Alternative fighter for Argentine AF & Navy during Falklands war.

[F.L.]

"What if"

https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/what-if-profile-page-updated.5401/

 

[F.L.]

During the conflict, the Argentine Navy tried to obtain 16 A-4E "Ayit" from Israel, but although the funds were there, export authorisation was never requested.
After the conflict, the order was modified into 12 A-4Es modernised by ELBIT.
Two A-4Es were modernised (3-A-303 & 3-A-311), but neither "Ayit" was ever delivered, despite the efforts of Argentina's new democratic government.

Zona Militar - Numero 11

Revista Zona Militar - Numero 11

issuu.com

A-4E Ayit, el Halcón Hebreo del COAN que nunca fue

La incorporación de los A-4E Ayit al Comando de Aviación Naval, uno de los tantos proyectos que quedaron truncos luego de la contienda en las aguas del Atlántico Sur.

www.zona-militar.com

 

[F.L.]

COAN A-4E 'Ayit' in Israel (~1985/86)

 

[F.L.]

I found another photo of an A-4E "Ayit" destined for Argentina.
But it doesn't seem to have a hump, which leaves me puzzled.

 

[TomS]

I think your initial post explains it. The original plan (c.1982) was to acquire basic A-4Es. This was later changed to acquiring modernized A-4Es (or Hs, per Wiki), which presumably required a hump to hold additional avionics. Israel did this to their own H models over the years.

Note that Ayit was just the Israeli name for all of their Skyhawks, not a specific version.

 

[F.L.]

The Argentinians received in-flight refuelling pods with the Skyhawks in the early 1970s.
Between 1986 and 1987, when the A-4Qs were withdrawn from front-line service with the 3ra Escuadrilla Aeronaval de Ataque, they were transferred to the Segunda Escuadrilla Aeronaval de Caza y Ataque to serve on reconnaissance missions and as air-to-air refuellers.
I wonder why they didn't use them for AAR during the conflict ?

 

[alejandrogrossi]

The Argentinians received in-flight refuelling pods with the Skyhawks in the early 1970s.
Between 1986 and 1987, when the A-4Qs were withdrawn from front-line service with the 3ra Escuadrilla Aeronaval de Ataque, they were transferred to the Segunda Escuadrilla Aeronaval de Caza y Ataque to serve on reconnaissance missions and as air-to-air refuellers.
I wonder why they didn't use them for AAR during the conflict ?
View attachment 713659View attachment 713661

Small amount of fuel.
And all of a-4q (8) was use in attack rol

 

[Archibald]

A pity they couldn't adapt the buddy-buddy pods to non-attack aircraft, to help the KC-130s. But, as you said - not much fuel, and that range problem from the continent was probably too much for the pods to make a significant difference...

 

[H_K]

But, as you said - not much fuel, and that range problem from the continent was probably too much for the pods to make a significant difference...

One Skyhawk refueling 4 other A-4s can extend their combat radius by ~25%, which is pretty significant and useful. Same ratio applies to just about any buddy tanker scenario.

But this requires training and more importantly coordination with other squadrons operating from other bases if you want to make this capability useful beyond the small A-4Q fleet. The A-4Qs were operating from Rio Gallegos which was a navy base. I don’t think they ever really collaborated with the Air Force A-4 squadrons based to the north.

 

[Scott Kenny]

The Argentinians received in-flight refuelling pods with the Skyhawks in the early 1970s.
Between 1986 and 1987, when the A-4Qs were withdrawn from front-line service with the 3ra Escuadrilla Aeronaval de Ataque, they were transferred to the Segunda Escuadrilla Aeronaval de Caza y Ataque to serve on reconnaissance missions and as air-to-air refuellers.
I wonder why they didn't use them for AAR during the conflict ?
View attachment 713659View attachment 713661

Can still be an extra 8500lbs of fuel, which is 2000lbs more than the entire fuel load of a standard A-4...

 

[F.L.]

Pilot handbook of ¨Project HOPE, Elbit A-4E for 3 Esc of Argentine Navy :

 

[F.L.]

What if the Argentinians had bought an Essex SCB-125 instead of the Karel Doorman ?
For example, the USS Yorktown (CV-10) retired from service in 1970, or the Shangri-La (CV-38).
What might its Argentine air group have looked like ?
Surely A-4Q Skyhawks & S-2 Trackers, but probably also Crusader or F-11 Tiger ?
This would probably have allowed the Argentinians to launch an attack against the British fleet.

 

[uk 75]

The presence of such a carrier might have impacted on the UK in a number of ways:
More aggressive rules of engagement and more SSNs.
Arming of Acension based Nimrods with Martel or Harpoon
Vulcan B2 raids on the ship in port.
SAS/SBS raids on the ship in port.

There again she might just have stayed in port like the 25 de Mayo.

 

[Scott Kenny]

What if the Argentinians had bought an Essex SCB-125 instead of the Karel Doorman ?
For example, the USS Yorktown (CV-10) retired from service in 1970, or the Shangri-La (CV-38).
What might its Argentine air group have looked like ?
Surely A-4Q Skyhawks & S-2 Trackers, but probably also Crusader or F-11 Tiger ?
This would probably have allowed the Argentinians to launch an attack against the British fleet.
View attachment 714428

I'd guess F-11s.

 

[H_K]

What if the Argentinians had bought an Essex SCB-125 instead of the Karel Doorman ?

This would probably have allowed the Argentinians to launch an attack against the British fleet.

HMS Centaur or another medium fleet carrier would be a better choice probably.

 

[alejandrogrossi]

HMS Centaur or another medium fleet carrier would be a better choice probably.

Agree 100% (essex class to big for our navy)
I choose this (paying the rapairs -specialy her boilers)

 

[COLDOWN]

What if the Argentinians had bought an Essex SCB-125 instead of the Karel Doorman ?
For example, the USS Yorktown (CV-10) retired from service in 1970, or the Shangri-La (CV-38).
What might its Argentine air group have looked like ?
Surely A-4Q Skyhawks & S-2 Trackers, but probably also Crusader or F-11 Tiger ?
This would probably have allowed the Argentinians to launch an attack against the British fleet.
View attachment 714428

The USS Oriskany was offered to Argentina around 1976.
I have no more details, sorry.

Spoiler

USS Oriskany comes alongside at the end of her final WESTPAC cruise in March 1976.

 

[F.L.]

Agree 100% (essex class to big for our navy)
I choose this (paying the rapairs -specialy her boilers)

That's a great idea !!!

 

[BlackBat242]

What if the Argentinians had bought an Essex SCB-125 instead of the Karel Doorman ?
For example, the USS Yorktown (CV-10) retired from service in 1970, or the Shangri-La (CV-38).
What might its Argentine air group have looked like ?
Surely A-4Q Skyhawks & S-2 Trackers, but probably also Crusader or F-11 Tiger ?
This would probably have allowed the Argentinians to launch an attack against the British fleet.


H-K:
HMS Centaur or another medium fleet carrier would be a better choice probably.


alejandrogrossi
Agree 100% (essex class to big for our navy)

25 de Mayo crew: 1,000 ship's company, 300 air group personnel.

Centaur class crew: 1,100 ship's company, 300-350 air group personnel.

Modernized Essex class: 2,600 ship's company, 848 air group personnel (USN levels).

 

[F.L.]

25 de Mayo crew: 1,000 ship's company, 300 air group personnel.

Centaur class crew: 1,100 ship's company, 300-350 air group personnel.

Modernized Essex class: 2,600 ship's company, 848 air group personnel (USN levels).

I now understand why the Argentinians didn't take up the American offer to sell them an Essex instead of the HMS Warrior.
Buying a Centaur would have been a very good option instead of the 25 de Mayo.

 

[BlackBat242]

I now understand why the Argentinians didn't take up the American offer to sell them an Essex instead of the HMS Warrior.
Buying a Centaur would have been a very good option instead of the 25 de Mayo.

Australia also passed on a US offer of a modernized Essex in 1965 for the same manpower reason - as did Canada when offered two in 1952.

 

[BlackBat242]

Australia and Canada both also turned down Centaurs... Centaur herself for the RAN in 1965 and one in 1952.

 

[alejandrogrossi]

25 de Mayo crew: 1,000 ship's company, 300 air group personnel.

Centaur class crew: 1,100 ship's company, 300-350 air group personnel.

Modernized Essex class: 2,600 ship's company, 848 air group personnel (USN levels).

Certanly I choose the Centaur class
I do this modernization Black


Black
Can you modifiy a standart Centaur





With an angle deck like the Hermes (not the deck edge lif) only the extende angle deck. The I move the foward lift like your and the 2 long cat

This is my idea (sorry for my rough design)

 

[uk 75]

An Argentine Centaur with two T42 escorts and a Crusader/Super Etendard or even Buccaneer S2 airgroup would have been a fine sight.
Even better if she never had to go to war and exercised routinely with Clem/Foch or CVA01.

 

[Empire]

Hi All,
So the A-4Q fleet are the only jets to get the buddy refueling pods? Is that right? How many pods did they get total in the 70's ?

 

[F.L.]

How many pods did they get total in the 70's ?

At least 4, maybe more.

 

[alejandrogrossi]

Hi All,
So the A-4Q fleet are the only jets to get the buddy refueling pods? Is that right? How many pods did they get total in the 70's ?

In our case yes
THE SUE have a pod


But I dont remeber thta we have it
We have this small tank

 

[alejandrogrossi]

An Argentine Centaur with two T42 escorts and a Crusader/Super Etendard or even Buccaneer S2 airgroup would have been a fine sight.
Even better if she never had to go to war and exercised routinely with Clem/Foch or CVA01.

uk75
I choose the R38, because have more pronounced angle deck.
The Centaur class, in my opinio need a a refit, to put a more angle deck.
this is the idea tht have in mind, with the modification the BlackBat242

Her air group (F-8/A-4Q (8) and SUE -only 4 operational-) at time of the war

 

[F.L.]

Her air group F-8/A-4Q (8)

Eight of each ?
Eight F-8Q & eight A-4Q ?

 

[alejandrogrossi]

Eight of each ?
Eight F-8Q & eight A-4Q ?

At war time the Naval have: 4 SUE +1 for spares / 8 A-4Q. I dont know how many planes can carry the Vic or the Centaur.
To the figter bomber add the S-2E / SK and the Alouette for SAR.
If you put the SUE on land
Perhaps
8 A-4Q
8 F-8
4 S-2E
2 SK
2 Alouette (SAR)
Here 24 aircraft and helos

 

[Scott Kenny]

With an angle deck like the Hermes (not the deck edge lif) only the extende angle deck. The I move the foward lift like your and the 2 long cat

This is my idea (sorry for my rough design)
View attachment 714467

It's hard to add an angled deck to the British carriers, the flight deck is their strength deck so any changes get complicated. Yours may be simple enough to be affordable, as it looks like you just need to add some counterweight to the starboard side to make up for it. Or do something fancy like bump the entire island farther from the centerline, accepting the trouble of putting a bend in the trunking.

 

[alejandrogrossi]

It's hard to add an angled deck to the British carriers, the flight deck is their strength deck so any changes get complicated. Yours may be simple enough to be affordable, as it looks like you just need to add some counterweight to the starboard side to make up for it. Or do something fancy like bump the entire island farther from the centerline, accepting the trouble of putting a bend in the trunking.

Thanks for your reply
Whw you say this "Or do something fancy like bump the entire island farther from the centerline, accepting the trouble of putting a bend in the trunking"
You mean this?

 

[alejandrogrossi]

Thanks for your reply
Whw you say this "Or do something fancy like bump the entire island farther from the centerline, accepting the trouble of putting a bend in the trunking"
You mean this?
View attachment 714492

I ansewer my self YES
BlackBat242 (do it)

 

[BlackBat242]

All I did was to extend the flight deck there (to provide more room to park aircraft) - I did not move the island.

As for how many aircraft one could carry, this is Hermes' historical air group from 1966-70:

7 Buccaneer S2, 12 Sea Vixen FAW2, 4 Gannet AEW3, 1 Gannet COD4, 5 Wessex HAS3, 1 Wessex HAS1 (SAR)

 

[Scott Kenny]

Thanks for your reply
Whw you say this "Or do something fancy like bump the entire island farther from the centerline, accepting the trouble of putting a bend in the trunking"
You mean this?
View attachment 714492

Yes, something like that. Picture a balance scale, with one pan closer to the center than the other, and adjustable in position. This represents the ship. If you add more weight to the pan farther from the center with the angled deck hanging over the side, you either need to add more weight to the close pan to keep everything balanced, or you need to move the close pan farther from the center.

As long as Mass * distance from center is equal on both sides, the flight deck will be level naturally. And moving the "closer pan", the island, means that you have to add less weight in total, which is better for keeping the waterline where you want.

 

[Empire]

Hi All
So .. My scenario is Argentina takes the Falkland islands in 1976 instead of landing on thule like they really did. I know the naval A-4Q fleet has at least 4 refueling buddy pods maybe a couple more that can extend the A-4Q range by 25% or so. In 1976 I don't think the Argentine air force has any C-130 aircraft out fitted with air refueling equipment. I'm not even sure the A-4B fleet is set up for areal refueling at this time. So my question is.... Is there a load out of the A-4B of the air force with wing tanks that can get the A-4 to San Carlos bay to perform a strike and return safely to the main land . Maybe just carrying one 500 pound bomb or some such load out?????

 

[F.L.]

Argentina takes the Falkland islands in 1976

The Argentinians then have to contend with the Ark Royal, with its Phantoms and Buccaneers !
What's more, I don't think they've received the IAI Daggers yet, which means they're missing out on a lot of fighters.

 

[Empire]

The Argentinians then have to contend with the Ark Royal, with its Phantoms and Buccaneers !
What's more, I don't think they've received the IAI Daggers yet, which means they're missing out on a lot of equipment.

I know it would be very interesting and ironic too the british have exocet on at least 2 of their ships at this time!! they don't have many missiles. But in real life they deployed them on the ships during operation Journyman in 1977 when the junta for Argentina landed on Thule island.

 

[Apophenia]

Hi All
So .. My scenario is Argentina takes the Falkland islands in 1976 instead ...

I'm curious as to why you've chosen 1976 for your Malvinas campaign.

I get that 1976 was the year of Britain's 'sterling crisis' in the midst of hyper-inflation. But was Argentina's economic situation much better? Argentina had, after all, had 22 x finance ministers between 1960 and 1976. Or would this invasion be the Junta's way of distracting public gaze from the Dirty War and its desaparecidos?

Then there is the question of naval superiority. In 1976, Argentina had 1 x WW2-era Colossus class Veinticinco de Mayo and two ex-Brooklyn class cruisers - C-4 General Belgrano and C-5 Nueve de Julio (both built in 1935). By contrast, the Royal Navy still had three aircraft carriers in service in 1976 - as F.L. alluded.
.

The 1976 RN had 2 x Audacious class carrier - HMS Eagle (R05) along with HMS Ark Royal (R09). And also still in service was the Centaur class HMS Hermes (R12) which had been converted into a 'Commando Carrier'. Another Centaur class carrier (and 'Commando Carrier' conversion) - HMS Bulwark (R08) - had been place in Reserve in March of 1976. It would have been a fairly simple matter to return Bulwark to operational condition under 'wartime' conditions.

I guess my question is: Had Argentina been able to occupy the islands in 1976, what would have then saved the ARA and FAA from then taking a pummeling from RN Buccs and Phantoms? And, if not so saved, what would prevent the Centaur class ships from landing Royal Marines in force in San Carlos Water?

 

[Empire]

I'm curious as to why you've chosen 1976 for your Malvinas campaign.

I get that 1976 was the year of Britain's 'sterling crisis' in the midst of hyper-inflation. But was Argentina's economic situation much better? Argentina had, after all, had 22 x finance ministers between 1960 and 1976. Or would this invasion be the Junta's way of distracting public gaze from the Dirty War and its desaparecidos?

Then there is the question of naval superiority. In 1976, Argentina had 1 x WW2-era Colossus class Veinticinco de Mayo and two ex-Brooklyn class cruisers - C-4 General Belgrano and C-5 Nueve de Julio (both built in 1935). By contrast, the Royal Navy still had three aircraft carriers in service in 1976 - as F.L. alluded.
.

The 1976 RN had 2 x Audacious class carrier - HMS Eagle (R05) along with HMS Ark Royal (R09). And also still in service was the Centaur class HMS Hermes (R12) which had been converted into a 'Commando Carrier'. Another Centaur class carrier (and 'Commando Carrier' conversion) - HMS Bulwark (R08) - had been place in Reserve in March of 1976. It would have been a fairly simple matter to return Bulwark to operational condition under 'wartime' conditions.

I guess my question is: Had Argentina been able to occupy the islands in 1976, what would have then saved the ARA and FAA from then taking a pummeling from RN Buccs and Phantoms? And, if not so saved, what would prevent the Centaur class ships from landing Royal Marines in force in San Carlos Water?

I think it would be the juntas way to distract. I agree the out come would be no different than 1982 especially if Argentinian can't get many A-4's over the island. I think by 1976-77 the HMS Eagle was out of service and Hermes was under going a mild conversion. . Maybe the junta in 1976-77 thought the same as the 1982 junta the British wouldnt fight for the islands!!