Alternative fighter for Argentine AF & Navy during Falklands war.

[F.L.]

What would have been the impact on the dogfights FAA vs Sea Harriers FRS.1 if Argentina had disposed MiG-21MF/bis & MiG-23MS/MF with R-13M/R-60 during the air war over Falklands.
Shar vs MiG-21/
Shar vs MiG-23/
And also with other fighters.
The purpose of this thread is not to engage in impossible speculation, but to consider the impact that MiGs or other fighters could have had on the air war over the Falkland Islands.

 

[F.L.]

The third-gen MiG-21 could operate with two or four R-60 and three drop tanks.
What would have been its combat radius thus equipped ?
And for MiG-23 ?

 

[Archibald]

It has even less range than a Mirage III and not much better avionics or even poorer. Not even sure it could even reach the islands, the Mirages were already at the end of their rope...
Can't see what would change. SHAR pilots did not cared about being subsonic as long as they could refuse the fight at high altitude. And they could afford to refuse it, as they had a carrier deck nearby to refuel; when Mirages or MiGs could not wait, even at high altitude, because range was too short. The supersonic jets would have to drop down to medium - low to engage, and there they would no longer be supersonic, plus range was too short.

 

[F.L.]

And with three drop tanks ?
The MiG-21bis have R-60s that are better than the R-530, which was the only missile of a good part of the Argentine Mirage III fleet.
At the beginning of the conflict, before the Mirage IIIs were withdrawn from combat to defend the continent of possible Vulcan raids, Shar's pilots thought they could not continue to fight them for long without losses.
The MiG-21MF/bis having better missile than the IIIs, and, seems to me being more maneuverable, it could have had an advantage.

 

[Yellow Palace]

The key question is, I think, why do the Argentinians have MiGs? If Argentina is in a political situation where it's purchasing arms from the USSR, the whole Falklands situation will be looked at in a very different light.

 

[TomS]

The MiG-21bis have R-60s that are better than the R-530, which was the only missile of a good part of the Argentine Mirage III fleet.

Err, Pretty sure the Mirage IIIs that flew to the Falklands mostly had R550 Magic, and the R530-only aircraft were mostly reserved for mainland defense missions (only a couple of R530 missions over the islands are known to have been flown). So the relevant comparison is R550 versus R-60. Neither R-60 nor Magic are all-aspect homing missiles, which means the both need to maneuver into the rear quarter of the Sea Harriers for an effective engagement. That generally proved to be beyond the ability of Argentine Mirages, even with effective ground controllers, thanks to being at the extreme edge of their range. I don't see the MiGs being any better at this.

 

[paralay]

AV-8B Harrier II is 2.5 times better against MiG-23ML, 1.9 times better against MiG-21, but only in close air combat. The MiG-21 does not have the ability to conduct long-range air combat

 

[timmymagic]

At the beginning of the conflict, before the Mirage IIIs were withdrawn from combat to defend the continent of possible Vulcan raids, Shar's pilots thought they could not continue to fight them for long without losses.

I'm afraid this is a myth, but one that has been around for so long its repeated everywhere.

The reason the Mirage III were withdrawn was because without AAR capability they were of very limited utility, their limited fuel meant they had no real chance to escort strikes or engage in combat, particularly as the Argentines had a tiny stockpile of compatible supersonic drop tanks (the 2 Mirage III dropping theirs in the first 'combat' with SHAR, which were mistaken as missiles by the SHAR pilots, was a big proportion of the available tanks...). As a result they were to all intents useless and were withdrawn to northern bases to free up ramp space at the southern bases for fighter bombers. A couple did loiter around to provide local air defence for the airfields but that was it.

To understand why ramp space was so important just go and have a look at the airfields the Argentinian's flew strikes from on satellite images on Google Earth. Even with 40 years of extra work on some strips they barely warrant the title of regional airstrip...let alone airbase.

 

[kaiserd]

If you had Argentina equipped with MIG-21s and MIG-23s and they invaded UK controlled Falklands islands then the geo-political landscape is so completely different than “how do they do against the Sea Harrier” becomes a rather moot point.

For this scenario to play out Argentina probably has to be closely in the political orbit of the USSR and will likely have faced years of US hostility and such aggressive military action in this context would arguably trigger US direct military intervention (US carrier task force and all that entails, with likely escalation to follow). This theoretical Argentina would know this. so they probably don’t risk any of this by invading at all.

So this scenario basically collapses under the weight of its own improbability.

So maybe another way at getting at whatever you want to discuss?

 

[tomo pauk]

What would have been the impact on the dogfights FAA vs Sea Harriers if Argentina had disposed MiG-21MF/bis with R-60 & MiG-23MS/MF with R-13M during the air war over Falklands.
Shar vs MiG-21/
Shar vs MiG-23/
MiGs only equiped with IR R-13M & R-60s. (no unreliable R-3S)

If the supersonics can force the energy fight upon the Harriers, they can win. But same should hold true with Mirages. IOW - without the change of factors that are 'removed' from the aircraft type, Argentinians still loose.

AV-8B Harrier II is 2.5 times better against MiG-23ML, 1.9 times better against MiG-21, but only in close air combat. The MiG-21 does not have the ability to conduct long-range air combat

RN used the Sea Harriers, not AV-8Bs. Yes, the ability of MiG-21 to do long range air combat is sorely lacking.
BTW - who measured these ratios, and were the measurements peer-reviewed?

So maybe another way at getting at whatever you want to discuss?

Are you a moderator here?

 

[alejandrogrossi]

The MiG-21bis have R-60s that are better than the R-530, which was the only missile of a good part of the Argentine Mirage III fleet.

Err, Pretty sure the Mirage IIIs that flew to the Falklands mostly had R550 Magic, and the R530-only aircraft were mostly reserved for mainland defense missions (only a couple of R530 missions over the islands are known to have been flown). So the relevant comparison is R550 versus R-60. Neither R-60 nor Magic are all-aspect homing missiles, which means the both need to maneuver into the rear quarter of the Sea Harriers for an effective engagement. That generally proved to be beyond the ability of Argentine Mirages, even with effective ground controllers, thanks to being at the extreme edge of their range. I don't see the MiGs being any better at this.

F.L.
We buy to batch of M-III
The frist come with 3 underwing pylon (2xtanks and 1 R350)
the second come with 5 (2x tanks and 2 r550

The photo say. Mirage IIIEA I-016 ready for a combat sortie. configuration 1 mata 350 and 2 Marta 550. The last ones received in the second half of April. Date of photo Rio gallegos May 1982

 

[alejandrogrossi]

At the beginning of the conflict, before the Mirage IIIs were withdrawn from combat to defend the continent of possible Vulcan raids, Shar's pilots thought they could not continue to fight them for long without losses.

I'm afraid this is a myth, but one that has been around for so long its repeated everywhere.

The reason the Mirage III were withdrawn was because without AAR capability they were of very limited utility, their limited fuel meant they had no real chance to escort strikes or engage in combat, particularly as the Argentines had a tiny stockpile of compatible supersonic drop tanks (the 2 Mirage III dropping theirs in the first 'combat' with SHAR, which were mistaken as missiles by the SHAR pilots, was a big proportion of the available tanks...). As a result they were to all intents useless and were withdrawn to northern bases to free up ramp space at the southern bases for fighter bombers. A couple did loiter around to provide local air defence for the airfields but that was it.

To understand why ramp space was so important just go and have a look at the airfields the Argentinian's flew strikes from on satellite images on Google Earth. Even with 40 years of extra work on some strips they barely warrant the title of regional airstrip...let alone airbase.

Sorry that its in kilometers

 

[F.L.]

Argentina probably has to be closely in the political orbit of the USSR.

Peru bought Su-22 without being in the orbit of the USSR. It's just that in their search for fighter aircraft at that time, they were not satisfied with American, French and British proposals. They then turned to the USSR.
The scenario could have been similar for Argentina. But that's not the point. The question is how MiG-21/23s would have performed against Shar in an environment like the Falklands war.
The political aspect, although important, is secondary for me at present.

 

[F.L.]

Furthermore, being more rustic and solid than the Mirage IIIs, the Fishbeds could have operated from BAM Malvinas ?
And the variable geometry wings of the Flogger would have allowed it to use short runways ?

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

MiG-21 is a serviceable enough short range day fighter, but has no advantage over Mirage III in this scenario. R-13M and R-60 is no advance over R550 so it doesn't really even up the odds against the SHAR with AIM-9L, even assuming you find some way to get the MiG-21s to the Falklands.

 

[timmymagic]

Sorry that its in kilometers

Exactly...and that illustrates my point...Santa Cruz being a case in point...none of these would even be classed as relief landing fields in the UK...

Santa Cruz Province · Argentina

Argentina

www.google.com

 

[datafuser]

From a CIA report in 1988.

https://www.cia.gov/readingroom/docs/CIA-RDP04T00990R000100620001-2.pdf

 

[CV12Hornet]

The MiG-23 is also a fairly short-ranged fighter, and restricted to R-60s and K-13s it has to fight in close, a combat regime that was never the Flogger's strong suit.

 

[F.L.]

Would the extraordinary energy and power of the MiG-23 have been an advantage against the Shar in hit & run combat ?
And if the MiG-23 had disposed R-24, medium range missile, how could the Shar have managed to combat them ?
Would this have led to a deployment of Phantoms ?

In any case, the big question is :
What is the range of the MiG-21MF/bis with three drop tanks and 4 R-60 ?
Normally, with a standard armament, the MiG-23 has a combat range of 1500km and 2550km with 3 additional 800l tanks.
It is therefore fully capable of reaching the Falklands.

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

1800km ferry range with 3 490l drop tanks and no R-60.

That sound you can hear is the dead horse you are flogging.

 

[F.L.]

1800km ferry range with 3 490l drop tanks and no R-60.

So, the MiG-21MF/bis would not have been able to operate effectively over the Falklands.
The Mirage III/V family was adapted to the situation and Fishbeds would have been useless.
What the Argentines needed was more combat drop tanks and a refueling capability similar to the Mirage III/V Rose.
No 21s.
edited : Except that, thanks to their ability to use unprepared runways and resist FOD, the Fishbed could have operated from BAM Malvinas.

 

[datafuser]

Would the extraordinary energy and power of the MiG-23 have been an advantage against the Shar in hit & run combat ?
And if the MiG-23 had disposed R-24, medium range missile, how could the Shar have managed to combat them ?
Would this have led to a deployment of Phantoms ?

I do not know if the MiG-23 had had endurance to fight over the Falklands, but over where it could, the MiG-23 would have used a tactics described below in a 1984 book Chinese Defence Policy. This part was written by Bill Sweetman.




In fact the Argentine Mirages might have tried to do hit-and-run against Sea Harriers on 1 May 1982, but they were caught by AIM-9Ls when they tried to run away, AFAIK.

They approached head-on, passed each other, and Sea Harriers turned around to get behind Mirages.

 

[Manuducati]

On a quick note, the MiG-23 can use three external fuel tanks only with the wings fully extended, as the pylons are not designed to swivel (as on Su-24, F-111 or Tornado).
It means both the tanks and the pylons must be jettisoned every time the MiG-23 encounters anything more threatening than a maritime patrol aircraft or a chopper. Quite an expensive technique.

 

[F.L.]

On a quick note, the MiG-23 can use three external fuel tanks only with the wings fully extended, as the pylons are not designed to swivel (as on Su-24, F-111 or Tornado).
It means both the tanks and the pylons must be jettisoned every time the MiG-23 encounters anything more threatening than a maritime patrol aircraft or a chopper. Quite an expensive technique.

This does not change much, as the Falklands are within the combat range of the Floggers without drop tanks.

Combat range :
- 1,500 km (930 mi, 810 nmi) with standard armament, no drop-tanks,
- 2,550 km (1,580 mi; 1,380 nmi) with standard armament & 3x 800l (210 US gal; 180 imp gal) drop-tanks.

 

[alejandrogrossi]

1800km ferry range with 3 490l drop tanks and no R-60.

So, the MiG-21MF/bis would not have been able to operate effectively over the Falklands.
The Mirage III/V family was adapted to the situation and the MiGs would have been useless.
What the Argentines needed was more combat drop tanks and a refueling capability similar to the Mirage III/V Rose. No MiGs.

F.L
No Mirage III with IFR capabilyties exist in 1982
Mirage IIING, flyes on December 1982

The Mirage IIIEX is a result of the NG

The only Mirage III with IFR probe ( and not real) was the Mirage IIIB-2RV
Its was for training the crew of the M-IV

Only the MF-1C200, but this was new and its was introduceing in service with the French Air Force (March 1977 to December 1983)

 

[F.L.]

Other aircraft of the FAA AAR capabilitiy, a field modification might have been possible like on the F-102.

 

[paralay]

RN used the Sea Harriers, not AV-8Bs. Yes, the ability of MiG-21 to do long range air combat is sorely lacking.
BTW - who measured these ratios, and were the measurements peer-reviewed?

The comparison takes place in the table. The characteristics of all aircraft relevant for air combat are compared with the Su-27. And thus we get the opportunity to compare the fighters with each other. line 200 - 264

http://www.paralay.ru/paralay_tab.xls

Specialists of the RSC MiG published a comparison of the MiG-29, MiG-29M and F-18C.
RSC MiG: MiG-29 - 1, MiG-29S - 1.1, MiG-29M - 1.5, F-18C - 1.15
paralay-tab: MiG-29 - 1, MiG-29S - absent, MiG-29M - 1.3, F-18C - 1.15

 

[alejandrogrossi]

Other aircraft of the FAA had it, a field modification might have been possible. Like F-102.
But this was not the case.
View attachment 697428View attachment 697429

But dont forget
We have 2 KC-130. They dont have the speed to refuel M-III, so i think so they cant do it wit F-102.
A different issue if we had it B707 tanker

 

[F.L.]

Other aircraft of the FAA had it, a field modification might have been possible. Like F-102.
View attachment 697428View attachment 697429

But dont forget
We have 2 KC-130.

This is the nerve of the war !

 

[kaiserd]

In any case, the big question is :
What is the range of the MiG-21MF/bis with three drop tanks and 4 R-60 ?
Normally, with a standard armament, the MiG-23 has a combat range of 1500km and 2550km with 3 additional 800l tanks.
It is therefore fully capable of reaching the Falklands.

What MIG-23 variants are we talking about?

At best we are talking about MIG-23MS’s or non-Warsaw Pact down-graded MIG-23MFs (more likely the former not the latter from a timing perspective). Definitely no AA-7s and almost certainly no AA-8s in the timescale for this conflict. Only AA-2s and the gun on a less than ideal dogfighter that would have had little to no more endurance than the Mirage III had over the Falklands. So precious little scope to use afterburner, acceleration and speed (one of the MIG-23s few potential advantages in this scenario - also any MIG-23s that could potentially be present wouldn’t have had all aspect IR missiles or medium range radar missiles). Probably inferior not superior to the actual Mirage IIIs in this scenario.

If this theoretical decision to go with MIGs was made at the same time as the Argentinians actually bought the Mirage III (1970) then we are probably talking about MIG-21s only (that, as we have established above couldn’t make it to the Falklands anyway), and possibly too early for MIG-23MS’s to be offered/ available (1st delivery to 1st export customer 1973).

 

[uk 75]

I am not sure what the point of this exercise is, will offer two possible ways of doing it better.

Sea Harrier vs Mig 21 and 23 scenarios

If you want to have RN SHars pitted against Migs then the Mediterranean in the 1980s is a much better bet. Ghaddafi's Libya and Assad Dad's Syria both operated them and were not too fond of Britain. A confrontation between an RN carrier and the Libyan or Syrian AF is much more likely than your scenario.

Argentina has an Air Force in 1982 able to take on the UK

Start off by giving it a better economy and access to inflight refueling aircraft. You could then add some Buccaneer S50s or Phantom F4C bought from S Africa or Spain or even more from UK and US.

Still a bit pointless and outside the spirit of unbuilt projects.
.Perhaps give Argentina an India level aircraft industry with German designers and you get something like the Hindustan Marut or Helwan HA30.

 

[F.L.]

In any case, the big question is :
What is the range of the MiG-21MF/bis with three drop tanks and 4 R-60 ?
Normally, with a standard armament, the MiG-23 has a combat range of 1500km and 2550km with 3 additional 800l tanks.
It is therefore fully capable of reaching the Falklands.

What MiG-23 variants are we talking about?

At best we are talking about MIG-23MS’s or non-Warsaw Pact down-graded MIG-23MFs (more likely the former not the latter from a timing perspective). Definitely no AA-7s and almost certainly no AA-8s in the timescale for this conflict.

The MiG-23MF started to be exported with R-23 and R-13M or R-60 (depending on the country) in the late 70s. It is therefore possible that Argentina received them before 1982.

 

[F.L.]

I am not sure what the point of this exercise is,

The point of this exercise is to reflect on how MiGs (21, 23) and other fighters of the early 80s would have behaved in a difficult environment such as the Falklands. One can say that this has already brought interesting results.

Argentina has an Air Force in 1982 able to take on the UK.

The objective is not to rewrite a history where Argentina wins the air war over the Falklands !

 

[Archibald]

Fact is that range alone makes it a giant PITA for any air ops coming from Argentina mainland, even the closest airstrip. Now if they had more tankers, things might have been different.
Could the Soviet had provided a few tankers to Argentina ? I know they sucked at aerial refueling, don't get me wrong. What kind of tankers did the Soviets had, in the early 1980's ? converted bombers only ? this won't get too well with the Monroe doctrine.

 

[F.L.]

In any case, the more this thread evolves, the more the fact that the MiGs would have been inferior to what the FAA actually had becomes clear.
Only MiG-23s equipped with R-23s could have made a difference, but that would probably have led to the deployment of F-4 Phantoms, not just SHars.

 

[TomS]

Fact is that range alone makes it a giant PITA for any air ops coming from Argentina mainland, even the closest airstrip. Now if they had more tankers, things might have been different.
Could the Soviet had provided a few tankers to Argentina ? I know they sucked at aerial refueling, don't get me wrong. What kind of tankers did the Soviets had, in the early 1980's ? converted bombers only ? this won't get too well with the Monroe doctrine.

IRL, Argentina had a few tankers, which supported the Super Etendards and A-4s. But the Mirages could not do IFR. And neither could these hypothetical MiG-21 nor MiG-23. Neither had IFR probes (aside from some later third-party retrofits). The Soviets in this era really only used tankers to support bombers, and I don't think they ever provided IFR capability to clients.

 

[Archibald]

Never quite realized MiG-23 had no IFR probe. And that, btw, it actually didn't need one for its GCI interceptor job. Soviet air power was really different from anything in the West.

 

[kaiserd]

In any case, the big question is :
What is the range of the MiG-21MF/bis with three drop tanks and 4 R-60 ?
Normally, with a standard armament, the MiG-23 has a combat range of 1500km and 2550km with 3 additional 800l tanks.
It is therefore fully capable of reaching the Falklands.

What MiG-23 variants are we talking about?

At best we are talking about MIG-23MS’s or non-Warsaw Pact down-graded MIG-23MFs (more likely the former not the latter from a timing perspective). Definitely no AA-7s and almost certainly no AA-8s in the timescale for this conflict.

The MiG-23MF started to be exported with R-23 and R-13M or R-60 (depending on the country) in the late 70s. It is therefore possible that Argentina received them before 1982.

Not sure of the quality of the sources but when I look this up the non-Warsaw pact (apart from Syria’s) MIG-23MFs only start getting any missile that isn’t an ATOLL until after the Falklands War has already taken place. And generally to even just get the MIG-23MF (even the non-Warsaw pact downgraded version) in the required timescale you had to be heavily prioritised and favoured by the USSR (for example to Syria as a limited counter to Israel’s new F-15s and F-16s). And even the highly favoured Syria’s MIG-23MFs didn’t have AA-7s in this timescale (didn’t have them for the fighting over the Bekaa valley in summer 1982, approx. the same time as the Falkland conflict was wrapping up).
And Syria’s MIG-23s (or MIG-21s etc) didn’t exactly cover themselves in glory in that combat occurring at more or less the same time as the Falklands War.

No reason to see why Argentina of the time under their relatively hard-right military junta would have been remotely so favoured so at best Atoll armed MIG-23MFs, but probably more likely to be MIG-23SMs.
And it’s not like the Aphid was remotely a match for the Sea Harrier’s all aspect Sidewinders or all that better than the real-world Mirage’s equivalent armament anyway.

 

[lordroel]

What would have been the impact on the dogfights FAA vs Sea Harriers FRS.1 if Argentina had disposed MiG-21MF/bis & MiG-23MS/MF with R-13M/R-60 during the air war over Falklands.
Shar vs MiG-21/
Shar vs MiG-23/
View attachment 697272View attachment 697273

This would make the United States more pro-British than they already where.

 

[alejandrogrossi]

Fact is that range alone makes it a giant PITA for any air ops coming from Argentina mainland, even the closest airstrip. Now if they had more tankers, things might have been different.
Could the Soviet had provided a few tankers to Argentina ? I know they sucked at aerial refueling, don't get me wrong. What kind of tankers did the Soviets had, in the early 1980's ? converted bombers only ? this won't get too well with the Monroe doctrine.

Mybe this, but i dont know if still avaible in 1982.
I always liked the Bison