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

Status
Not open for further replies.
Argentina operating a Sqdn of Phantoms is probably well within budget. Whether they have any need to, well thats another question.
Yep..
As far as a role in the Falklands / Malvinas war I suspect with only a single squadron they probably would have been (mostly ?) held back for mainland air defence or maybe used to provide a fighter escort for the Super Etendards, C130 tankers and other high value assets.
 
The DACT A-4's were a long way from the Argentinian ones. Same basic airframe but numerous detail differences - more powerful engine and stripped of everything not essential to basic fighter manouvering. The weapon aiming system in the Argentinian A-4 was also very basic - the similar set-up in RNZAF service was referred to as requiring the "TLAR" method to get results, as in "That Looks About Right". The A-4 cannon installation was also not designed for use in air-to-air combat and prone to jamming if fired under increased G-loading as would be encountered in that situation. With the right equipment (e.g. the AIM-9L and APG-66 with HUD and HOTAS combo the RNZAF upgraded their A-4's with in the later 1980's) the A-4 is a respectable operational close-in dogfighter. But not in the configuration and training setup the Argentines were operating in 1982.
Are there any reasonable upgrades that could plausibly have been done to the A4's prior to 82 that would have made a significant difference during the war ?
 
No, not really. The sudden appearance of low cost, low weight avionics started to happen in the mid late 80's. Things like laser designators, FLIR etc only became available mid/late 80s, the A4 was a very tight airframe with little room to add additional equipment. The Singaporean's and New Zealand upgraded their A4's but this happened in the 90's.
 
No, not really. The sudden appearance of low cost, low weight avionics started to happen in the mid late 80's. Things like laser designators, FLIR etc only became available mid/late 80s, the A4 was a very tight airframe with little room to add additional equipment. The Singaporean's and New Zealand upgraded their A4's but this happened in the 90's.
Thanks that makes sense.
 
The Singaporean's and New Zealand upgraded their A4's but this happened in the 90's.

Mid-late 80's. For the RNZAF the upgrade was finalised design wise around 1986, with the Kahu prototypes flying in 1988, and the upgrade of the rest of the fleet completed between then and 1991. I think the Singaporean programme had a similar timeline.
 
Mid-late 80's. For the RNZAF the upgrade was finalised design wise around 1986, with the Kahu prototypes flying in 1988, and the upgrade of the rest of the fleet completed between then and 1991. I think the Singaporean programme had a similar timeline.
I suppose an interesting ASB topic could revolve around the post upgrade New Zealand A4's (along with their anti shipping optimized Mavericks) replacing a portion of the historical Argentine A4 fleet in 82...
 
I haven't read all the replies, but to my thinking, aparat from the range issue (haven't really checked the numbers, but i assume the F-4 can surely spend a lot more time in the combat zone compared to the Mirages and Neshers), argentinian F-4s of any model can apply the good old zoom and boom tactic against the Harriers and keep throwing AIM-7s and AIM-9s at them. Their missiles, even if unreliable (probably AIM-7E and Aim-9J types), surely will hit the target once in a while. Can the F-4s and A-4s carry buddy-buddy tanks? That is another possibility. In short, the Harriers, and the whole UK task force will be in a lot more trouble than OTL imo.
 
The F4 didn't really have that sort of "playtime" without the use of tankers and going low for strike or to play with the Sea Harriers would burn that up faster than ever.
 

Ak-84

Banned
The Sea Harriers, would be well fucked if they faced a Phantom. A plane with a Mach 0.9 cruise and a Mac 1.2 dash at low level. That means

i) Greatly reduces the reaction time that the Harriers faced.
ii) Higher speed means they can attack at a higher level, and still remain in envelope for a shorter time, even for the SAMs
iii) Higher speed also means that they can run away easily, there is no way the Sea Harrier's are catching such a fast plane.
iv) Possibly some good EW suites, in anycase a lot better than what the OTL Argies had.

So its a game changer. Not necessarily a war winner. But one which leads to lot more dead Poms.
 

Archibald

Banned
https://www.google.fr/search?client=firefox-b&dcr=0&biw=1366&bih=635&tbs=cdr:1,cd_min:1960,cd_max:1980&tbm=bks&ei=IfcTWu36BszJgAbK4ojQAQ&q="argentina""Carrier""phantoms"&oq="argentina""Carrier""phantoms"&gs_l=psy-ab.3...4210.4210.0.4513.1.1.0.0.0.0.75.75.1.1.0....0...1c.1.64.psy-ab..0.0.0....0.-3vmM7F1Uj8

Look at that: by 1970 Argentina really wanted Phantoms, but they were denied, and got Mirage IIIE and Skyhawks instead.
As far as I remember (from a reliable source: Le Fana de l'aviation), before picking the Mirage IIIE as its main combat aircraft circa 1968-70, Argentina air force options were as diverse as Drakkens, Phantoms, F-5s, Lightnings, and even F-100s.

As for an all-weather Skyhawk, the USN actually got one: it was called the A-7 Corsair II :p

What I mean is that by 1963 Douglas proposed an all weather Skyhawk for the VA(L) competition but Vought outsmarted them with their cut-down Crusader that become the A-7.
https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,143.0.html
There it is: a much enlarged Skyhawk with a TF-30 turbofan. Wow.

As a matter of fact, there is probably much more room for the all weather avionics in a Crusader airframe than in a Skyhawk (even more if you get ride of supersonics, aferburner, and variable incidence wing).

Now that would make an interesting whatif, Argentina A-7s. The A-7 with Sidewinders and guns fought back against NVAF Mig-17s.
 
Last edited:

Archibald

Banned
With some kind of big radar nose over the intake, maybe. I don't know why was Argentina interested by that aircraft, maybe because they had F-86s.
 

Ak-84

Banned
Could the F-100 be upgraded with new electronics to make it more efficient?
Not really. Sabres like the A-4 were way too small for effective upgrades. You needed bigger planes like the Phantom, MiG-21 and Mirage III.
 
Not really. Sabres like the A-4 were way too small for effective upgrades. You needed bigger planes like the Phantom, MiG-21 and Mirage III.

The MiG-21 and Mirage III aren't that much bigger than an A-4, and a whole size and weight class below something like an F-4.
 
New Zealand, Singapore and even Argentina would disagree with that statement.
Indeed :)

5f3745518cc1e347b82567e99f2edfe3.jpg


fc65e4eaa80db4315dcf1bbd5b98cdc6--smokers-boxing.jpg
 
Top
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top