Alternative fighter for Argentine AF & Navy during Falklands war.

[F.L.]

Etendard IVM option.

- Alternatively one might look at operating Mirage F1s or Jaguars from Port Stanley but not sure Argentina had the money to buy yet another type?

I also think that while the Etendart IVM is a realistic option, F1 and Jaguar are not.

 

[carvalho2008]

(Continued)

2) Forward basing fighters
- As we’ve discussed, Port Stanley airport had 2 major constraints: the 1,200m long runway and limited parking space + exposed weather conditions.

- My estimate is a maximum of 12 combat aircraft could be parked using the grass areas and leaving the main apron space (80x45m) free for resupply flights and other aircraft.

- Another dozen Pucaras could be operated from the secondary airfields at Goose Green and Pebble Island… historically though they didn’t achieve anything so I’ll ignore them

- With such a limited space available it makes sense to operate the most effective combat aircraft possible from there. I don’t buy that lightly-armed, slow MB-326s were the solution… I’d want a real fighter bomber

- The main missions would be both CAP/interception to challenge Sea Harriers in the air and also anti-shipping to force the RN task force to stand-off from the islands

- Deltas like the Mirage IIIs and Daggers are out of the question due to their high takeoff and landing speeds

- A naval aircraft by design should be suitable for short runways and also the very wet weather… that leaves Skyhawks and Etendards.

- Argentine Skyhawks had a take-off run of ~800-900m lightly loaded (18,500lbs TO weight with 2,000lb external fuel/stores). So take-off should not be a problem. Their approach speed was also low (122 knots), however they didn’t have a brake parachute (unlike some other foreign Skyhawks) so landing distance would be too great. If a chute could be fitted they could operate from Port Stanley, but their effectiveness would still be limited by the lack of radar and an anti-ship missile

- Etendards/Super Etendards had a take-off run of ~900-1,000m depending on the load configuration (the Super Etendard had more power and more lift than the Etd IVM but this was offset by being 400kg heavier and the heavier Exocet payload). The COAN assessed that take-offs were possible with no safety margins. Approach speeds were a little higher than the Skyhawk (125-130kts), but both had a brake chute which reduced the runway length requirement to 900m (from threshold to full stop). The COAN assessed that landings would be possible in dry conditions, but were worried about bringing back a heavy Exocet in wet conditions… ultimately the Super Etendard was too precious to risk.

- This brings me to the surplus Etendard IVM option. They would have been able to operate from Port Stanley with 1 or 2 AS-30 missiles (or 2 Magics/Sidewinders in air-to-air mode), and land lightly loaded even in wet conditions (unlike an Exocet-carrying Super Etendard). Ideally 15-18 Etd IVMs would have been transferred to Argentina around 1979-81. Even with high expected losses they could should have achieved some success against Sea Harriers and RN escorts, drawing out the conflict or delaying the landings by weeks (especially if combined with land-based AS-30 strikes from Canberras or Daggers)

- Alternatively one might look at operating Mirage F1s or Jaguars from Port Stanley but not sure Argentina had the money to buy yet another type?

Master HK, MB-326 is the weakest, but in an alternate reality, it would be the most likely.

In an exercise like this, it becomes difficult to choose a game changer. The A-4 could have implemented the RAT, but they didn't, they could have enlarged the island, but they didn't... it's much more a question of the butterfly effect in history, in which small changes can drastically change the course.

The Argentinian did not lengthen the runway and did not even show the desire to lengthen it, because even though she had not prepared beforehand, she absolutely did not want to risk her air power over the islands. she needed these fighters on the mainland because she was afraid of an eventual Chilean reaction (Chileans had almost been invaded 4 years before). Argentines were afraid to bet all their cards on the islands and lose their power completely. It seems paradoxical, but that was it. So implementing a game changer on islands would be unlikely in this context. Let's remember that planes were destroyed in air combat, but also planes destroyed on land (accidents and attacks by British special forces at the Pebble Island base and destroyed more than 11 aircraft). In other words, whatever is implemented there, it must have incorporated this thought of a expendable resource and a resource capable of being replaced quickly...Pucaras were not replaced because the air war was already dominated....it was not worth it. ...so which game could be employed there and in a risky way, and could be replaced? I don't see game changer fighters for this, if even A-4 wanted to implement it.....New Super Etandards would be considered very precious and still, they would operate from the mainland....

As for the MB-326......in the right measure....expendable, in quantity and capable of carrying out attacks on the fleet...believe me, if you take each of the missions, read the course, you will see that he could be there and do the same...in success and failure, but with better chances due to autonomy from the islands and an absurdly longer flight time in the operational theater, it would not change the alternative reality about the number of A- 4, nor Mirages, nor daggers, because he would enter this alternative reality only in the place of the Pucaras... the A-4 / Mirages / daggers would do their missions with the same results as it happened, but you add in this scenario exactly everything that Pucara should have done it or he wasn't capable of doing it....

Argentina didn't have the budget for more game changer fighters, not even missiles it had....and the political alignments of the defense industry? Buy from Russian, Chinese, Slavs? well, but if instead of Pucarás, they had massified the MB-326, with Italians, Brazilians, South Africans, Australians or even local assembly as so many have done precisely because it is simple, cheap and versatile .... well .... one detail....a butterfly effect that a simple wing flapping changes history....

But there is another point too, the continuous argentinian air attacks that lead after lead leaked the defenses, really turn on a red light on the Harriers+Carrier package....was it really just a matter of quantity? Or were there operational problems on the Aircraft Carriers?...strange...maybe even from here when secrets are revealed, would they have actually been targeted and hence presented a momentary operational loss?

 

[carvalho2008]

 

[carvalho2008]

 

[carvalho2008]

 

[H_K]

As for the MB-326......in the right measure....expendable, in quantity and capable of carrying out attacks on the fleet.

You’re talking about an aircraft that has maybe a 50% chance of being shot down and 10% chance of hitting anything, with most hits being insufficient to put a ship out of action.

I’m looking for an aircraft that has a 90% chance of surviving and 50% or better chance of hitting, where every hit feels like being hit by an Exocet.

The difference in the math would be:
20 MB-326s = 1 ship seriously damaged or sunk
15 Etendard IVMs = 5+ ships seriously damaged or sunk and 5+ Sea Harriers shot down

I understand the expendability / affordability problem, which is why my priority would be to equip existing aircraft like the Canberra / Dagger with better missiles and look for used aircraft which could be bought for cheap (like the Etendard IVM).

 

[Pioneer]

What if the Argentineans were smart enough to have sourced Short Airfield for Tactical Support (SATS) system (which incorporated both a catapult and arrester system) for use on Port Stanley, from their old mates the U.S.?

View: https://youtu.be/eXlIm1LRs5s


Regards
Pioneer

 

[carvalho2008]

What if the Argentineans were smart enough to have sourced Short Airfield for Tactical Support (SATS) system (which incorporated both a catapult and arrester system) for use on Port Stanley, from their old mates the U.S.?

View: https://youtu.be/eXlIm1LRs5s


Regards
Pioneer

I'm a fan of this SATS system.

I think that the military industry, for its own reasons, makes a point of forgetting resources like these, because anyone in possession of this could improvise not only bases, but even an Aircraft Carrier based on a commercial hull. It's not an extremely complex patent to replicate. Obviously on a ship it might not be able to meet all parameter demands, but it's so easy to implement that I actually think of them in various model artworks I make, employing SATS added to a Ski jump. It is extremely likely that the sum of both are sufficient to launch a naval aircraft capable of stobar and catobar. In an imaginative exercise, think of that Iranian ship they're converting into a drone carrier, or something like the ANADOLU. The machinery and turbines that drive the catapult can be located underneath the skijump. This would probably even eliminate the comparative gap in max takeoff weight loss between a stobar and a classic catobar. The British are the most advanced and evolved in the world in Scads/Arapaho doctrines, they should design a dual-use merchant plan, which in fact can receive the Kits, making it look almost like organic installations on deck. I defend this model even for the Brazilian navy...

 

[carvalho2008]

Just one step further from Scads and Arapaho.

From the initial concepts, amphibious ships gained a smooth deck, then docks, then ski-jumps... Now, Chinese are starting to design theirs with a certain deck angle (L76), Koreans have also designed a proposal for LHD with ski jump and catapults, well...and the English have all the practice and doctrine of even designing merchantmen for military requisition...they operate very well in this...it would be like designing a 45,000 ton HMS Ocean of merchant specification and deck at an angle, to load containers, if one day you need it, implement the ski jump and the arrest gears...

It would never look like a classic Aerodrome Ship, but suddenly and suddenly, you could 2 or 3 or 5 of them very quickly...

 

[carvalho2008]

You’re talking about an aircraft that has maybe a 50% chance of being shot down and 10% chance of hitting anything, with most hits being insufficient to put a ship out of action.

I’m looking for an aircraft that has a 90% chance of surviving and 50% or better chance of hitting, where every hit feels like being hit by an Exocet.

The difference in the math would be:
20 MB-326s = 1 ship seriously damaged or sunk
15 Etendard IVMs = 5+ ships seriously damaged or sunk and 5+ Sea Harriers shot down

I understand the expendability / affordability problem, which is why my priority would be to equip existing aircraft like the Canberra / Dagger with better missiles and look for used aircraft which could be bought for cheap (like the Etendard IVM).

I understand, my friend! But the absolute truth is that about 20 exocets would be enough, without any new planes... and this quantity is even small, but it would sign the fate of the conflict...

About more feasible and cheaper possibilities, yes, I agree that the Canberras and Daggers with the AS-30 would also make a huge difference..

But again, check the mission reports, the speeds and the flight profiles, including the target distances when the planes started to be exposed to the radar of the ships and their firing centers... the MB-326 would have a lag on average not higher than 100 knots... and this is irrelevant in more than 80% of those contacts that occurred.... for example, in most coastal missions (attacks on ships anchored or close to the coast and disembarking, they flew close to the relief from the island and were only noticed when they were already flying under the water....that is, between 4 and 7 miles already in the hand-to-hand battle....this difference in speed barely adds 1 to 2 seconds of arrival... and in the really oceanic and distant attacks, I showed you that the A-4s were only 420 knots of speed... and the exocet has 620 knots of speed....see that the A-4 took a while to arrive after the missile....so, the MB-326 would do the same at 350-420 knots....

regarding the use of rockets, the argentinians wanted to use them in daggers and A-4, but the problem is that there was already a lack of autonomy using bombs, even eliminating drag after launch. The use of rockets was already unfeasible, as they would have to maintain drag on the return trip because of the pods and the fuel bill was insufficient...

 

[Desertfox]

All this talk about new fighters, what about just getting the Argentinians more tankers? The issue wasn't poor aircraft, it was lack of fuel.

 

[F.L.]

All this talk about new fighters, what about just getting the Argentinians more tankers? The issue wasn't poor aircraft, it was lack of fuel.

I think this has already been discussed earlier in the thread.

 

[EwenS]

Re parking the Aermacchis on the grass, this from "Wings over the Malvinas" with my emphasis:-

"In April the possibilty of operations from Estacion Aeronavale Malvinas, at Puerto Argentino/Stanley Airport, was analysed. Since the apron was being used by transport aircraft, the possibility of parking the Aermacchis on the grass was explored, but the soft soil made it impossible. Then it was decided to place wooden platforms to one side of the runway, extending the hard area for the Aermacchis. Their weapons would be stored nearby for rapid rearming."

There is also a note that while Crippa's information was used to plan the attacks on the ships in San Carlos Water, a plan to send Teniente Talarico against the ships in the MB.339 used by Crippa "was ultimately considered too dangerous and the mission was cancelled".

Ultimatey 7 MB.339AA aircraft deployed to Port Stanley at different times during the War. One crashed accidentally, one was shot down and two returned to the mainland. Two others were damaged in an air attack and were cannibalised to keep others flying.

 

[H_K]

the possibility of parking the Aermacchis on the grass was explored, but the soft soil made it impossible. Then it was decided to place wooden platforms to one side of the runway, extending the hard area for the Aermacchis.

Yes that’s what I had in mind. PSP planking to make the grassy areas useable for parked jets… but I guess wood works too!

 

[Archibald]

Re parking the Aermacchis on the grass, this from "Wings over the Malvinas" with my emphasis:-

"In April the possibilty of operations from Estacion Aeronavale Malvinas, at Puerto Argentino/Stanley Airport, was analysed. Since the apron was being used by transport aircraft, the possibility of parking the Aermacchis on the grass was explored, but the soft soil made it impossible. Then it was decided to place wooden platforms to one side of the runway, extending the hard area for the Aermacchis. Their weapons would be stored nearby for rapid rearming."

There is also a note that while Crippa's information was used to plan the attacks on the ships in San Carlos Water, a plan to send Teniente Talarico against the ships in the MB.339 used by Crippa "was ultimately considered too dangerous and the mission was cancelled".

Ultimatey 7 MB.339AA aircraft deployed to Port Stanley at different times during the War. One crashed accidentally, one was shot down and two returned to the mainland. Two others were damaged in an air attack and were cannibalised to keep others flying.

The MB-339 was certainly a modern trainer for 1982 but it remained a trainer nonetheless. And sending trainers against the british fleet, MB-326 or MB-339, would be suicide. Crippa had huge balls and made it alive, but he was supposed to fly an armed reconnaissance mission, not an attack like a Skyhawk or a Dagger (and still, he did it !).
It would be akin to use T-6 Harvard as dive bombers against the Japanese fleet and its Zeros.

 

[EwenS]

I wonder why the Argentine navy decided to buy the Karel Doorman (future 25 de Mayo) rather than modernise the Independencia (former Warrior) ? Both were early Colossus-class aircraft carriers, commissioned in 1945 and 1946 respectively. Modernising Independencia would have been more expensive than buying the Karel Doorman ?

In 1955/56 Warrior was given a refit with the intention that she should become a trials and training carrier for the RN Then in 1957 it was decided to sell her off and she ended up in Argentinian hands in 1958 as Independencia. In 1955/56 she had been given a 5.5 degree angled deck, a mirror landing sight and uprated catapult and arrester gear and had some strengthening carried out to her flight deck. She did not receive a steam catapult. She was therefore limited to operating aircraft of about 20,000lb.

Venerable was purchased by the Dutch as Karel Doorman and was rebuilt in the Netherlands between 1955 & 1958. She received an 8 degree angled flight deck, which along with her lifts had been substantially strengthened. She also received a steam catapult and new arrester gear plus the latest radars etc. Then in 1966 the Dutch began a further modernisation during which she received the boilers (and turbines? sources vary on the last) from the laid up carrier Leviathan whose machinery had hardly been used since 1945. While this modernisation was in progress she suffered an engine room fire and the Dutch decided not to repair her. Instead they found a ready buyer in the shape of the Argentinians.

So in 1969 there was a carrier sitting in the Netherlands that the Dutch no longer wanted and which was in a far better state of equipment than the Independencia. Very little work was required to bring Karel Doorman up to an operational standard when compared to Independencia. If the price was right it was a no brainer really.

 

[alejandrogrossi]

You’re talking about an aircraft that has maybe a 50% chance of being shot down and 10% chance of hitting anything, with most hits being insufficient to put a ship out of action.

I’m looking for an aircraft that has a 90% chance of surviving and 50% or better chance of hitting, where every hit feels like being hit by an Exocet.

The difference in the math would be:
20 MB-326s = 1 ship seriously damaged or sunk
15 Etendard IVMs = 5+ ships seriously damaged or sunk and 5+ Sea Harriers shot down

I understand the expendability / affordability problem, which is why my priority would be to equip existing aircraft like the Canberra / Dagger with better missiles and look for used aircraft which could be bought for cheap (like the Etendard IVM).

HK
We have 3 Strike fighter Sqn at the tima of the war

2.ª Escuadrilla Aeronaval de Caza y Ataque (3 Attack-Fighter Sqn)​

The SUE squadron
​

1.ª Escuadrilla Aeronaval de Ataque (1st Attack Sqn)​

I like your idea of the Etendart IVM

I asume that Etendart IVm was in place of the MB-339
The MB-339 squadron

3ra Escuadrilla Aeronaval de Caza y Ataque (3th Attack - Fighter Sqn)​

The A-4Q Sqn

I asume that the Etendeart IVM have replace the MB-339.
I must say i never thought that.
I like it, because, you have a plane that can use from the island in air to air role or strike role; or from the main land (air refueling) with 2 bombs and 2 drop tanks.
Becuase if you replace the the A-4 with the IVM, the carrier was an empty shell.

 

[alejandrogrossi]

Base


Ok here are my further thoughts on this.

1) Better weapons: Argentina needed a more accurate and reliable weapon than dumb bombs. The obvious answer was the AS-30, which historically could be launched by Mirage IIIs, 5s, Canberras and Etendards. The AS-30 packed a large 240kg warhead with supersonic impact speed (Mach 1.4) and allowed the shooter to maintain a stand-off distance of at least 3km, ie. outside of gun engagement range and probably problematic even for Sea Wolf.

AS-30 capability could have been bought with the Mirage IIIs or as part of a surplus Etendard IVM sale (with the Super Etendard deal) or even as a crash upgrade to the Daggers (using the Mirage IIIs’ gear). Or more ironically the RAF Canberras’ surplus AS-30s might have made their way to Argentina in the 70s.

Given range limitations, the ideal launch platforms would probably have been Canberras and Daggers from the continent and Etendard IVMs from Port Stanley… which brings me to my next point.

(To be continued)

HK
The Mirage III or the Dagger
will have to use the AS-30 in the central pylon, us you sea in this photos





This configuration is similar in (fuel terms) to the Golf and Hotel configuration (thxs to Carvalho2008)
So we have the same problem: enter and leave the islands, by the same routes. Sitting duck for the Sea Harrier.
all because of the lack of enough fuel.
This is not the case in the A-4
In respect of the AS-30, if I ´m not wrong the have to launch it at medium alttitud, more time to the SAM missiles of the ship and land.




Another thing
Before the war, only the Naval Aviation have training for anti-ship role.
I was not a mission of the Air Force.
between the April 2 and May 1 , the Air Froce, was tring with the Navy to perfom anti ship mission wit our Type 42 DD and other ships
I think that suitable fuzes for our iron bomb, could have thrown a better result for us.


My ideal
As i said early give the S-1 insted of the Canberra

With 4 bomb and a ful tank in the bomb bay (I dont remeber if the S-1 can have it.
or
this, with the bombs in the bay, wit the IFr probe (of course)

and in equal of A-4 ("C") in replace of the Dagger
1 more KC-130, and better fuse for our bombs.
Not much
But this is another history...jaja

 

[alejandrogrossi]

I have been reading several of the posts, and many are beyond my knowledge. I'm a hobbyist and answered a few, based on what I understand best.There seems to be some here with a high degree of aeronautical knowledge. Needless to say, this particular forum has become very interesting.

 

[alejandrogrossi]

All this talk about new fighters, what about just getting the Argentinians more tankers? The issue wasn't poor aircraft, it was lack of fuel.

Desertfox
From my point of view parcialy YES.
Becuase, we need MORE planes with IFR capacity, and forthat we need more tankers
At the time of the War we have 2 KC-130 for all A-4 (Naval and Air Force) and the 5 SUE

 

[carvalho2008]

Very good, Master Alejandro!!!

A perfect example of anti ship configuration!!!

AS-30 and .... who knew .....look there ..... two rocket pods!!!!

In fact, the problem with this configuration is that the drag of rocket pods is twice that of bombs or missiles, as these after launch the drag is eliminated with the armament, as for rockets, the pods have to return on the way back ....

Having tanker planes available is essential. There is no other way if they operate from the mainland.

 

[alejandrogrossi]

Very good, Master Alejandro!!!

A perfect example of anti ship configuration!!!

AS-30 and .... who knew .....look there ..... two rocket pods!!!!

In fact, the problem with this configuration is that the drag of rocket pods is twice that of bombs or missiles, as these after launch the drag is eliminated with the armament, as for rockets, the pods have to return on the way back ....

Having tanker planes available is essential. There is no other way if they operate from the mainland.

Carvalho2008
That is a M-III the Dagger use the same configuration
replace the rockets pods, with the 1300lts drop tank
this is the Dagger in India configuration.
2 bombs and 3x1300 lis drop tanks. Enough fuel for go in and out by the same route

And you need to replace the middel tank for the AS-30
Even more less fuel
This is a IAI Finger IIIB a post war upgrade (2009)
with 2 tank of 1700 lts

better view

This 2 was for the porpose to put a Dagger with 1700 lts drop tank.
They dont use in the war, as far I know.
Not enough, yet.

 

[alejandrogrossi]

Having tanker planes available is essential. There is no other way if they operate from the mainland.

I agree

 

[carvalho2008]

The MB-339 was certainly a modern trainer for 1982 but it remained a trainer nonetheless. And sending trainers against the british fleet, MB-326 or MB-339, would be suicide. Crippa had huge balls and made it alive, but he was supposed to fly an armed reconnaissance mission, not an attack like a Skyhawk or a Dagger (and still, he did it !).
It would be akin to use T-6 Harvard as dive bombers against the Japanese fleet and its Zeros.

My friends, the infrastructure to operate the first 5 MB-339s on the islands was so precarious that we can't even say it operated...except for the Crippa mission, they practically didn't fly....

Totaled only 04 missions (21:20 flight hours)

Crippa even flew alone because his wingman couldn't take off....

The operability is directly linked to the infrastructure and an infrastructure is linked to the amount of means it will use... there were only 5 at the beginning, which after attempts at replacements in the course of what was shot down, injured and damaged, reached 7 ....

So, I am not aware of this assessment that Crippa and his commanders canceled new attacks on the ships after their discovery because it was too dangerous for an MB-339, but because the tiny squadron was not operational and only 1 plane was available....after a lot of time it broke or didn't work, it's just that they managed to take off two at the same time, but the entire landing phase had already ended and now, in the last mission that they could do as a priority was zeroing a single mission of close air support to the troops. ...

Anyway, there was no relation with the MB-339's flight envelope capability against the ships....

I understand, affirm and agree that in every encounter with Harriers they would be shot down, but the Harriers were not there in all places and moments....it was precisely for this reason that the A-4 managed to overcome the CAPs....where the Harriers managed to be present they were fabulous, but the truth is that the A-4s and Daggers passed them by....the coverage was not complete in view of the number and scope of the mission given to the harriers....it was an over stress of capacity and if MB-326 were on the Islands, this over stress would be greatly amplified further relaxing the infiltration of attacks....the T-6 against zeros picture figure would not occur....because the zeros were not there. ..the zeros weren't there.....the A-4s passed, the daggers passed, the Mb-326s would pass.... and as I said an average of 100 knots less would have a very low impact between detection and launch seconds , because the coastal distances were very small....and even in the oceanic ones, the A4 were not at 600 knots......they were between 470 knots and 420 knots.....

See the history of the "1st Air-Naval Attack Squadron", equipped with the MB-339 at this link:

Malvinas 38 anos: as ações da 1ª Esquadrilha Aeronaval de Ataque - Poder Aéreo – Aviação, Forças Aéreas, Indústria Aeroespacial e de Defesa

A "1ª Esquadrilla Aeronaval de Ataque", baseada em Punta Índio, província de Buenos Aires, foi uma das unidades da Aviação Naval argentina que teve seu batismo de fogo durante a Guerra das Malvinas.

www.aereo.jor.br

 

[_Del_]

Didn't France play with drop tanks with bomb shackles on them? Out of my realm of experience, but I'm guessing @Archibald knows what I am talking about. One on the centerline with two regular tanks outboard. Or two outboard and one large tank on the centerline. Let's you carry a few iron bombs with tankage, I suppose.


The ASM's did need release from a higher altitude for range and acquisition as someone mentioned. They practiced against their own same-type ships to get a good guess on how low they would have to be to ingress to the launch point. Pretty sure they coordinated at least one attack with a maritime patrol aircraft lurking at great distance.

 

[_Del_]

A perfect example of anti ship configuration!!!

AS-30 and .... who knew .....look there ..... two rocket pods!!!!

I do not know for certain, but I can say from experience that many times a load out or configuration at a trade show is based on someone's decision that "it looks cool that way". Air shows for the public are probably even more susceptible to this phenomenon.
But you are stjll right: tankage, either through IFR or external carriage, is going to be the limiting factor for air ops for Argentina.

 

[alejandrogrossi]

Didn't France play with drop tanks with bomb shackles on them?

You mean this?
the call it
RPK-10 droptanks
The are 500 lts tank +4 125 kg bombs

 

[_Del_]

View attachment 703527
View attachment 703528
You mean this?

The same. I don't know anything about the timeline, or how much fuel an Mirage/Dagger would need, but it seems like it might help.

 

[Pioneer]

About more feasible and cheaper possibilities, yes, I agree that the Canberras and Daggers with the AS-30 would also make a huge difference..

Yes, carvalho2008, I didn't think of the utilisation of the ubiquitous Canberra equipped with AS-30's....

Given that the British had incorporated the Nord AS.30 onto their Canberra B.15's by something like 1967...., wouldn't the British have jumped at such a $ opertunity $?

How many AS-30's could a Canberra carry?
How many Canberra's did Argentina have?
Did Argentina have a stockpile of AS.30's in its ORBAT?
I would assume Argentina could access AS.30's easier than Exocet?
I'm surmising that with Argentina's plans to attack the Falklands, it would have/should have been able to seek out and acquire surplus Canberra's, than say more Mirage III/5/Daggers.
I'm also thinking the Canberra would have a greater range and radius than that of the Mirage III/5/Dagger...?

Regards
Pioneer

 

[Yellow Palace]

What if the Argentineans were smart enough to have sourced Short Airfield for Tactical Support (SATS) system (which incorporated both a catapult and arrester system) for use on Port Stanley, from their old mates the U.S.?

Why would the Americans sell it? The system was designed for use by the Marines to establish airfields ashore following an amphibious assault. It was a very specialised bit of kit that had essentially no other use.

Any Argentinian expression of interest would prompt the question 'Who are you planning on invading?' Without a good answer that suited American foreign policy objectives, no sale.

 

[Pioneer]

carvalho2008 said:Why would the Americans sell it? The system was designed for use by the Marines to establish airfields ashore following an amphibious assault. It was a very specialised bit of kit that had essentially no other use.

Any Argentinian expression of interest would prompt the question 'Who are you planning on invading?' Without a good answer that suited American foreign policy objectives, no sale.

In all due respect Yellow Palace, couldn't/shouldn't the American's be asking the same with the sale of the Douglas A-4's to Argentina?

Regards
Pioneer

 

[Yellow Palace]

In all due respect Yellow Palace, couldn't/shouldn't the American's be asking the same with the sale of the Douglas A-4's to Argentina?

Regards
Pioneer

That's a fairly standard light attack aircraft capable of a range of uses, especially with those dastardly (checks notes) er, Chileans? around. Not at all unusual for the US to agree to supply that kind of aircraft so that a country could defend itself and/or defeat Communism.

Purchasing equipment that would only be useful to establish advanced airfields somewhere remote from existing bases doesn't fit the same criteria. It screams 'we are going to invade someone outside our air cover', which isn't normally the sort of thing the US likes to encourage other people to do.

 

[carvalho2008]

That's a fairly standard light attack aircraft capable of a range of uses, especially with those dastardly (checks notes) er, Chileans? around. Not at all unu

sual for the US to agree to supply that kind of aircraft so that a country could defend itself and/or defeat Communism.

Purchasing equipment that would only be useful to establish advanced airfields somewhere remote from existing bases doesn't fit the same criteria. It screams 'we are going to invade someone outside our air cover', which isn't normally the sort of thing the US likes to encourage other people to do.

Or.... why not RATO system.... ??

 

[alejandrogrossi]

Yes, carvalho2008, I didn't think of the utilisation of the ubiquitous Canberra equipped with AS-30's....

Given that the British had incorporated the Nord AS.30 onto their Canberra B.15's by something like 1967...., wouldn't the British have jumped at such a $ opertunity $?

How many AS-30's could a Canberra carry?
How many Canberra's did Argentina have?
Did Argentina have a stockpile of AS.30's in its ORBAT?
I would assume Argentina could access AS.30's easier than Exocet?
I'm surmising that with Argentina's plans to attack the Falklands, it would have/should have been able to seek out and acquire surplus Canberra's, than say more Mirage III/5/Daggers.
I'm also thinking the Canberra would have a greater range and radius than that of the Mirage III/5/Dagger...?

Regards
Pioneer

From the photos on here
https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/canberra-and-the-as-30-asm.36493/
2 per aircraft

At that time 1982, we have our armed forces (AIR FORCE and NAVAL AVIATION), more that adecutate for confict with our neighbors, not a war with a NATO power.

 

[Archibald]

About rockets and drop tanks: the Mirage V had "hybrid" tanks with both. Imagine a classic Mirage underwing drop tank, except the front pointy end is replaced with a rocket pod.
I should be able to find pictures.
Found it (despite Google images absolute stupidity) And - as usual secretprojects has a thread... https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/french-matra-jk200-weapon-drop-tank-system.25988/

That thing was called Matra JL100. Could have been useful to Argentina, it preserved the subsonic fuel tanks without the additional drag of rocket pods or bombs. But straffing or straddling a RN warship with unguided rockets would be no easy fit - although Crippa did exactly that in a vulnerable jet trainer and survived.

https://www.google.com/search?q="matra+JL100"&tbm=isch&ved=2ahUKEwjJmI61tY6AAxXknCcCHb9gDhEQ2-cCegQIABAA&oq="matra+JL100"&gs_lcp=CgNpbWcQA1CPA1iPA2DlB2gAcAB4AIABQogBd5IBATKYAQCgAQGqAQtnd3Mtd2l6LWltZ8ABAQ&sclient=img&ei=01yxZInjA-S5nsEPv8G5iAE&bih=919&biw=1920&client=firefox-b-d&hl=fr#imgrc=3j8q8z2OgopKyM

 

[alejandrogrossi]

The same. I don't know anything about the timeline, or how much fuel an Mirage/Dagger would need, but it seems like it might help.

The fuel tank on the RPK is 500Lts
Not help at all.
Let me remind you, that 3x1300lts the Dagger have enough fuel to go in and out to Island an not much more.
again, for me -is my opinion-, the key is the need of more tankers and more IFR planes.
And no Mirage III or V (Dagger) have -a that time- IFR probe. The M-IIING is afer the War.
This was the only
and the IFR probe was fake. I was for the training of the M-IV bomber

 

[Archibald]

I think this is worth a question. Let's suppose Argentina had JL-100. Considering the (crazy) low altitude and speed some Daggers came attacking British ships; so low that bombs did not explode; do you think they could have fired volleys of rockets, JL-100 style, into British warships ?

Let's take the Dagger mentionned by @alejandrogrossi just above. Let's put one 1300 L subsonic under the belly, and two of those below, WITH NO BOMBS. Just the 18*68 mm FFAR in the tank tips.

Question 1 - Can the Dagger make it to the Falklands and British fleet

Question 2 - once crazy low over the water (as low as OTL with bombs) does the Dagger pilot has any remote chance to damage a British ship firing a volley of 2*18 unguided rockets: 68 mm FFAR ?

 

[alejandrogrossi]

About the rockets and tanks: the Mirage V had "hybrid" tanks with both. Imagine a 1300 L subsonic fuel tank, except the front pointy end is replaced with a rocket pod.
I should be able to find pictures.

Archibald
The only tank i know is the RPK tank
Mirage IIIO



on Mirage 5F


More photos
http://maquette72.free.fr/articles/2012_92_93_94_MirageIII/index94_doc.php

http://petaf-shop.e-monsite.com/pages/page.html
from that link before
They have the RPK-10 (500lts and 4 x125 or the RPK-17D (500lts and 4 mk 82 or Snake eyes


http://petaf-shop.e-monsite.com/medias/images/photos-2-13-9.jpg

 

[alejandrogrossi]

The only crazy thing, that one time cross my mind was do that to the 1300lts or 1700lst tanks of the mirage /dagger family: Put a IFR probe to the tank.
But asuming the if possible, we need a B707 tanker

 

[Archibald]

See my post here. https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/th...during-falklands-war.41308/page-6#post-609874

Just asking a) could a Dagger with one 1300 L belly tank + 2*JL-100s "mix tanks" reach the Falklands and british fleet ?

And b) (I'm thinking of Crippa and his MB-339 here, who did that) how hard would it be for a Dagger, coming full bore and very low over the water, to put a few of 36 unguided FFAR into a British warship ?

c) what kind of damage can 68 mm FFAR do to a warship ?

I think this might be an interesting whatif. Considering the fact that Crippa managed to put a few FFAR into a british warship with a MB-339;
Whatif Argentina had JL-100s for its Daggers, and managed to put some on Skyhawks ?

Would it be suicide to attack the British fleet with the same Daggers and Skyhawks as per OTL, same low altitude and speed, except firing 2*18 68mm FFAR rockets ? Instead of obsolete bombs or bombs dropped too low and fast and not exploding half of the time ?

I think those are important questions to ask (and answer).

Try focusing on this, folks...