Alternative fighter for Argentine AF & Navy during Falklands war.

[H_K]

The Learjet is too small to be a useful tanker, it couldn't carry a meaningful amount of transfer fuel.

A better makeshift would be fitting the Navy's buddy IFR pods to the Air Force Canberras

Canberras are an interesting missed opportunity… their slow speed made them extremely vulnerable to both ship defenses and fighters. Really not suited to dropping iron bombs.

So how to use them better? Well imagine them instead as an antiship platform with a pair of AS30 missiles (similar to some RAF Canberras).

Canberras would have been perfect for low level stand-off attacks from 5-6nm, especially with a basic ECM jammer.

Fighter escort would have been required, and that’s where the relatively large internal fuel capacity comes in (17,300lbs of fuel including bomb bay tank), as they could have buddy fueled a pair of A-4s flying close escort (armed with 2 Aim-9 Sidewinders - though personally I would prefer them rewired for Magic 1s). Or alternatively the A-4s could have stopped at Port Stanley to refuel (being lightly loaded, they would be able to use the 1,200m runway if equipped with a brake parachute from a Mirage, even in wet conditions) and then you wouldn’t even need buddy refueling.

So imagine 2 pairs of Canberras (8x AS-30 missiles), each pair escorted by 2 fighters, going in low against the more vulnerable outer escort layer (Type 42s) or the T21s doing shore bombardment. In the first 2 weeks the results would have likely been quite lethal, especially if used to open up a channel for Exocet armed Super Etendards to reach the carriers.

 

[Rule of cool]

So no big structural modifications at the airframe, just add two drogues at the end of the wings. And then you can put also some colapsible ferry tanks inside the cabin.

You don't just add drogues to an aircraft, they a somewhat sophisticated piece of kit that requires a fair bit of work to integrate into the host aircraft's systems.

As for the suitability of the Learjet in particular, the Argentine Air Force had 2 x B707 and 6 x Fokker F28 and the Navy had another 3 x F28s that would make more suitable tankers. The state owned airline might have been another source of aircraft for tanker conversions, they were certainly used to create the very impressive air bridge to Port Stanley prior to the war. These large aircraft can more readily bear the weight of the HDUs themselves as well as a vastly larger offload fuel load than the tiny Learjet.

Air to Air Refuelling Trials 1961/62 - SeaVixen

 

[alejandrogrossi]

You don't just add drogues to an aircraft, they a somewhat sophisticated piece of kit that requires a fair bit of work to integrate into the host aircraft's systems.

As for the suitability of the Learjet in particular, the Argentine Air Force had 2 x B707 and 6 x Fokker F28 and the Navy had another 3 x F28s that would make more suitable tankers. The state owned airline might have been another source of aircraft for tanker conversions, they were certainly used to create the very impressive air bridge to Port Stanley prior to the war. These large aircraft can more readily bear the weight of the HDUs themselves as well as a vastly larger offload fuel load than the tiny Learjet.

View attachment 755709

Air to Air Refuelling Trials 1961/62 - SeaVixen

this was a proposal of Boeing using the Beech hose-and-drogue system was called the Model 1080.

I don ´t know any date (the articule say Boeing keep the offer until early 1980)
That is a greta idea

 

[Wotan]

You don't just add drogues to an aircraft, they a somewhat sophisticated piece of kit that requires a fair bit of work to integrate into the host aircraft's systems.

If you already have the fuel plumbing in place and the container of the fuel tank where you can put the mechanism your job is greatly simplified. After all, the buddy refueling stores are based on standard external tansk.

Texaco

One of the problems with basing jet airplanes on aircraft carriers was their lack of endurance. Roughly speaking, compared to a propeller-dr...

thanlont.blogspot.com

Btw, since we speak of buddy refueling, here is a nice option for the argentinians:

 

[Rule of cool]

If you already have the fuel plumbing in place and the container of the fuel tank where you can put the mechanism your job is greatly simplified. After all, the buddy refueling stores are based on standard external tansk.

Texaco

One of the problems with basing jet airplanes on aircraft carriers was their lack of endurance. Roughly speaking, compared to a propeller-dr...

thanlont.blogspot.com

Btw, since we speak of buddy refueling, here is a nice option for the argentinians:

View attachment 755979

Firstly, those are RAN Skyhawks, I saw them do this trick in NZ service at an airshow in the early 90s.

Secondly, yes, a tactical aircraft can easily attach a buddy IFR store, they already have the hardpoint to attach the pylon to and the connections to fuel, compressed air and electricity that the buddy pod needs.

Thirdly, it isn't particularly difficult to turn an airliner or even bomber into an inflight tanker, by 1982 it had been done dozens if not over 100 times by various firms around the world. However, it is not a job Argentina could undertake within 2 or 3 months in a crisis.

 

[Wotan]

Yes, they should have prepared in advance, including the long range strike capabilities. Before the conflict they were not under embargo, so they could have bringed the necessary specialists who could have modified their aircrafts in order to have air refueling capabilities.

 

[Rule of cool]

IIUC they had no real interest or intention to invade the islands until Anaya made it a condition of his support for Galtieris takeover of the government in late 1981. The planners were told specifically not to plan for a defence against a counter offensive. Additionally the actual invasion occurred months before they planned to invade

It's amazing that the Argentines achieved as much as they did.

 

[EwenS]

The Argentinian Navy had at least one Sargent Fletcher "buddy" refuelling pod in 1982.

When the 25th de Mayo was preparing to strike the British TF on 2 May, one of the 8 A4Q Skyhawks (serial 3-A-302) was held at readiness with such a pod in case the strikers needed a top up to get them home. The mission was scrubbed due to unseasonally low winds.
"Wings of the Malvinas" by Santiago Rivas.

 

[F-14ATomcat]

IIUC they had no real interest or intention to invade the islands until Anaya made it a condition of his support for Galtieris takeover of the government in late 1981. The planners were told specifically not to plan for a defence against a counter offensive. Additionally the actual invasion occurred months before they planned to invade

It's amazing that the Argentines achieved as much as they did.

History is a bit more complex, blame the Falkland war upon Argentina is too limited.

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZM-MPTraAIo&t=1139s

How US military provoked the Falklands War | Interview with Jorge Sáenz
Interview with Jorge Sáenz, author of the book "Malvina, el secreto de Galtieri".
In Malvinas Causa Central, we talked about the influence of the US military prior to April 2, 1982, which led to the Argentine landing in Malvinas.

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P9swpa3RSmE&t=853s

Why the US and Great Britain wanted a war in the Malvinas

Malvinas War
Mariano Bartolomé, PhD in International Relations and author of the book El Conflicto del Atlántico Sur: una perspectiva Diferencia, spoke with Juan Natalizio in "Malvinas Causa Central" about the strategic importance of the South Atlantic and the Malvinas Islands within the East-West dispute, as well as the convenience of the US and NATO to install a military device in the Islands.

On 27 June 1806 a British force of 1,500 men under William Carr Beresford occupied the city, for about six weeks until surrendering in mid-August to colonial militia, led by Santiago de Liniers y Bremond, a French nobleman at the service of Spain.

A second, better-resourced invasion followed in May 1807, under Lieutenant-General John Whitelock, attacking Buenos Aires in July. After a couple of days of intense street fighting, the British surrendered to an army it had considered no more than a rabble.

BBC NEWS | UK | Magazine | Britain's 'forgotten' invasion of Argentina

news.bbc.co.uk

Britain and France confront Argentina​

– the Battle of Obligado, 1845​

Britain and France confront Argentina - the Battle of Obligado, 1845 - dawlish chronicles

Britain and France confront Argentina - the Battle of Obligado, 1845 British ships (right) and French ships (left) move up the Parana river towards Argentinian defences, November 20th 1845 Today, when one thinks of naval combat between British and Argentinian forces the Falklands War of 1982 is

dawlishchronicles.com

Also consider the British invaded Argentina in 1805 and 1806 and took over military the Falklands in 1833 and attacked Argentina in 1845.

 

[uk 75]

Prior to 1982 relations between the Falkland Islanders and the UK were pretty poor. The Falklands Islands Company ran the place as a private estate.
The Foreign Office treated the place as another colony to be offloaded as soon as possible.
A more astute government in Buenos Aires could have used this to get alongside the Islanders and bind them by air and sea links and investment to Argentina.

 

[Arjen]

Why the US and Great Britain wanted a war in the Malvinas

The UK only wanted a war after the islands were invaded. Remember the UK defence cuts of the late 70s and early 80s?

So a deliberate provocation to goad the Argentine military into an invasion is highly unlikely as far as the UK is concerned.
Don't know about the USA, but what would they stand to gain?

 

[dmbrundle]

I'm afraid this is a myth, but one that has been around for so long its repeated everywhere.

The reason the Mirage III were withdrawn was because without AAR capability they were of very limited utility, their limited fuel meant they had no real chance to escort strikes or engage in combat, particularly as the Argentines had a tiny stockpile of compatible supersonic drop tanks (the 2 Mirage III dropping theirs in the first 'combat' with SHAR, which were mistaken as missiles by the SHAR pilots, was a big proportion of the available tanks...). As a result they were to all intents useless and were withdrawn to northern bases to free up ramp space at the southern bases for fighter bombers. A couple did loiter around to provide local air defence for the airfields but that was it.

To understand why ramp space was so important just go and have a look at the airfields the Argentinian's flew strikes from on satellite images on Google Earth. Even with 40 years of extra work on some strips they barely warrant the title of regional airstrip...let alone airbase.

The official history by the FAA actually contradicts this, they originally said some Mirage III were withdrawn in order to defend the capital from a feared Vulcan attack. However, the effect was somewhat watered down when British officials in the MOD stated categorically that the UK wouldn't attack the mainland.

 

[F-14ATomcat]

The UK only wanted a war after the islands were invaded. Remember the UK defence cuts of the late 70s and early 80s?

So a deliberate provocation to goad the Argentine military into an invasion is highly unlikely as far as the UK is concerned.
Don't know about the USA, but what would they stand to gain?

.
According to the Argentine Historian, the UK wanted to return the Islands but the USA did not want that since the soviet Union was sailing ships in the south Atlantic, so they wanted a military base.

They got it, Argentina got scammed by the USA, they made the war the USA needed.

now that is the Argentine Historian view, but like they say follow the money and follow the base, in my opinion they are correct, why? simple Argentina was not going to allow US presence there and the UK is NATO basically allowing NATO to have a base there.

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N9yKk5LGeas

Before the war broke out, the United States made its Secretary of State Alexander Haig available to both countries to mediate in the conflict. After travelling twice to London and twice to Buenos Aires, his attempts were unsuccessful and he subsequently officially declared the support of the United Kingdom. In reality, Haig, in complicity with Margaret Thatcher, was "buying time" for the impending war and diverting the attention of the military junta from a possible armed conflict. A peaceful solution did not satisfy Thatcher's interests. Her government was in crisis, the Malvinas issue became her political lifeline, and from then on the only outcome was war.

Argentine delegation inspects Chinese space station in Neuquén​

Group of government officials, scientists and experts visit controversial deep space station run by Beijing; Inspection comes after heavy pressure from Washington

Argentine delegation inspects Chinese space station in Neuquén

Group of government officials, scientists and experts visit controversial deep space station run by Beijing; Inspection comes after heavy pressure from Washington.

www.batimes.com.ar

China proposes J-10CE fighter jets to Brazil in exchange for strategic satellite launch site access.​

China proposes J-10CE fighter jets to Brazil in exchange for strategic satellite launch site access

China proposes J-10CE fighter jets to Brazil in exchange for strategic satellite launch site access

armyrecognition.com

China oferece Caças Chengdu J-10 em troca de Acesso a Base de Lançamentos de Alcântara. Por que o Brasil não aceita?

De acordo com informações publicadas pela Veja, a China apresentou ao governo brasileiro uma proposta de um lote de caças Chengdu J-10 em troca do de acesso ao Centro de Lançamento de Al…

luizmuller.com

I do not know if that is a direct result but the betrayal the USA did to Argentina pushed south America to a more anti-american stance

 

[Arjen]

After the Falklands war, there was no US military presence on the islands. Quite understandably, the UK reinforced its military presence there after the unpleasantries.
If US actors were behind a deliberate provocation of the Argentine military, didn't inform their UK allies about it and would have been caught at it, US-UK relations would have suffered badly at the height of the Cold War. Again, highly unlikely - Thatcher and Reagan were very chummy throughout their tenure, before and after 1982.

The simplest explanation remains the best, in my opinion: the generals urgently needed a distraction from Argentina's economic woes, misread Thatcher, invaded before they were ready while the UK still had just enough material and soldiers to retake the islands. The generals showed gross incompetence in governing, then gross incompetence in their own trade - soldiering. That reading Thatcher's mind was beyond them just fits in the general picture.

Arrogant idiots.

 

[F-14ATomcat]

After the Falklands war, there was no US military presence on the islands. Quite understandably, the UK reinforced its military presence there after the unpleasantries.
If US actors were behind a deliberate provocation of the Argentine military, didn't inform their UK allies about it and would have been caught at it, US-UK relations would have suffered badly at the height of the Cold War. Again, highly unlikely - Thatcher and Reagan were very chummy throughout their tenure, before and after 1982.

The simplest explanation remains the best, in my opinion: the generals urgently needed a distraction from Argentina's economic woes, misread Thatcher, invaded before they were ready while the UK still had just enough material and soldiers to retake the islands. The generals showed gross incompetence in governing, then gross incompetence in their own trade - soldiering. That reading Thatcher's mind was beyond them just fits in the general picture.

Arrogant idiots.

well that is fine however not all in the world accept that opinion Thatcher got also more popularity, that is according to some historians, you are free to have an opinion it does not mean all around the world share it

 

[dmbrundle]

History is a bit more complex, blame the Falkland war upon Argentina is too limited.

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZM-MPTraAIo&t=1139s

How US military provoked the Falklands War | Interview with Jorge Sáenz
Interview with Jorge Sáenz, author of the book "Malvina, el secreto de Galtieri".
In Malvinas Causa Central, we talked about the influence of the US military prior to April 2, 1982, which led to the Argentine landing in Malvinas.

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P9swpa3RSmE&t=853s

Why the US and Great Britain wanted a war in the Malvinas

Malvinas War
Mariano Bartolomé, PhD in International Relations and author of the book El Conflicto del Atlántico Sur: una perspectiva Diferencia, spoke with Juan Natalizio in "Malvinas Causa Central" about the strategic importance of the South Atlantic and the Malvinas Islands within the East-West dispute, as well as the convenience of the US and NATO to install a military device in the Islands.

On 27 June 1806 a British force of 1,500 men under William Carr Beresford occupied the city, for about six weeks until surrendering in mid-August to colonial militia, led by Santiago de Liniers y Bremond, a French nobleman at the service of Spain.

A second, better-resourced invasion followed in May 1807, under Lieutenant-General John Whitelock, attacking Buenos Aires in July. After a couple of days of intense street fighting, the British surrendered to an army it had considered no more than a rabble.

BBC NEWS | UK | Magazine | Britain's 'forgotten' invasion of Argentina

news.bbc.co.uk

Britain and France confront Argentina​

– the Battle of Obligado, 1845​

Britain and France confront Argentina - the Battle of Obligado, 1845 - dawlish chronicles

Britain and France confront Argentina - the Battle of Obligado, 1845 British ships (right) and French ships (left) move up the Parana river towards Argentinian defences, November 20th 1845 Today, when one thinks of naval combat between British and Argentinian forces the Falklands War of 1982 is

dawlishchronicles.com

Also consider the British invaded Argentina in 1805 and 1806 and took over military the Falklands in 1833 and attacked Argentina in 1845.

The UK clearly didn't want a war in 1982, they were massively cutting back on their forces. Its rare that something is so very clear but the responsibility of the war lies squarely with Argentina because they felt the UK was too weak to respond. The US tried desperately to stop the Argentines, even at the last minute Reagan phoned Galtieri begging them to stop. Neither the UK or the US wanted a war in the Falklands.

The US had no interest in a base in the Falklands and still doesn't.

Indeed history is often more complex and the history of the British in the Falklands is certainly more nuanced than the one portrayed by Argentina in its modern narrative. This narrative that the UK has always been trying to drag Argentina back is foolish.

 

[dmbrundle]

well that is fine however not all in the world accept that opinion Thatcher got also more popularity, that is according to some historians, you are free to have an opinion it does not mean all around the world share it

Thatcher grew in popularity because of decisive leadership in a time of national crisis. One only has to look at the concessions the British were prepared to make to avoid war and the information that has become available since to see that the British were desperate to avoid a shooting war. However, the one thing the British did understand was logistics and realised that the window for diplomacy was limited. The Argentines tried to string things out and their own miscalculations about the British resolve led to the complacency that meant they lost.

 

[F-14ATomcat]

The UK clearly didn't want a war in 1982, they were massively cutting back on their forces. Its rare that something is so very clear but the responsibility of the war lies squarely with Argentina because they felt the UK was too weak to respond. The US tried desperately to stop the Argentines, even at the last minute Reagan phoned Galtieri begging them to stop. Neither the UK or the US wanted a war in the Falklands.

The US had no interest in a base in the Falklands and still doesn't.

Indeed history is often more complex and the history of the British in the Falklands is certainly more nuanced than the one portrayed by Argentina in its modern narrative. This narrative that the UK has always been trying to drag Argentina back is foolish.

cool, that is your opinion which is fine, it does not mean all share it, there are more historians than the Bristish Historians, the narrative of each nation not necessarily will be the same, you just simple have to accept the world is bigger and the points of view are wider, you can ignore those Historians, but History also has a political base, and each nation has a history accepted as the correct one

 

[F-14ATomcat]

Thatcher grew in popularity because of decisive leadership in a time of national crisis. One only has to look at the concessions the British were prepared to make to avoid war and the information that has become available since to see that the British were desperate to avoid a shooting war. However, the one thing the British did understand was logistics and realised that the window for diplomacy was limited. The Argentines tried to string things out and their own miscalculations about the British resolve led to the complacency that meant they lost.

In the last 200 years which nation has been in more wars, England or Argentina? who has attacked each other capital? England or Argentina?

You can not hide the sun with a finger, it is obvious each country has an official history to justify what their politicians do

 

[dmbrundle]

cool, that is your opinion which is fine, it does not mean all share it, there are more historians than the Bristish Historians, the narrative of each nation not necessarily will be the same, you just simple have to accept the world is bigger and the points of view are wider, you can ignore those Historians, but History also has a political base, and each nation has a history accepted as the correct one

History is just a collection of facts, historians study those facts and attempt to draw conclusions from those facts

Revisionist historians start with the conclusions and attempt to rewrite history by selectively quoting facts, misrepresenting events and even making stuff up. They aren't historians. I could, were I so inclined, point out that many historians are contemptuous of Argentine historical revisionism but this is not a history forum so I will not. Anyone wishing to learn more can look up the work of Michael Goebbel of Berlin University (a German historian by the way). The role of historical revisionism is the Peronist movement is well documented.

 

[dmbrundle]

In the last 200 years which nation has been in more wars, England or Argentina? who has attacked each other capital? England or Argentina?

You can not hide the sun with a finger, it is obvious each country has a official history to justify what their politicians do

Whataboutery is not a logical form of argument.

 

[F-14ATomcat]

Whataboutery is not a logical form of argument.

you did not answer the questions then you avoid the facts. in the last two hundreds years Argentina even as part of the Spanish empire has not been involved in as many wars as the UK and Argentina until now has never attacked London, we can not say that about the UK that has attacked Buenos Aires or the Argentine main land facts are facts, official British History might tell you the reason the UK is justified and good in whatever policy they took as a government, however it does not mean the other side agrees.

If you never listen the other side that amounts to propaganda in History, so if you really want to be objective you have to listen both sides, Historians draw conclusions, and many times they have their subjectivity in what they write, they have censorship too.

And in History there are different accounts, people accept what they think many times is the most acceptable depending in their values, objective History in reality does not exist because Historians are always arranging facts upon what politicians tell them. In few words History is written upon political views, it happens every where, is like you want to force your political view upon other countries, you can not sorry we have to live to disagree and agree to disagree in the most respectful way.

 

[Rule of cool]

you did not answer the questions then you avoid the facts. in the last two hundreds years Argentina even as part of the Spanish empire has not been involved in as many wars as the UK and Argentina until now has never attacked London, we can not say that about the UK that has attacked Buenos Aires or the Argentine main land facts are facts, official British History might tell you the reason the UK is justified and good in whatever policy they took as a government, however it does not mean the other side agrees.

If you never listen the other side that amounts to propaganda in History, so if you really want to be objective you have to listen both sides, Historians draw conclusions, and many times they have their subjectivity in what they write, they have censorship too.

And in History there are different accounts, people accept what they think many times is the most acceptable depending in their values, objective History in reality does not exist because Historians are always arranging facts upon what politicians tell them. In few words History is written upon political views, it happens every where, is like you want to force your political view upon other countries, you can not sorry we have to live to disagree and agree to disagree in the most respectful way.

What the link to 1982 here? That because Britain has fought more wars than Argentina over the previous centuries that it's better at fighting them?

 

[F-14ATomcat]

What the link to 1982 here? That because Britain has fought more wars than Argentina over the previous centuries that it's better at fighting them?

Who is more likely the aggressor? if some one comes to your house and says your kitchen in mine, who is attacking and who is the aggressor?

Who owned the Islands in 1832?

No war is justified, but the facts are Both sides have not solved the issue.

Was Argentina justified in 1982? no, the 1982 war was a Mistake, but the UK is not saint, that is History and if you want to understand History see both sides.

The UK had reasons and pressure by NATO to keep the Islands and true some British political sides wanted to return the Islands, in Politics even in England there were sides who wanted to return the islands and those who did not

 

[Desertfox]

The UK not being a saint and the Argentinian Junta screwing up badly are not mutually exclusive. Both can be true at the same time.

 

[F-14ATomcat]

The UK not being a saint and the Argentinian Junta screwing up badly are not mutually exclusive. Both can be true at the same time.

If I was a young person I would not die for any of those governments, both were using young people for economic interests. The only reason to die is justice, but that war killed young people who lost a chance in life to be happy.

War is not good, History is very interesting though and it is good it was a short and brief war, and peace should prevail, is not mutually exclusive that both nations can work in peace and achieve an arrangement.

 

[Rule of cool]

Who is more likely the aggressor? if some one comes to your house and says your kitchen in mine, who is attacking and who is the aggressor?

Who owned the Islands in 1832?

No war is justified, but the facts are Both sides have not solved the issue.

Was Argentina justified in 1982? no, the 1982 war was a Mistake, but the UK is not saint, that is History and if you want to understand History see both sides.

The UK had reasons and pressure by NATO to keep the Islands and true some British political sides wanted to return the Islands, in Politics even in England there were sides who wanted to return the islands and those who did not

So a thread about basing fighters at Port Stanley and widened into other practical issues concerning the war somehow related to the morality of the first 1/3 of the 1800s?

This thread was far more interesting when I was thinking about how much PSP or heavy construction it would take to turn port Stanley into a useful military airfield.

 

[F-14ATomcat]

So a thread about basing fighters at Port Stanley and widened into other practical issues concerning the war somehow related to the morality of the first 1/3 of the 1800s?

This thread was far more interesting when I was thinking about how much PSP or heavy construction it would take to turn port Stanley into a useful military airfield.

From the alternative point of view we can talk about, just as a hypothetical case, I am not against it, I m just saying we do not need to get into politically charged nationalism by denying the Argentine historical point of view.


This game in which we are engaged, is enriched by analyzing different factors that can help us to understand how could the FAA could have beaten the harrier.

I am of the opinion, the main mistake of Argentina was trust the USA, but the USA also made a Terrible mistake by supplying AIM-9L to the UK.

Argentina basically lost because they could not defend their aircraft carrier from Submarine attack, this reduced the range of their air force and the embargo cut the weapons supply they needed.

I am of the idea a well armed A-4 could had beaten a Harrier if they have had AIM-9Ls and had operated from the aircraft carrier.

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kX9HZlmBfCw

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zjlKYTeyAXA&t=581s

I found more plausible the A-4 could fend off the attacks.

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1FsolKq-edI


The Argentine Pilot says it was the AIM-9L what gave the victory to England but it was the AIM-9L not the Harrier it self what gave the victory


But in the Americas there is unwritten agreement, the USA should not attack us specially south america in order for us not to develop nuclear weapons.

Th war of 1982 imposed in the UK the Prohibition of not using nukes on Argentina, Argentina knew the UK could not invade the main continental land of Argentina, they were not going to be capable of doing it.
So the war was for who was going to keep the Islands.

So the USA decided helping a quick victory for the UK was better.

The USA has paid that with the rejection of the free trade of the Americas, the creation of Mercosur, the Brazilian Nuclear submarine project and the inclusion of Brazil in BRICS.

 

[Rule of cool]

Here's a picture I found of Argentine Navy MB339 at Port Stanley. Notice how it's backed onto a strip of PSP just wide enough for the undercarriage. I've also seen a picture of an S2 Tracker at Port Stanley backed onto 3 strips of PSP wide enough for each individual wheel.

 

[Rule of cool]

Here is the loop at one end of the Aluminium 'Sids Strip' at San Carlos. I think Argentina should have made something like this at Port Stanley of they extended the strip with PSP, it allows combat aircraft to take off in pairs or flights.