Much more serious Falklands/ Malvianas event

[Twice_Bitten]

Hello,

what would happen, if the Junta would go insane? They had no problems letting about 10.000 people or more disappear.

There are three ways I could imagine:

1) Russian Way: All british civilians are removed from the Falklands. At the same time civilians of Argentina are flown in and given the now empty homes.

The british civilians disappear like Russia did it in the beginning, you know: Victims are killed by Squad A, Squad A lets the bodies disappear, Squad A returns to base and is killed as traitors by Squad B, Squad B lets the bodies of Squad A disappear and so on.

In the end the only Information you get is according to the lines of: "Yes, Colonel X and his 327th Transport Battalion were responsible for removing the civilians from the Islands for safekeeping. But then something went wrong. It seems one of his captains had an affair with the wife of another officer, both loved by their companies. Then the fighting started and in the end we had a mutiny on our Hands. We had to put it down violently and only after the smoke cleared, did we find out, but then all who knew where the british civilians are, were dead."

2) Like 1) but the british civilians are released outside Buenos Aires and told to march to the USA via the Transamericana. When pressed about why walking: "Colonel X has german blood. As his ancesters had to walk from Koenigsberg (Kaliningrad) to Berlin according to tu quoque british civilians may suffer the same."

3) The british civilians are used as bargaining Chips. "You can have them back alive, but we get the Islands."

 

[Riain]

In 1983 the RN sent a carrier group to Australia for an exercise that involved mock dogfights with the RAAF who were flying Mirage III's very similar to those that Argentina had. From the accounts I've seen the FAA pilots pretty much had their arses handed to them on a plate.

That is because the RAAF is equivalent to top level NATO air forces, and as such performs as well as the RN-FAA in terms of tactics, sortie generation rates, maintenance of sensor/fire control systems, pilot training and all of the other things that make the difference in combat. Marry that to the Mach 2 performance of the Mirage and the Sea Harrier gets an arse-kicking, which is probably why the RN went to Australia in the first place.

 

[Cryhavoc101]

In 1983 the RN sent a carrier group to Australia for an exercise that involved mock dogfights with the RAAF who were flying Mirage III's very similar to those that Argentina had. From the accounts I've seen the FAA pilots pretty much had their arses handed to them on a plate.

I don't know anything about this - but I would rate the RAAF far far above the Argentine Air force in terms of capability training and legacy.

As Riain says I imagine that why they went - to conduct a lesson in how to combat the Mirage III

I would imagine that a carrier BG sent in 1965 flying Phantom with AEW support would have been a different story.

FAA=RAF=RAAF=RNZAF

When the NZ gov stopped fast jets a few years back a lot of the pilots were snapped up by the RAF to fly Typhoon.

 

[Cryhavoc101]

Hello,

what would happen, if the Junta would go insane? They had no problems letting about 10.000 people or more disappear.

There are three ways I could imagine:

1) Russian Way: All british civilians are removed from the Falklands. At the same time civilians of Argentina are flown in and given the now empty homes.

The british civilians disappear like Russia did it in the beginning, you know: Victims are killed by Squad A, Squad A lets the bodies disappear, Squad A returns to base and is killed as traitors by Squad B, Squad B lets the bodies of Squad A disappear and so on.

In the end the only Information you get is according to the lines of: "Yes, Colonel X and his 327th Transport Battalion were responsible for removing the civilians from the Islands for safekeeping. But then something went wrong. It seems one of his captains had an affair with the wife of another officer, both loved by their companies. Then the fighting started and in the end we had a mutiny on our Hands. We had to put it down violently and only after the smoke cleared, did we find out, but then all who knew where the british civilians are, were dead."

2) Like 1) but the british civilians are released outside Buenos Aires and told to march to the USA via the Transamericana. When pressed about why walking: "Colonel X has german blood. As his ancesters had to walk from Koenigsberg (Kaliningrad) to Berlin according to tu quoque british civilians may suffer the same."

3) The British civilians are used as bargaining Chips. "You can have them back alive, but we get the Islands."

1) The Hague will be busy after the inevitable British Victory results in the collapse of the Junta - I'm quite surprised something like this did not happen given some of the things that happened in Argentina at the time.

2) Bit random - not sure that this would go down very well with the rest of the world or even with elements of the Argentine population. An even more enraged British population even more prepared to back the war to the knife and the knife to the hilt.

3) Pretty much what happened

 

[Riain]

I don't know anything about this - but I would rate the RAAF far far above the Argentine Air force in terms of capability training and legacy.

As Riain says I imagine that why they went - to conduct a lesson in how to combat the Mirage III

I would imagine that a carrier BG sent in 1965 flying Phantom with AEW support would have been a different story.

FAA=RAF=RAAF=RNZAF

When the NZ gov stopped fast jets a few years back a lot of the pilots were snapped up by the RAF to fly Typhoon.

Just a word on RN AEW, because it interests me. The AN/APS20E in the Gannet had a maximum range against fighters of 65 nm, so it cruised at 3000 feet about 70mn out from a picket destroyer and maybe 75mn out from the carrier to provide low level radar coverage in that direction only. Attacks coming from the direction would be detected some 140nm out from the carrier, however attacks coming from outside the 130nm detection circle of the Gannet would get the standard 30nm warning range if flying at 200 feet above sea level.

The Gannet did not conduct comprehensive air battle management like the E2 used by Israel in 1982, nor could it fly higher and detect planes at longer range without replacing the AN/APS20 radar with something like the AN/APS82 of the E1 Tracer.

 

[Delta Force]

How much more could they actually have afforded?

The F-4 was being phased out of the American military and the French might have had something used available as they were moving on to a new generation of aircraft as well, so good quality used aircraft would have been available. They would have had BAR capabilities too. If Argentina had more time to plan, they also could have pursued a Skyhawk upgrade program, as many were taking place at that time. That would have given fighter capabilities on par with the Royal Navy Harriers.

The Super Etandard would fit that description. However, since only five were delivered before the invasion and they were the only platform from which exocets could be launched, they were never employed in an air superiority role.
There was also an American proposal, back when Allende was in power in Chile, of providing Argentina with F-4 Phantoms at a discounted price. A multiple POD scenario might include that. The problem, AFAIK, however, is twofold: on one hand, dogfights would be likely to happen within SAM range of the British warships. On the other, Argentina only had rear aspect IR missiles, while the British used all aspect IR missiles (Sidewinders AIM9L) from NATO stocks, which gave them a huge advantage in air to air engagements anyway.

Could the Exocet have been certified for use by the Skyhawk and/or Mirage III fleet, or an ahistorical Phantom fleet?

In 1983 the RN sent a carrier group to Australia for an exercise that involved mock dogfights with the RAAF who were flying Mirage III's very similar to those that Argentina had. From the accounts I've seen the FAA pilots pretty much had their arses handed to them on a plate.

The problem with discussions on this topic is that the Fleet Air Arm, Federal Aviation Administration, and the Spanish acronym for the Argentinian Air Force are all FAA.

 

[Riain]

The F-4 was being phased out of the American military and the French might have had something used available as they were moving on to a new generation of aircraft as well, so good quality used aircraft would have been available. They would have had BAR capabilities too. If Argentina had more time to plan, they also could have pursued a Skyhawk upgrade program, as many were taking place at that time. That would have given fighter capabilities on par with the Royal Navy Harriers.

Could the Exocet have been certified for use by the Skyhawk and/or Mirage III fleet, or an ahistorical Phantom fleet?

The problem with discussions on this topic is that the Fleet Air Arm, Federal Aviation Administration, and the Spanish acronym for the Argentinian Air Force are all FAA.

It takes years to integrate an aircraft type into service, the Super Etenard pilots had never done any Exocet attack training before the invasion, they achieved Initial Operational Capability during April 1982. If Argentina is going to get new aircraft it will have to get them in the late 70s, but at this time Argentina was pretty much on the nose of everyone except Israel, hence the Daggers. It was only when Reagan came to power, with his greater emphasis on anti-communism, that Argentina began being courted again by the US. All of these things, not to mention the state of the Argentine economy at the time, mean that big new capabilities are a real longshot.

The Exocet requires a powerful radar that in 1982 was only available on a handful of aircraft types worldwide, and Argentina only had the 5 SEs. Fitting Exocets to other aircraft in the FAA inventory is not technically feasible without massive work that wasn't undertaken on any other Skyhawks, Daggers or Mirage IIIs, however I think it would be possible to rig up Exocets on Phantoms.

 

[Delta Force]

It takes years to integrate an aircraft type into service, the Super Etenard pilots had never done any Exocet attack training before the invasion, they achieved Initial Operational Capability during April 1982. If Argentina is going to get new aircraft it will have to get them in the late 70s, but at this time Argentina was pretty much on the nose of everyone except Israel, hence the Daggers. It was only when Reagan came to power, with his greater emphasis on anti-communism, that Argentina began being courted again by the US. All of these things, not to mention the state of the Argentine economy at the time, mean that big new capabilities are a real longshot.

True, Carter probably isn't going to be selling even used equipment to Argentina. However, French foreign policy has always had an element of realpolitik to it, so I'm not sure the human rights abuses of the Argentinian government would necessarily be a deal breaker.

The Exocet requires a powerful radar that in 1982 was only available on a handful of aircraft types worldwide, and Argentina only had the 5 SEs. Fitting Exocets to other aircraft in the FAA inventory is not technically feasible without massive work that wasn't undertaken on any other Skyhawks, Daggers or Mirage IIIs, however I think it would be possible to rig up Exocets on Phantoms.

I didn't know that. I thought it was more an issue of certification, compatibility/wiring, hardware modifications, and training.

 

[juanml82]

Of course Thatcher wasn't a dictator technically, although given the chance.. I'm not sure about the logistics of it, I was just thinking that it's feasible given the tensions at the time and historic issues between them. If the Brits did get into Argentina and took the higher ground, with ranged weaponry could they do some damage to Argentina? The junta was already unpopular, and as said before the Falklands was merely a 'distraction'. If it backfired to the extent Argentina was being attacked would the Argentines face a popular revolt and surrender?

I'm not sure I understand the bolded part. Argentina is about 2.7 million km2.
They could certainly do a lot of damage with strike fighters based in Chile. As for public reaction, I have no idea. Plus, it also depends what targets the British are choosing. The most likely targets would be, initially, airbases. And bombing of airbases won't have the same political impact that bombing Buenos Aires.

It takes years to integrate an aircraft type into service, the Super Etenard pilots had never done any Exocet attack training before the invasion, they achieved Initial Operational Capability during April 1982. If Argentina is going to get new aircraft it will have to get them in the late 70s, but at this time Argentina was pretty much on the nose of everyone except Israel, hence the Daggers. It was only when Reagan came to power, with his greater emphasis on anti-communism, that Argentina began being courted again by the US. All of these things, not to mention the state of the Argentine economy at the time, mean that big new capabilities are a real longshot.

The Exocet requires a powerful radar that in 1982 was only available on a handful of aircraft types worldwide, and Argentina only had the 5 SEs. Fitting Exocets to other aircraft in the FAA inventory is not technically feasible without massive work that wasn't undertaken on any other Skyhawks, Daggers or Mirage IIIs, however I think it would be possible to rig up Exocets on Phantoms.

Argentina was buying British, French and Israeli equipment in OTL. Skyhawks upgrades might not be possible as those go through the Carter administration, though.
More that aircraft (although more modern fighters with HUD would certainly improve the Argentine situation) I think modern all aspect engagement missiles are key. Even if Argentina had Phantoms equipped with AIM-9B, the British wouldn't need to get behind the Argentine Phantoms to fire (unlike these ATL Argentine Phantoms) while they would also be flying under the RN sam envelope.
I think Argentina's best chance do deal with the Harriers is to find and hit the carriers early on, rather than trying to take them on the air.

As for the Australian Mirage IIIs, Argentine Mirages III didn't have the range to reach the islands unless they've stayed at high altitudes (which meant they weren't strike aircraft and could be ignored). The Israeli built ones had the range - sort of. Argentine pilots only had about five minutes of loiter time. And, even if Argentina increased the amount of tankers (The Argentine Air Force only had two), the Mirages lacked aerial refueling.

 

[Riain]

snip.........
Argentina was buying British, French and Israeli equipment in OTL. Skyhawks upgrades might not be possible as those go through the Carter administration, though.
More that aircraft (although more modern fighters with HUD would certainly improve the Argentine situation) I think modern all aspect engagement missiles are key. Even if Argentina had Phantoms equipped with AIM-9B, the British wouldn't need to get behind the Argentine Phantoms to fire (unlike these ATL Argentine Phantoms) while they would also be flying under the RN sam envelope.
I think Argentina's best chance do deal with the Harriers is to find and hit the carriers early on, rather than trying to take them on the air.

As for the Australian Mirage IIIs, Argentine Mirages III didn't have the range to reach the islands unless they've stayed at high altitudes (which meant they weren't strike aircraft and could be ignored). The Israeli built ones had the range - sort of. Argentine pilots only had about five minutes of loiter time. And, even if Argentina increased the amount of tankers (The Argentine Air Force only had two), the Mirages lacked aerial refueling.

France and Israel were the only countries to supply Argentina with fast jets in the 70s and 80s, Britain provided some Canberras in 1970 and the US stopped supplying aircraft in the late 60s after the Skyhawks, Trackers and Neptunes.

Sinking aircraft carriers is easier said than done, especially given the rudimentary means with which Argentina had to locate the RN CBG. Even if it did locate the CBG the range at which a strike would have to be undertaken would mean very few aircraft could participate and many these few would be shot down.

As for Mirages with IFR, it can and has been done in the past and given the supply situation and financial means at Argentina's disposal fitting an IFR probe to Mirages strikes me as much more likely than obtaining a Phantom force.

 

[MattII]

I've read that one problem facing the Argies was that they couldn't deploy their best aircraft forward because the Port Stanley Airport's runway was too short, and couldn't be lengthened because they didn't want to lose any more ships to HMS Conqueror. Maybe the situation could escalate if someone figured out ahead of the invasion that they might need to lengthen the runway, and so get the stuff shipped out early.

 

[Riain]

Its been a while but I recall that they added 500' of PSP to the runway and I think they had a mobile arrestor system but they either didn't send it or sent it and didn't install it.

I don't think Mirages had an arrestor hook, so the runway needs to be extended out to 5000' or more from the existing 4100' so the Argies need to be ready with at least 1000' of PSP runway. If the runway was long enough Port Stanley could be a FOB for Mirages with the OTL return leg's fuel allocation instead being used for loiter and afterburner over the islands and landing at Port Stanley, with the return mission done in reverse.

 

[juanml82]

France and Israel were the only countries to supply Argentina with fast jets in the 70s and 80s, Britain provided some Canberras in 1970 and the US stopped supplying aircraft in the late 60s after the Skyhawks, Trackers and Neptunes.

Sinking aircraft carriers is easier said than done, especially given the rudimentary means with which Argentina had to locate the RN CBG. Even if it did locate the CBG the range at which a strike would have to be undertaken would mean very few aircraft could participate and many these few would be shot down.

As for Mirages with IFR, it can and has been done in the past and given the supply situation and financial means at Argentina's disposal fitting an IFR probe to Mirages strikes me as much more likely than obtaining a Phantom force.

The HMS Invicible task force was found on May 2nd. It wasn't attacked because the Argentine carrier couldn't launch a strike package that far. I'm not sure why the Air Force fighters didn't attack - maybe the were still recovering the strike packages from early that same day?
HMS Sheffield was some 20-30 km away from HMS Hermes when she was sunk.

I've read that one problem facing the Argies was that they couldn't deploy their best aircraft forward because the Port Stanley Airport's runway was too short, and couldn't be lengthened because they didn't want to lose any more ships to HMS Conqueror. Maybe the situation could escalate if someone figured out ahead of the invasion that they might need to lengthen the runway, and so get the stuff shipped out early.

Certainly.

 

[Riain]

The HMS Invicible task force was found on May 2nd. It wasn't attacked because the Argentine carrier couldn't launch a strike package that far. I'm not sure why the Air Force fighters didn't attack - maybe the were still recovering the strike packages from early that same day?
HMS Sheffield was some 20-30 km away from HMS Hermes when she was sunk.......................

IIRC the 25 De Mayo couldn't launch on May 2 because of lack of wind, May 3 due to too much wind and then went back to port due to the Belgrano incident.

However the 25 de Mayo carried 8 Skyhawks, early A4B/C models carrying iron bombs and rockets. These would have to run the gauntlet of 20 800 & 801 sqn Sea Harriers, several escorts including 3 Type 42 and 2 Type 22 as well as the Sea Darts on Invincible herself and then get good hits and bomb detonations.

 

[Mumbles]

IIRC the 25 De Mayo couldn't launch on May 2 because of lack of wind, May 3 due to too much wind and then went back to port due to the Belgrano incident.

However the 25 de Mayo carried 8 Skyhawks, early A4B/C models carrying iron bombs and rockets. These would have to run the gauntlet of 20 800 & 801 sqn Sea Harriers, several escorts including 3 Type 42 and 2 Type 22 as well as the Sea Darts on Invincible herself and then get good hits and bomb detonations.

And they would probably trade all of them for taking out or mission killing Hermes or Invincible. If the Task Force had been reduced to a single operational carrier the campaign was basically over.

 

[Mumbles]

Its been a while but I recall that they added 500' of PSP to the runway and I think they had a mobile arrestor system but they either didn't send it or sent it and didn't install it.

I don't think Mirages had an arrestor hook, so the runway needs to be extended out to 5000' or more from the existing 4100' so the Argies need to be ready with at least 1000' of PSP runway. If the runway was long enough Port Stanley could be a FOB for Mirages with the OTL return leg's fuel allocation instead being used for loiter and afterburner over the islands and landing at Port Stanley, with the return mission done in reverse.

One Mirage tried force landing at Stanley only to be shot down by it's own AAA. Taking off again might have been an issue of that hadn't happened but an arrestor system may not have been required.

 

[Mumbles]

the British can contact the local population over short wave radio, tell them to leave areas near Argentine garrison,

Unlikely. At Goose Green the locals had no freedom of movement once trouble looked afoot, and they were limited in Port Stanley as well. Any hint of a message like the one described and you can bet the locals are going to be rounded up and made to stay put.

 

[Mumbles]

FAA=RAF=RAAF=RNZAF

When the NZ gov stopped fast jets a few years back a lot of the pilots were snapped up by the RAF to fly Typhoon.

Off topic, but a few of the RNZAF fast jet guys went to the RAAF as well. Jason Easthope seen in the clip below is one of them, who was also responsible for the best A-4 display I ever saw (when you see them all together post sortie you can see that Easthope is the perfect size for an A-4 Knuck). Ford vs Holden is one thing, but if Van Gisbergen had been in the back of Easthope's jet it would have been Kiwi vs Aussie too

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LiJFaWzJneg

 

[Mumbles]

In 1983 the RN sent a carrier group to Australia for an exercise that involved mock dogfights with the RAAF who were flying Mirage III's very similar to those that Argentina had. From the accounts I've seen the FAA pilots pretty much had their arses handed to them on a plate.

They visited NZ on the same trip, and from all accounts the RNZAF A-4's were a handful for them as well. How your pilots are trained counts almost as much as what they are flying. The Argentine pilots were skilled flyers, but lacking tactical nous, compounded by operating at the limit of their range.

 

[Riain]

And they would probably trade all of them for taking out or mission killing Hermes or Invincible. If the Task Force had been reduced to a single operational carrier the campaign was basically over.

I doubt they could have even landed a single bomb on a carrier. The British were deployed specifically against a carrier attack after locating the 25 de Mayo group.