Super 530F is something else entirely. In fact the F1 started with R-530 then shifted to Super 530F and, well, AdA pilots saw the difference. It was a quantum leap, akin from AIM-7B to the F-15 AIM-7F.
So yeah, could be murderous for the SHARs. Although the Super 530F timing for spring 1982 might be very, very tight. Once again, Mirage F1EQ with similar capabiliy might provide a useful timeline. As Dassault was going all out for Saddam Air Force, really.
Seems the timing will be all right, Super 530F IOC was 1978-something.
Another tantalizing possibility. As i understand the IFR capable F1C-200 was delivered as early as 1977. If that is the case then this ATL argentinian F1EAR or CAR air defence variant can also be delivered with IFR. So the situation would be even worse for the SH.
Btw, pretty sure the iraqis had the Super-530F operational as early as 1981, certainly in 1982. Argentina doesn't need many though, a few dozen missiles are enough.
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.
