Alternative fighter for Argentine AF & Navy during Falklands war.

[H_K]

How would an all out attack on the RNs Sea Harriers and GR3s take place, its not as if they were all in the air at once for most of the war? After the initial May 1 strikes on Port Stanley and Goose Green airfields the RN settled into proving a CAP or 2 for the daylight hours. This is a big ask for 10 pairs of aircraft, declining to 8.5 pairs, with a 75 minute flight endurance.

Well first you'd send a flight of 4 fighters from Mt Pleasant to challenge a Sea Harrier CAP. 4 vs 2 means the outcome would likely favor Argentina. Do that a couple of times and soon enough the Sea Harrier CAPs will have to double up. So now shuttle in a few more fighters from the mainland and send 6 or 8 fighters to challenge the Sea Harrier CAP (6-8 vs 4).

Within a couple of days the RN would have to choose between pulling back its CAP aircraft or finding a way to neutralize Mt Pleasant. Pulling back the CAP would significantly reduce their ability to continue with the landings. Historically they were not very successful at neutralizing Mt Pleasant. On top of that any increased attrition to the Sea Harrier force would significantly impede preparations for the landing, and lack of air dominance would make it a lot harder to intercept strikers once the landings did happen.

But all this hinges on fighters being able to operate from Mt Pleasant (i.e. low take-off & landing speeds, brake chute, no complex electronics), with a missile better than AIM-9B (e.g. Magic 1) and a climb rate similar or better to Harrier. They didn't have that but it wasn't unachievable.

 

[H_K]

If you could get Israel or Argentina to copy/pirate [maybe with the cooperation of South Africa] the Atar 9K50 to power an Argentinian Kfir derivative, then I think you'd have something.
In doing so, retire the existing Mirage III fleet or zero-life them after the Kfir's are delivered, incorporating Kfir components in them during the process.

What does Kfir bring to the table? It still wouldn't be able to operate from Mt Pleasant and not sure the refueling probe had been developed back in 1982. So basically you have a Mirage with slightly more lift.

 

[Archibald]

More internal fuel than the Nesher, which had more fuel than the Mirage IIIE, which had more fuel than the second-hand Israeli Mirage IIIC (that only came after the war) ?
Ok, time for a recap about all those Argentinian Mirages

Total number of aircraft delivered:
-19 IIICJ + 17 IIIEA
-3 IIIBJ + 4 IIIDA -------------------------- 43
-35 IAI Dagger A + 4 Dagger T ---------- 39
-10 Mirage 5P ---------------------------- 10

IIICJs & IIIBJs were ex-Israeli, 5Ps were ex-Peruvian. All were retired in December 2015.

Ok so, among all those breeds of Mirage, which one had the better range ? must be a draw between 5P and Daggers I presume ?

 

[Rule of cool]

Well first you'd send a flight of 4 fighters from Mt Pleasant to challenge a Sea Harrier CAP. 4 vs 2 means the outcome would likely favor Argentina. Do that a couple of times and soon enough the Sea Harrier CAPs will have to double up. So now shuttle in a few more fighters from the mainland and send 6 or 8 fighters to challenge the Sea Harrier CAP (6-8 vs 4).

Within a couple of days the RN would have to choose between pulling back its CAP aircraft or finding a way to neutralize Mt Pleasant. Pulling back the CAP would significantly reduce their ability to continue with the landings. Historically they were not very successful at neutralizing Mt Pleasant. On top of that any increased attrition to the Sea Harrier force would significantly impede preparations for the landing, and lack of air dominance would make it a lot harder to intercept strikers once the landings did happen.

But all this hinges on fighters being able to operate from Mt Pleasant (i.e. low take-off & landing speeds, brake chute, no complex electronics), with a missile better than AIM-9B (e.g. Magic 1) and a climb rate similar or better to Harrier. They didn't have that but it wasn't unachievable.

Presumably you mean Port Stanley not Mt Pleasant that was built postwar.

In the picture below the dark grey part of the runway and hardstand was available to the Argentines in April 1982 and the white parts are what the British built postwar with great effort,after delivering 2 big rock crushers and all sorts of gear and closing the runway for some time.

This shows what it takes to allow Stanley to operate modern (in 1982) combat aircraft to the extent where it could sustain an air campaign. I'm afraid you can't really wing it with much less.

 

[alejandrogrossi]

More internal fuel than the Nesher, which had more fuel than the Mirage IIIE, which had more fuel than the second-hand Israeli Mirage IIIC (that only came after the war) ?
Ok, time for a recap about all those Argentinian Mirages

Ok so, among all those breeds of Mirage, which one had the better range ? must be a draw between 5P and Daggers I presume ?

Hi
But you need the Ok of the USS for the engine. at that time we have un embargo from USA.
I ll prefer equal number of Mirage F-1AZ, like the SAAF
From Wiki: "Mirage F1A. Single-seat ground-attack fighter aircraft, with limited daylight-only air-to-air capability. Fitted with lightweight EMD AIDA 2 ranging radar instead of Cyrano IV of other variants, with laser rangefinder under nose, retractible refuelling probe and more fuel.
Mirage F1AD : Mirage F1A for Libya. 16 delivered 1978–1979.
Mirage F1AZ : F1A for South Africa. 32 delivered 1975–1976

If i have before war I ll need to test AAR with the C130.

 

[Pioneer]

What does Kfir bring to the table? It still wouldn't be able to operate from Mt Pleasant and not sure the refueling probe had been developed back in 1982. So basically you have a Mirage with slightly more lift.

H_K, I would think importantly, the Argentinian Kfir would bring the following to the table:

1/ a consolidation of types - better overall operability;
2/ more modern avionics;
3/ more powerful engine - deriving better performance [including your "lift"]
4/ improved manoeuvrability and control effectiveness thanks to improvements in aerodynamics;
5/ range and time on station, thanks to its air refuelling capability.

As for "operating from Mt Pleasant", I was personally thinking of the Argentinian Air Force as a whole. By focussing on Mt Pleasant is a limiting strategy which has to be recognised by Argentina from the get-go in the overall strategic context of such a war. If you're strategy hinged on having to rely on Mt Pleasant's capture and its continued operability, I'd be seriously questioning the validity of the whole invasion - period. But there lays the strategic blunder of the whole Argentinian initiated war - the Falklands was a populist action by a desperate and unpopular military regime, which was looking for a nationalist distraction vs. a strategically important national interest......

Regards
Pioneer

 

[H_K]

Presumably you mean Port Stanley not Mt Pleasant that was built postwar.

In the picture below the dark grey part of the runway and hardstand was available to the Argentines in April 1982 and the white parts are what the British built postwar with great effort,after delivering 2 big rock crushers and all sorts of gear and closing the runway for some time.

This shows what it takes to allow Stanley to operate modern (in 1982) combat aircraft to the extent where it could sustain an air campaign. I'm afraid you can't really wing it with much less.

Yes I meant Port Stanley airfield, sorry.

We've discussed this before... what you're showing is how to transform Port Stanley into a well equipped airbase for peacetime operations, with full on-site facilities including maintenance aprons, munitions and fuel storage, runway extensions for aborted take offs etc. Obviously that's a massive engineering effort. But the Argentinians would be operating in wartime mode and could make do with fewer facilities, more limited capability and more risk... just as Harriers did from the San Carlos forward operating base.

If Port Stanley were only a forward operating base for shuttle operations, you could reduce maintenance, fuel and munitions resupply capability to the bare minimum. This should be much easier than the real-world San Carlos FOB... you'd install similar loops at the end of each runway (using matting) to allow aircraft to be quickly turned around and/or wait on alert, but a lot of infrastructure would already be there.

The concern about runway length may be overblown, as it depends largely on the aircraft type. A lightly loaded A-4F or A-4M (for example) has better short field performance than an F-4, even without the extra reheat thrust for TO (largely thanks to its subsonic design and low stall speed). There would be some risk of runway overruns that would have to be accepted on take-off & landing, but again... wartime ops. I'm not convinced however that the A-4B/C had enough thrust. So Argentina needed later-model A-4s. Or perhaps Etendards IVMs.

P.S. Added pic of San Carlos FOB to illustrate the very small amount of ground matting required to receive a small number of fighters with quick turnarounds.

 

[Scott Kenny]

So, turning loops on each end, a couple of fueling/rearming revetments to keep a CAP on, and lots of C130 missions moving fuel and AAMs to the islands.

Am I missing any critical additions?

 

[Rule of cool]

@H_K on the contrary, as it was the Port Stanley airfield supported 213 flights by Air Force and civilian C130, F28, B737 and BAC 1-11 in 10 days, in addition Navy Electra and F28s flew 100 missions during the war plus whatever else the air force flew that isn't counted in those 10 days. This sort of aircraft movement, with single aircraft on the runway and only a couple of aircraft on the hardstand at any one time is doable without turning loops, taxiways and all the other stuff.

When you get multiple combat aircraft having the land at the same time things get tricky. In Black Buck 1 the first 6 Victors had to land at Ascension one after the other and wait at the end of the runway, so the last tanker was coming in to a 'short' runway with 5 aircraft at the end hoping his brakes worked in order to avoid destroying all 6 aircraft in a collision.

This is why turning loops, multiple access to the hardstand and the longer runway aren't frills, they're essential to get the first fighter out of the way of the ones following less than a minute behind. You're Sids Strip picture shows the same in reverse, the loop being used to allow Harriers to take off in combat 'flights' of multiple aircraft in rapid succession.

When loops, hardstand etc becomes the minimum for even semi-regular combat aircraft operations like shuttle bombing/CAPs then the magnitude of the task in front of the Argentines becomes apparent. They have to get the heavy equipment, PSP and all the other stuff over to the Falklands before the SSN blockade is announced and get the airfield up to minimum fighting standard by the time of Black Buck 1 and the Sea Harrier strikes the following morning. Its a big ask, even if they had plans ready to go, which they didn't.

 

[Scott Kenny]

Its a big ask, even if they had plans ready to go, which they didn't.

That's the issue. The Argentine government didn't plan or have their follow-on forces set up with separate transportation.

There was plenty of information and AARs about building/repairing/upgrading runways more or less as the second wave onto the beach from the US operations in the Pacific. Including doing that construction work while the enemy was still within rifle range of the runway.

There should have been a plan for the Argentine combat engineers to arrive before the shooting stopped to fix the airport to a "minimally-viable combat airfield" standard. Turning loops at least at one end if there's a plan to lengthen the runway, refueling stations, revetments for any fighters being stationed on the islands, etc.

 

[Desertfox]

How about instead of different aircraft the Argentinians just get working fuzes for their bombs...

 

[Rule of cool]

There should have been a plan for the Argentine combat engineers to arrive before the shooting stopped to fix the airport to a "minimally-viable combat airfield" standard. Turning loops at least at one end if there's a plan to lengthen the runway, refueling stations, revetments for any fighters being stationed on the islands, etc.

There doesn't even need to be fighters stationed at a minimally viable combat airfield, they just need to be able to use it as needed. Daggers and Mirages in particular were very marginal on fuel for the round trip, but if they could land at Port Stanley after expending ordnance, refuel and head back to the mainland that would allow them to use their afterburners, take evasive routing (crucial for Daggers IIUC) and/or carry a greater payload.

That said Port Stanley is hideously vulnerable to enemy action, being stuck on a peninsula that juts right out into the RN's playground. Revetments would be a must, although they're likely not too difficult to arrange with a bulldozer, front-end loader and dump truck.

 

[alejandrogrossi]

How about instead of different aircraft the Argentinians just get working fuzes for their bombs...

I agree with you, but
keep in mind this facts:
1- Dagger have tu use same route to attack due to the lack of endurance over the islands
2- before war, as a doctrine, only the naval aviation have the task and trainign to attack ships. Air force, was to support and attack in land.
So no training the pilots before the war.
The Mk 82 Snake eye, was the mostly the main bomb of the naval aviation.
Air force use a GP bomb with parachutes

A-4Q on CV furing war
You see Snake


A-4B and C
GP bombs

Bombs for Dagger
Attack configuration of a Dagger for the attcak
In and out using the same route, for the lack of fuel


No M-III or M-5 / Dagger with IRF. After war some proyects come to light in France to give IFR to M-III

Is in spanish, but explain why IAI Dagger can have IFR

 

[H_K]

This is why turning loops, multiple access to the hardstand and the longer runway aren't frills, they're essential to get the first fighter out of the way of the ones following less than a minute behind. You're Sids Strip picture shows the same in reverse, the loop being used to allow Harriers to take off in combat 'flights' of multiple aircraft in rapid succession.

The San Carlos FOB picture shows 2 very simple loops using PSP matting. These double up as both taxi and servicing areas. One pair of aircraft could be accommodated on each loop, up to 4 if necessary.

Install these loops on each runway end and you have a functional solution to accommodate and turnaround flights of fighters with minimal engineering.

 

[Rule of cool]

The San Carlos FOB picture shows 2 very simple loops using PSP matting. These double up as both taxi and servicing areas. One pair of aircraft could be accommodated on each loop, up to 4 if necessary.

Install these loops on each runway end and you have a functional solution to accommodate and turnaround flights of fighters with minimal engineering.

You'd have to extend the runway and install arrestor gear as well, 4,100' is just too short in the wet weather. IIUC the Argentines did consider and perhaps attempt to lengthen the runway by ~500', which is better but still very short.

 

[Scott Kenny]

You'd have to extend the runway and install arrestor gear as well, 4,100' is just too short in the wet weather. IIUC the Argentines did consider and perhaps attempt to lengthen the runway by ~500', which is better but still very short.

So, how long a runway do we need?

5000ft? 7500ft?

Want would obviously be a whole parallel runway with parallel taxiways 10,000ft long, but that's expensive in time and materials. Not that Seabees etc don't have constructions like that planned out in great detail, including the exotic concrete mixes needed to fully cure in less than a week. But you're still talking 2 weeks or more from start to first flight.