Argentina moves to blockade Falklands?

[helolumpy]

There are a bunch of JPME professors wishing they could still get boners right now.

As one of those JPME professors up here in Newport, we are watching this, but IMHO it will not escallate to the previous 'war'. Since there is not a military Junta running Argentina who is trying to divert attention from rising inflation and social unrest, it is unlikely this will develop into a shooting match. Historically, democracies do not fight each other.

 

[Fog]

I think those sweet, advanced Skyhawks wouldn't fare any better against the Typhoon.

B22: I think you underestimate the A-4 as a daytime ACM a/c. I think the lopsided ratios in favor of the British is because their pilots were much better trained & more experienced. An A-4 in the hands of an experienced fighter pilot is still a very formidable ACM platform in a visual, daytime encounter. JMHO.

 

[HeyJoe]

[/I]

B22: I think you underestimate the A-4 as a daytime ACM a/c. I think the lopsided ratios in favor of the British is because their pilots were much better trained & more experienced. An A-4 in the hands of an experienced fighter pilot is still a very formidable ACM platform in a visual, daytime encounter. JMHO.

I interviewed some of the Argentine pilots and one was a Navy Skyhawk driver who later commanded the Super Etendard squadron. I don't think it so much a disparity of training and experience, it was more likely not having the fuel to stay and contest the control of the air over the islands. If the islands were closer to the mainland by 50 miles or so , it might not have been so lopsided as the Argentine Navy and Air Force pilots had enough fuel for one pass over their target areas and then had to boogie. That gave the Brits an advantage in husbanding their meager Sea Harrier assets (also hampered by on station time) so they could react to raiders with a fuel advantage however slim that be (but it was decisive). In the end, although the Sea Harriers prevailed in the exchange ratio rack n stack, they still did not prevent several ships from being struck/sunk and didn't have the legs to get out and forestall the incoming raids, which is the better way to employ interceptors. Tagging the Argentine pilots after they release their weapons ends up as a war of attrition of their pilots/aircraft versus loss of your much more valuable captial assets and their cargo/warfighting capability.

An alternative exchange ratio would include ships sunk by the aircraft (who weren't there to contest the air, they were there to contest the landings and support of troops once they did land). So how successful were the Sea Harriers if they couldn't blunt the waves of Skyhawks that hit the ships so much that the Brits called San Carlos Sound "Bomb Alley"?

Ships lost against 22 attacking Argentine aircraft downed:

HMS Glamorgan
HMS Ardent
HMS Sheffield
HMS Coventry

Heavily damaged while awaiting to disembark troops in so-called "Bomb Alley":

RFA Sir Tristram (had to be abandoned, but later refitted)
RFA Sir Galahad (later sunk)

Sir Tristram abandoned after being hit by bombs and strafed. Unbeknowst to Argentine ordies, they were stting the fuzes improperly for low level delvery so a large number of Argentine boms hit, but failed to detonate. They still caused considerable damage and loss of life. Some Brits remarked that if the bombs had been fuzed properly, they would have lost too many ships to continue operations.

 

[Pugs]

[/I]

B22: I think you underestimate the A-4 as a daytime ACM a/c. I think the lopsided ratios in favor of the British is because their pilots were much better trained & more experienced. An A-4 in the hands of an experienced fighter pilot is still a very formidable ACM platform in a visual, daytime encounter. JMHO.

And the Brits had AEW with the Sea Kings and seaborne for SA the Argies didn't.

 

[Flash]

Say what? Don't confuse Brazil's AF-1 Skyhawks with the A-4AR Fighting Hawk updated for Argentines. In either case, no AB.

I caught myself and fixed my mistake, I believe before you caught it!

B22: I think you underestimate the A-4 as a daytime ACM a/c. I think the lopsided ratios in favor of the British is because their pilots were much better trained & more experienced. An A-4 in the hands of an experienced fighter pilot is still a very formidable ACM platform in a visual, daytime encounter. JMHO.

Visual daytime encounter no doubt and with APG-66's the A-4AR's have an even better chance, but they unfortunately for the Argentines they likely wouldn't get close enough for that against Typhoons. Even them the Typhoons themselves are apparently no slouch themselves close-in.

I interviewed some of the Argentine pilots and one was a Navy Skyhawk driver who later commanded the Super Etendard squadron. I don't think it so much a disparity of training and experience, it was more likely not having the fuel to stay and contest the control of the air over the islands. If the islands were closer to the mainland by 50 miles or so , it might not have been so lopsided as the Argentine Navy and Air Force pilots had enough fuel for one pass over their target areas and then had to boogie.

From what I know I would disagree a bit. While overall there might not have been that much of qualitative difference between the pilots I think the training the Brits received was much more relevant and realistic for the war they fought. They never trained for this particular scenario but from reading Harrier pilot accounts of their experience they trained quite extensively in ACM for years prior to the war, at least the Royal Navy guys did, particularly in the immediate post-Vietnam era where that training was emphasized and they had highly qualified ACM instructors resident in some of the squadrons. And while the Argentine pilots did train in ACM I have seen nothing to suggest they had quite the depth, breadth and amount of experience that the Brits did. So even if they did have the chance to fight in the air they probably still would have been on the losing end much more than not.

An alternative exchange ratio would include ships sunk by the aircraft (who weren't there to contest the air, they were there to contest the landings and support of troops once they did land). So how successful were the Sea Harriers if they couldn't blunt the waves of Skyhawks that hit the ships so much that the Brits called San Carlos Sound "Bomb Alley"?

The ships extracted their own price too, they got about 15 Argentines.

Ships lost against 22 attacking Argentine aircraft downed:

HMS Glamorgan
HMS Ardent
HMS Sheffield
HMS Coventry

Small correction, the HMS Antelope was lost and not the HMS Glamorgan, which was only damaged by a land-launched Exocet.

Unbeknownst to Argentine ordies, they were stting the fuzes improperly for low level delvery so a large number of Argentine boms hit, but failed to detonate. They still caused considerable damage and loss of life. Some Brits remarked that if the bombs had been fuzed properly, they would have lost too many ships to continue operations.

This goes back to the better training that the Brits got. While the fuzes certainly were an issue, and old bombs were too, many of the the Argentines simply did not know weapons as well as the Brits. To quote Dirty Harry, "A man's got to know his limitations".

And the Brits had AEW with the Sea Kings and seaborne for SA the Argies didn't.

The Brits didn't get the their AEW Sea Kings until after the war, by just a few days, they were a quick fix to the gap that became glaringly evident in the war. A lack of AEW was a large part of the reason they usually intercepted the Argentines after they attacked the ships and not before.

 

[HeyJoe]

From what I know I would disagree a bit. While overall there might not have been that much of qualitative difference between the pilots I think the training the Brits received was much more relevant and realistic for the war they fought. They never trained for this particular scenario but from reading Harrier pilot accounts of their experience they trained quite extensively in ACM for years prior to the war, at least the Royal Navy guys did, particularly in the immediate post-Vietnam era where that training was emphasized and they had highly qualified ACM instructors resident in some of the squadrons. And while the Argentine pilots did train in ACM I have seen nothing to suggest they had quite the depth, breadth and amount of experience that the Brits did. So even if they did have the chance to fight in the air they probably still would have been on the losing end much more than not.

You missed the point. The Skyhawks were strike aircraft executing a strike mission and they did very well. It mattered not what their ACM proficiency was because they weren't there to contest the control of the air. That was the job of Mirages, which didn't have legs to get there and duke it out.

Skyhawks delivering dumb bombs against formidable AAA/SAMs and interceptors. Brave guys and not amateurs at all.

Note: their carrier was loaded for bear and steaming that way with Skyhawks armed to the teeth ready to do a carrier versus carrier war at sea (first since end of WWII), but was beset with lack of wind and strike stood down awaiting wind to pick up. When the General Belgrano was torpedoed by a Brit sub, they retired to safety not having wind to launch the armed Skyhawks.

At the time, Brits were boasting about their decision to do the Through Deck Cruisers with Harriers as right choice for Cold War versus our big decks that they thought were passe. I talked to several Brits afterwards and they lamented that decision because they lost AEW, tanking and longer legs as a result of deciding to forego catapults and arresting gear. Fear of Exocets after two ships were nailed drove their carriers further east making Harrier CAP on station time even worse. As their embarked admiral later said "It was a close run thing".

Note: the press in UK still proclaimed vistory after the Falklands and claimed the day of big decks were so over and that we were a big target. We sortied to UK for a NATO exercise in fall of 1985 when memories of Falklands were still fresh. We took on their Through Deck Crusiers and rest of NATO trying to find us along with the Soviets that were intent on finding us as well. We shook our tattletails when barely out of Norfolk as sun went down and disappeared until we started striking their ships, taking out their RAF tankers, and ships in the English Channel and GIUK gap. Press hired a helo to search for us and had to declare Mayday (possibly a ruse) so E-2 vectored them to an oilrig. They never got past wall of Tomcats the entire time.

 

[HeyJoe]

Small correction, the HMS Antelope was lost and not the HMS Glamorgan, which was only damaged by a land-launched Exocet.

I used Wikipedia as quirk and dirty reference. Here's a better summation:

1 May 1982

HMS Alacrity - damaged by near misses
HMS Arrow - strafed with cannon fire
HMS Glamorgan - Daggers of FAA Grupo 6 damaged her with bombs that did not fuze properly

4 May 1982

HMS SHEFFIELD - Super Etendard (CANA 2 Esc) fired Exocet, which inflicted significant damage and out of control fires. Taken under tow, but sank on 10 May

12 May 1982

HMS Glasgow - A-4B Skyhawk of FAA Grupo 5 dropped bomb that passed through hull requiring several day to repair

21 May 1982

HMS Antrim - Daggers of FAA Grupo 6 dropped 2 bombs that did not fuze causing damage requiring several days to repair.

HMS Broadsword - Daggers of Grupo 6 raked her with cannon fire
HMS Argonaut - Aermacchi MB.339A of CANA 1 Esc used rockets and cannon fire inflicting slight damage. Skyhawks of FAA Grupo 5 then hit her with two bombs that did not fuze requiring several days to repair.
HMS Brilliant - Daggers of Grupo 6 strafed ship inflicting slight damage
HMS ARDENT - Daggers of Grupo 6 and A-4Q Skyhawks of CANA 3 Esc scored over 5 direct hits with bombs that did not fuze, but inflicted mortal damage resulting in loss of ship the following day

23 May 1982

HMS ANTELOPE - A-4B Skyhawks of Grupo 5 scored two direct hit with bombs that did not fuze. However, attempt to render bomb safe resulted in explosion causing fire to break out and loss of ship

24 May 1982

RFA Sir Galahad - hit by unexploded bomb and put out of action
RFA Sir Lancelot - removed from action for several weeks by unxploded bomb
RFA Sir Bedivere - A-4C Skyhawks of FAA Grupo 4 caused slight damage by near (glancing blow)

25 May 1982

HMS Broadsword - A-4B Skyhawk of Grupo 5 bounced a bomb up through stern
HMS COVENTRY - sunk after being hit in same attack by three bombs.
ATLANTIC CONVEYOR - Super Etendard of CANA 2 Esc mortally damaged ship with Exocet missile (cuaght fire and later sank under tow).
Note: by large radar return Argentine pilot thought he had found his intended target, one of the Brit carriers

Argentines were so sure they got a Brit carrier that they painted a silhouette on the Super Etendard that fired the Exocet



29 May 1982

British Wye - C-130 Hercules of FAA Grupo 1 dropped bomb that bounced into sea without detonating

8 June 1982

HMS Plymouth - Daggers of FAA Grupo 6 damaged her with hits from four unexploded bombs
RFA SIR GALAHAD - A-4B Skyhawks of Grupo 5 inflicted significant damage (later sank by Brits as a war grave)
RFA Sir Tristram - rendered inoperable in same attack and abandoned (later restored to service after conflict)
LCU F4 from HMS Fearless - sA-4B Skyhawk of Grupo 5 sank LCU with single bomb

12 June 1982

HMS Glamorgan - Hit and damaged by land-based Exocet missile.

 

[pourts]

I used Wikipedia as quirk and dirty reference.

I loathe using wikipedia as a reference, but in this case all I could find on argentine a-4s was wikipedia stuff or something abour soccer. Globalsecurity.org was pretty weak on the subject.

Also, I meant slats that could be fixed down with a switch, not fixed all the time. No reference to that on the wiki page or anywhere else I could find.

 

[eddie]

What is a Typhoon most comparable to? An F-16?

 

[Flash]

You missed the point. The Skyhawks were strike aircraft executing a strike mission and they did very well. It mattered not what their ACM proficiency was because they weren't there to contest the control of the air. That was the job of Mirages, which didn't have legs to get there and duke it out.

Skyhawks delivering dumb bombs against formidable AAA/SAMs and interceptors. Brave guys and not amateurs at all.

There is no doubt the Argentine pilots were very brave and skilled, the British battle group commander readily acknowledged that (probably no higher compliment could be made), but their skill level was not the same as the Brits. I alluded to their performance of their attack aircraft with my 'limitations' quote. Much has been made, especially by the Argentines, of the faulty fuzes on their bombs. Another reason for the poor performance that is not highlighted too often was that they were simply dropping their bombs too low/not setting the fuzes right. While they had practiced attacking ships on their own Type 42 destroyers, as far as I know they had never practiced with live weapons on ship targets. That, along with their evident lack of knowledges when it came to the limitations and capabilities of their own weapons, is a glaring contrast to the Brits and their training. So while they had skill and bravery it obviously can't always make up for a lack of training and knowledges.

Don't tell that to the Argentines though, they have consistently refused to accept reality in several instances concerning the Falklands War. The most notable you already mentioned, their insistence that they hit the HMS Invincible in the last Exocet strike of the war.

With only one Exocet left (they started the war with just five air-launched Exocets) they coordinated a combined strike where air force A-4's would follow the Exocet launched by the navy Super Etendards to finish off the target hit by the missile. The two surviving A-4 pilots, two others were shot down, insisted they struck the Invincible though there is not a shred of evidence that they did. The Argentine accounts of the incident talk conspiratorially of how the Invincible stayed in the South Atlantic for months after the war and had suspicious and obvious work done to the hull before she got back to England. This is all notwithstanding the fact their were numerous reporters in the battlegroup who would have salivated at the chance to report on such an incident along with thousands of her own sailors that couldn't have kept their mouths shut if they tried. But the Argentines still insist they got her. This failure to acknowledge their own failings is indicative of how they still fail to acknowledge that their own deficiencies cost them dearly in the war too, not just faulty fuzes.

 

[The Crab]

Not forgetting that the French ponied up some Mirage III's before the Task Force went south for DACT so those Pilots were well versed in what they were up against. The French were a big help to us back then and strangled the supply of Exocets that the Argentinans were desperate for.

Some pics of the wrecks that still lie where they fell .. http://www.fightercontrol.co.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?f=17&t=5625 .. I visited a few while there including the Mirage that had been so weathered the Israeli Air Force marks from its previous life showed through. And all the destroyed Pucara's the SAS got at Pebble Island are still there too, bit surreal watching the sheep graze around them.

This PpRune thread has some of the Pilots from both sides involved in the engagements discussing them, good read .. http://www.pprune.org/aviation-history-nostalgia/297920-falklands-crash-sites.html