Also, depending on when, Canada may well refuse any offers from Argentina for puchasing surplus equipment.
You are right! I thought the Brazilians had acquired A4Bs/Cs way back when. FAAs A-4s replaced F9Fs they had operated before that. I thought they had been replaced a few years earlier than they were. Those were upgraded A4Bs.That's my point, the US wouldn't sell F-4s to anyone in South America until the late 80's, IMO.
EDIT: bsmart, the Brazilian A-4s were acquired much later(1998), being former Kuwaiti aircraft; also, the FAA received A-4s before the Argentinian Navy did.
What about buying Blackburn Buccaneer from GB perfectly subsonic and with a good range even if they are "bombers" not "fighters"?
Or what would be the first ASMs they could get earlier and in larger numbers than OTL?
The Jaguar M never made it into production so I don't see Argentina funding the build. Besides both the A-7 and the Jaguar are a step newer than the aircraft that Argentina had including the Etendard. I don't think Argentina could afford them even if someone were to sell them to them.Their are two very interesting aircraft that could have been purchased replacing the Super Entard or Daggers . They may also be intended to replace the A-4 Skyhawks . The two Aircraft are the A-7D Corsair11 or the A-7E variant and the Sepecat Jaguar . The carrier version of the Jaguar would be a hard sell but as a strike fighter it's fairly good . Supersonic , good range excellent flight characteristics . etc . A-7 E would likely not occur but I can see the French and British happily selling 2 dozen Jaguar's . The Jaguar is a bit heavier then the A-4 by several tons and able to launch with a war load of at least 2 ton at same weight as Entard but has nearly 4,000 lb more thrust and higher speed etc . Similar range . Might be a winner . Very good low down , able to have same radar as a Super Entard etc .
If Argentina is buying anything British it should be Harriers.What about buying Blackburn Buccaneer from GB perfectly subsonic and with a good range even if they are "bombers" not "fighters?
Didn't the Sea Harrier enter service in the very late '70s/early 80s? I don't see the Air Force interested in them unless they counted on their airbases to be bombed (idk, a stronger Chilean Air Force) and the Navy would have them too late for the Falklands (well, they wouldn't have them). On top, the Sea Harrier didn't have any anti-ship missile until the mid 1980s, so the Super Etandard-Exocet combo would look like a better choice for the Navy.If Argentina is buying anything British it should be Harriers.
Not sure that say 16 Buccaneer like SA in 1965 would not be a handful as they could buddy refuel and anyway have more range than OTL Super Étendard, just need to give them some ASMs as well.....If Argentina is buying anything British it should be Harriers.
But those would be for the Air Force, and why would the Argentine air force prefer Harrier GRs over the Mirages?Not SHAR, but Harrier GRs. Like the Skyhawk and F-5 has no radar, but can operate from small bases.
The OP gives us the navy’s A-4s, so swap those for HarriersBut those would be for the Air Force, and why would the Argentine air force prefer Harrier GRs over the Mirages?
But then you need the SHARs for the Navy, and those entered service in 1978. By that time, the Argentine Navy already has A-4s and is looking for something better. While the Sea Harrier is a better dogfighter (at the very least, it has HUDs, which the Navy's A-4s lacked), it has no anti-ship capability other than regular bombs, so at the point in time, the Argentine Navy would still pick the Super Etandard. Or was the first (non SHAR) carrier capable?The OP gives us the navy’s A-4s, so swap those for Harriers
Honestly, if we're looking at better procurement options for the Argentine military for use during the Falklands war, I think the only best option than in OTL are:I agree. Okay, Harrier is out.
IIRC Northrop was rather angry about that.Sure, we sold them to Venezuela, Turkey, etc.
If we are still talking about CF-5s the Canadians would still need U.S. approval of the acquiring nation since they were built under license.