PC/WI: Argentina fields F-4 and all weather A-4s in '82?

[WILDGEESE]

Just for arguments sake, lets say the Argentine economy performs better etc etc and the Argentine FAA get to field Phantoms instead of Daggers and their complement of A-4 Skyhawks are improved with all weather capability.

How better would the Argie FAA perform against UK forces?

Would they be war winning assets?

What type of losses are the UK forces expected to suffer?

Regards filers

 

[Riain]

During the 6 weeks of fighting from when the Task Force arrived to the surrender the British, who cycled 28 sea harriers and 14 GR3s through the theatre and peaked at 31 embarked jets on 22 May, flew over 1400 sorties.

In contrast the Argentine airforce with close to 80 fast jets capable of reaching the Falklands flew about 500 sorties.

With that mismatch in sortie generation it wouldn't really matter what the Argentines flew, they just couldn't match the work rate of the British and would be beaten by sheer number of sorties.

 

[Crowbar Six]

The Argentinians would likely have gotten either ex USAF F4C or ex USN F4B which would have been old and somewhat tired, they were never getting the F4E or later USN variants and even then would not likely to have been able to afford that many. I don't think anyone had an effective all weather package for the A4, they didn't have much space for additional equipment and there weren't any lightweight FLIR available at the time. About the only thing they could add would be a more modern INS which would improve navigation but that's all. The points above re sortie rates reflect the lack of logistics and qualified ground crew, there was also the issue that the FAA had poor information on location of RN forces as their recon assets were limited and kept getting shot down, you can't hit what you can't find.

The effectiveness of F4 Phantoms is also limited as the likely Sparrow missile available would have been the AIM7E which did not do well in Vietnam and the AIM 9 version would have been B which was not a very effective missile. Once they got inside the effective missile range of the Sea Harrier with AIM 9L and 30mm Aden the exchange rate would have been very much on the RN side.

 

[Zheng He]

The Argentinians would likely have gotten either ex USAF F4C or ex USN F4B which would have been old and somewhat tired, they were never getting the F4E or later USN variants and even then would not likely to have been able to afford that many . The points above re sortie rates reflect the lack of logistics and qualified ground crew, there was also the issue that the FAA had poor information on location of RN forces as their recon assets were limited and kept getting shot down, you can't hit what you can't find.

The effectiveness of F4 Phantoms is also limited as the likely Sparrow missile available would have been the AIM7E which did not do well in Vietnam and the AIM 9 version would have been B which was not a very effective missile. Once they got inside the effective missile range of the Sea Harrier with AIM 9L and 30mm Aden the exchange rate would have been very much on the RN side.

Especially if they got ex-USN F-4s of any type or any ex-USAF Cs or Ds because none of those had guns.

Ironically the best of F-4s for the Argies would have been as anti-ship missile shooters. They've got the speed and the load carrying capacity. Not sure if they could jury rig the Exocets to fire from those or not.

 

[weasel_airlift]

Especially if they got ex-USN F-4s of any type or any ex-USAF Cs or Ds because none of those had guns.

Ironically the best of F-4s for the Argies would have been as anti-ship missile shooters. They've got the speed and the load carrying capacity. Not sure if they could jury rig the Exocets to fire from those or not.

Do they need to? If they have F-4, wouldn't they have an anti-ship missile that would be usable without that? More importantly, can the ground crews learn that every weapon must be fused?

 

[Wimble Toot]

President Carter would have to lift the arms embargo on Argentina for this to happen

The Super Etendard was more advanced and more capable then any F-4.

How many 1970s F-4s were equipped to launch anti-ship missiles?

They'd be better off with Mirage F1s, but all they could afford were Israeli cast-off Neshers.

I don't think the Israelis would sell them any more advanced aircraft or weaponry without incurring the wrath of the State Department.

The French and the British at the time would sell virtually anything to anyone.

Jaguars? Buccaneers?

 

[Finbarr the Fair]

I think a more capable Argentine air force would make Britain's task more difficult. The problem is that it requires an improvement in both hardware and soft factors, the education of technicians etc.

IF these PODs require a better performing Argentine economy, as has been suggested, it may butterfly away the need for the Junta to launch the invasion. Which was aimed at trumping discontent with the economic problems by appealing to nationalism.

 

[sendô]

As others have pointed out, Argentina didn't lose the Falklands War due to the quality of it's aircraft, but a number of other factors - such as the aircraft operating at extreme range and not having the time on station to engage the Harriers, who generally waited for the Argies to turn tail for home and then shot them down.

Unless you can get enough extra anti ship aircraft and somehow take out a carrier or a transport, the strategic situation isn't changing, and once the Marines land there's only one ending.

 

[Wimble Toot]

And if you murder and terrorise all the intelligent people in your country because of their political beliefs, it's unlikely your economy will ever improve.

 

[eltf177]

How many 1970s F-4s were equipped to launch anti-ship missiles?

AFAIK it was never fitted with Harpoon, but it could carry laser-guided bombs. The Super Entendard was a better anti-ship platform.

Not sure if they could jury rig the Exocets to fire from those or not.

The Exocet (indeed most anti-ship missiles) requires a dedicated platform with comparable electronics, you can't jury-rig something up and hope it will work...

 

[Ak-84]

During the 6 weeks of fighting from when the Task Force arrived to the surrender the British, who cycled 28 sea harriers and 14 GR3s through the theatre and peaked at 31 embarked jets on 22 May, flew over 1400 sorties.

In contrast the Argentine airforce with close to 80 fast jets capable of reaching the Falklands flew about 500 sorties.

With that mismatch in sortie generation it wouldn't really matter what the Argentines flew, they just couldn't match the work rate of the British and would be beaten by sheer number of sorties.

The closest mainland base to the Falklands was the Rio Grande at 700 KM. HMS Invincible was IIRC never more than 370km away. A signifcant number of UK sorties were CAP to protect the carriers. 500 sorties are the number employed to engage the enemy in the Falklands islands zone. So a comparison can be made.

The best defination I have read of the Falklands was that the "Argentine Army was bad, the Navy was worse and the Air Force.......came very close to winning the war on its own". In OTL a few more bombs detoinating, and we'd be talking of the Great Argentine Victory in the Malvinas. With Phntoms and their low level attack capability and PGM's, well the game changes a lot. Maybe Invincble is sent away even further then OTL. Out of range.

 

[Wimble Toot]

The Argentinians had supersonic Mirages and Daggers.

The Sea Harrier pilots just said 'yes, it just meant they got here quicker for us to shoot them down'

It would be no different if the Armada and Air Force were in Phantoms.

The RAF pilots would have lots of training flying DACT against Phantoms.

The RAF had them, too

 

[jsb]

The Argentinians had supersonic Mirages and Daggers.

How many of them could actually go supersonic and have the fuel to get home? I would have thought Phantoms would have a bit more fuel and therefore could actually use afterburners at least for a short attack run? Even better could you buy cheap buddy refueling pods from the USN at the same time?

can the ground crews learn that every weapon must be fused?

No historically this has happened to lots of people the only way to stop and make stuff work is to test it and that's just far to expensive.....

 

[Ak-84]

The FAA pilots struggled against low level attack’s from A4s. How would they have done against Phantoms, a plane with matchless low level attack capabilities.

 

[Wimble Toot]

Badly.

An AIM-9L, a Rapier, a Sea Dart and a Sea Wolf is not fussy about the type of aircraft it destroys

Harriers flew against RAFG Phantoms frequently.

Giving the Argies F-4s reduces their capabilities, it doesn't enhance them.

 

[Wimble Toot]

The FAA pilots struggled against low level attack’s from A4s.

[Citation Needed]

Not as badly as the Argies did. How many Skyhawks shot down Sea Harriers, or Harrier GR3s, or indeed anything?

 

[weasel_airlift]

No historically this has happened to lots of people the only way to stop and make stuff work is to test it and that's just far to expensive.....

My understanding is that some of the iron bombs that struck and failed to explode never had their fuses mounted, so sloppy ground crew

 

[David Flin]

The FAA pilots struggled against low level attack’s from A4s. How would they have done against Phantoms, a plane with matchless low level attack capabilities.

In a training exercise with US forces, US Phantoms attempted to approach Invincible. During the course of the exercise, the net result was a notional 22 Phantoms down for the loss of zero Harriers.

(Source, Lt Cdr Ward).

My first guess, OK.

 

[Wimble Toot]

No historically this has happened to lots of people the only way to stop and make stuff work is to test it and that's just far to expensive.....

And military dictatorships don't like intelligent people pointing out their failures. They make the Generals and Admirals feel inferior...and homicidal.

 

[Ak-84]

[Citation Needed]

Not as badly as the Argies did. How many Skyhawks shot down Sea Harriers, or Harrier GR3s, or indeed anything?

The Skyhawk had little to no air to air capability, so not exactly relevant.

In a training exercise with US forces, US Phantoms attempted to approach Invincible. During the course of the exercise, the net result was a notional 22 Phantoms down for the loss of zero Harriers.

(Source, Lt Cdr Ward).

My first guess, OK.

In training exercises, USN and RN warships destroyed most of the hypothetical incoming AShM's. Even for salvos of dozens at a time. In real life during the Falklands, 4 out of 6 missiles launched hit. History is replete with systems performing spectacularly in exercises and pretty poorly in combat. This is especially true of Anti-Air platforms. Even then, Phantoms did well against thicker and more integrated Air Defences in Vietnam and the '73 War.