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

[Blue cat]

All it takes is big piles of money. Even USN cast-off Phantoms were not cheap, not once maintenance and fuel costs are factored in. The Phantom had virtually no anti-shipping capacity, save iron bombs, although the ability to make MACH 2 dash into/out from a target is very attractive, it is still a vastly larger target than any ASM.

As someone already noted, the best "bank for the buck" would be more Super Entenards and LOTS of Exocets, assuming they can afford them, which is strikingly unlikely.

While I generally agree that Exocets and aircraft to launch them would have been a good choice for Argentina, I wouldn't totally discount the utility of the F4 / AGM65 combo in this context. According to Wikipedia Iranian F4's have used AGM65 against patrol boats and similar targets. I wouldn't rule out a mission kill against a frigate or a destroyer.

 

[Blue cat]

But I'm not sure the USA would sell the weapons to Latin America. IIRC, when Chile bought the F-16s in the 1990s, they were delivered without BVR missiles. Argentina bought upgraded Skyhawks in the 1990s, AFAIK again without AGM-65 nor BVR missiles (although that may also be due budget restrains on the Argentine side). IOW, even if Argentina buys F-4s from the USA, I think the deal is likely to include the aircraft and unguided munitions, but no sparrows or mavericks.

As for training for an antishipping role, the F-4s will likely go to the Air Force and anti service rivalry (which was very high back then) would preclude the air force pilots to train in anti-shipping missions.



I think a lot of posters are attributing May 1982 attitudes to NATO-Argentina relationships in the 1970s. By the time those weapons would be bought, Argentina was seen as a partner in anti-Communism warfare. Prior to Carter, the USA had no issue whatsoever with Argentina and all through the 1970s and up to before the war, the UK, France and Israel had no issue whatsoever in selling weapons to Argentina.

Yes I agree AGM65 (or other similar PGM) is likely a stretch.

Depending on the perceived air threat AIM7's might have been provided but yes I can see them not being supplied as well.

Re the training I was thinking of some intense training taking place once Argentina realized they had a real fight on their hands.

I'm just trying to outline how a F4 force might have been used

 

[Wimble Toot]

How about Israel supplying "used" F-4s in the same way that they supplied "Daggers" to the Argie FAA

Why would Israel sell its frontline combat aircraft to a country that didn't need them and couldn't afford them, and incur the wrath of the US State Department in the middle of a huge arms purchase of F-15s and F-16s?

By the time those weapons would be bought, Argentina was seen as a partner in anti-Communism warfare.

How did murdering 30,000 civilians in the 1970s defeat communism twenty years later?

If any country deserved a humiliating military defeat, Argentina was a prime candidate. Britain was happy to oblige.

In this unlikely timeline Vulcans will be used to bomb mainland Argie airbases to destroy your combat aircraft.

How many bombs dropped on Argentine soil will it take to persuade the Argentinian people than this wasn't a good idea?

 

[CalBear]

While I generally agree that Exocets and aircraft to launch them would have been a good choice for Argentina, I wouldn't totally discount the utility of the F4 / AGM65 combo in this context. According to Wikipedia Iranian F4's have used AGM65 against patrol boats and similar targets. I wouldn't rule out a mission kill against a frigate or a destroyer.

The Maverick has some potential, especially against small patrol boats, even against ships with only the Seacat SAM, but against a fleet that has ships with the Sea Dart providing longer range defense it is questionable, at best. This is as much due to the radar signature of the F4 as the 24-25km range of the Maverick put the launching aircraft comfortably in range of the Sea Dart for 50km (both into and egressing, which is critical since the 1st and 2nd Gen AMG-65 required the W/O of the launching platform to direct the weapon all the way to target) as well as the relatively small warhead of the missile itself. The AMG-65 A/B is also a clear weather weapon (the "D" variant, with IR capacity was not introduced until 1983).

 

[CalBear]

Why would Israel sell its frontline combat aircraft to a country that didn't need them and couldn't afford them, and incur the wrath of the US State Department in the middle of a huge arms purchase of F-15s and F-16s?




How did murdering 30,000 civilians in the 1970s defeat communism twenty years later?

If any country deserved a humiliating military defeat, Argentina was a prime candidate. Britain was happy to oblige.

In this unlikely timeline Vulcans will be used to bomb mainland Argie airbases to destroy your combat aircraft.

How many bombs dropped on Argentine soil will it take to persuade the Argentinian people than this wasn't a good idea?

While there are several good points here, the last thing the RAF would do is expose a Vulcan to the F4, inside ground based radar. The Phantom was designed to kill heavy bombers (the Tu-95 and cruise missile carriers like the Tu-16), a Vulcan would be meat on the table.

 

[Crowbar Six]

The Maverick has some potential, especially against small patrol boats, even against ships with only the Seacat SAM, but against a fleet that has ships with the Sea Dart providing longer range defense it is questionable, at best. This is as much due to the radar signature of the F4 as the 24-25km range of the Maverick put the launching aircraft comfortably in range of the Sea Dart for 50km (both into and egressing, which is critical since the 1st and 2nd Gen AMG-65 required the W/O of the launching platform to direct the weapon all the way to target) as well as the relatively small warhead of the missile itself. The AMG-65 A/B is also a clear weather weapon (the "D" variant, with IR capacity was not introduced until 1983).

The FAA and Navy pilots flying strike missions were often hampered by the miserable conditions and it is unlikely that on most days anyone hauling Maverick would have been able to lock onto anything as they couldn't see anything. Another reason Argentinian sortie rates were so low, they couldn't fly and even of they could they couldn't see the target to hit them in which case it is a rational decision to stay home.

 

[Blue cat]

The Maverick has some potential, especially against small patrol boats, even against ships with only the Seacat SAM, but against a fleet that has ships with the Sea Dart providing longer range defense it is questionable, at best. This is as much due to the radar signature of the F4 as the 24-25km range of the Maverick put the launching aircraft comfortably in range of the Sea Dart for 50km (both into and egressing, which is critical since the 1st and 2nd Gen AMG-65 required the W/O of the launching platform to direct the weapon all the way to target) as well as the relatively small warhead of the missile itself. The AMG-65 A/B is also a clear weather weapon (the "D" variant, with IR capacity was not introduced until 1983).

Yep good points. That being said I seem to recall that some RN warships were hit with cannon fire by Argentine aircraft so maverick hits don't seem out of the question to me.

My understanding is also that the AGM65 (with the exception of the rare laser guided version) was / is fire and forget. I'm thinking a two seater air craft such as the F4 would be handy as the back seater could presumably lock on the Mavericks while the pilot flew the aircraft, dodged SAM's, avoided flying into the ocean etc.

I'm also thinking in practice it would have been used at fairly close range after a low level run to avoid Sea Dart. (Perhaps with a quick pop up to lock on and fire the Mavericks.)

 

[Blue cat]

The FAA and Navy pilots flying strike missions were often hampered by the miserable conditions and it is unlikely that on most days anyone hauling Maverick would have been able to lock onto anything as they couldn't see anything. Another reason Argentinian sortie rates were so low, they couldn't fly and even of they could they couldn't see the target to hit them in which case it is a rational decision to stay home.

Hmm... I seem to recall they managed to hit warships with iron bombs and cannon fire. I don't see why they couldn't use Mavericks ?

 

[Wimble Toot]

Unfortunately the United Kingdom is far more vital to the defence of the West against Communism and the Warsaw Pact than a South American military dictatorship in perpetual economic decline ever will be.

It's not a question of 'Will the USA throw Argentina under a red London bus to avoid the U.K. being defeated?' but how many buses it will chuck Argentina under.

The USA loses far too much by seeing the U.K. defeated. It means the collapse of the Thatcher government and the possible election of a left wing Labour Party committed to leaving NATO.

The USA has bases in Britain which can't easily be replaced.

 

[Crowbar Six]

Hmm... I seem to recall they managed to hit warships with iron bombs and cannon fire. I don't see why they couldn't use Mavericks ?

Mainly really bad weather with intermittent and horrible visibility. The A model was notorious for losing lock over water from "glint" on good days and it couldn't see in bad weather or night at all. Maverick could be used but given the range even an F4 is not going to carry that many and stooging around on the deck is going to burn up fuel at a stupendous rate. Unless they know EXACTLY where to look or are spectacularly lucky there is no point going out.

 

[fourthmaninaboat]

Hmm... I seem to recall they managed to hit warships with iron bombs and cannon fire. I don't see why they couldn't use Mavericks ?

The British ships were hit because the Argentinian pilots were flying low, beneath both the weather and effective British radar coverage. However, this would give a pilot with Mavericks little time to lock onto a target, and greatly reduces the effective range of the missile. If they fly higher, they would run into trouble with both the weather and British air defences - Sea Dart was excellent against high-flying targets, not so good against low-flying ones.

 

[Wimble Toot]

While there are several good points here, the last thing the RAF would do is expose a Vulcan to the F4, inside ground based radar. The Phantom was designed to kill heavy bombers (the Tu-95 and cruise missile carriers like the Tu-16), a Vulcan would be meat on the table.

True enough.

Will the US government give the Royal Navy a CV that it can fly ex-Royal Navy and RAF Phantoms from, if they've stupidly armed Argentina to the teeth?

Or the Reagan White House be happy to see the U.K. militarily defeated, and humiliated on the world stage?

 

[Wimble Toot]

Hmm... I seem to recall they managed to hit warships with iron bombs and cannon fire. I don't see why they couldn't use Mavericks ?

Because the US aren't stupid, and won't sell them to Argentina?

The Argies are so broke they can't afford them, because they will double in price between ordering them and delivery?

 

[Blue cat]

The British ships were hit because the Argentinian pilots were flying low, beneath both the weather and effective British radar coverage. However, this would give a pilot with Mavericks little time to lock onto a target, and greatly reduces the effective range of the missile. If they fly higher, they would run into trouble with both the weather and British air defences - Sea Dart was excellent against high-flying targets, not so good against low-flying ones.

Sure but bear in mind the Maverick was intended to be used by A10's over the battle field in Central Europe in WW3 (amongst other uses.) I suspect it could be viable (given sufficent visibility and a willingness of the users to accept some losses) against the RN in the South Atlantic.

 

[David Flin]

Unfortunately the United Kingdom is far more vital to the defence of the West against Communism and the Warsaw Pact than a South American military dictatorship in perpetual economic decline ever will be.

It's not a question of 'Will the USA throw Argentina under a red London bus to avoid the U.K. being defeated?' but how many buses it will chuck Argentina under.

The contrasting viewpoint, expressed by Kirkpatrick, so not entirely without its supporters, was that it didn't matter what the USA did with regard to the UK, the UK was committed to NATO, couldn't back out, and if it said anything out of line, the USA would persuade it otherwise, and the UK just had to suck it up. (I don't use her words, but that was essentially the gist). By contrast, Argentina was a potentially valuable ally in the fight against Communism in South America (as witness all the elements of Operation Condor), and the USA had a lot to gain by getting Argentina on board.

It was a minority view, by some margin, but it was one that was held.

 

[Blue cat]

Mainly really bad weather with intermittent and horrible visibility. The A model was notorious for losing lock over water from "glint" on good days and it couldn't see in bad weather or night at all. Maverick could be used but given the range even an F4 is not going to carry that many and stooging around on the deck is going to burn up fuel at a stupendous rate. Unless they know EXACTLY where to look or are spectacularly lucky there is no point going out.

That may be but they were lucky (and in my view skilled enough) to reach a "bombs away" point during numerous attacks with gravity bombs against the RN. I suspect they would have been able to fire Mavericks on occasion as well.

 

[Riain]

Just on the transfer of Israeli Phantoms, it is part of the purchase conditions of US equipment that any change in end use requires US approval and for a jet fighter this would mean approval of Congress. Failure to get this approval leads to the US censure; while the censure for sinking a demilitarised, obsolete frigate as a dive wreck is a reminder to get approval for the change of end use the censure for transferring Phantoms to Argentina would be the cessation of US support arrangements and there is no way Israel would want that to happen.

 

[Crowbar Six]

The contrasting viewpoint, expressed by Kirkpatrick, so not entirely without its supporters, was that it didn't matter what the USA did with regard to the UK, the UK was committed to NATO, couldn't back out, and if it said anything out of line, the USA would persuade it otherwise, and the UK just had to suck it up. (I don't use her words, but that was essentially the gist). By contrast, Argentina was a potentially valuable ally in the fight against Communism in South America (as witness all the elements of Operation Condor), and the USA had a lot to gain by getting Argentina on board.

It was a minority view, by some margin, but it was one that was held.

Kirkpatrick was also very anti-British and was happy to use any rationalisation that fell to hand to support her views.

 

[Wimble Toot]

The contrasting viewpoint, expressed by Kirkpatrick, so not entirely without its supporters, was that it didn't matter what the USA did with regard to the UK, the UK was committed to NATO.

However, Kirkpatrick is a Reagan appointee, who won't take office until January 1981.

When between January 1981, and March 1982, will these mythical F-4s (or the spares to keep any existing ones flying, or Maverick missiles) be delivered?

When will the Carter embargo on arms sales to Argentina be lifted?

 

[David Flin]

However, Kirkpatrick is a Reagan appointee, who won't take office until January 1981.

When between January 1981, and March 1982, will these mythical F-4s (or the spares to keep any existing ones flying, or Maverick missiles) be delivered?

When will the embargo on arms sales to Argentina be lifted?

IIRC, Kissinger was a strong supporter of backing regimes in South America that opposed Communism. He was around during the Ford years. During Carter's time, it's harder.