Falklands and Carriers

[Kat Tsun]

This is as true for Sea Dart as anything else, but Sea Dart is rather substantially poor at certain classes of air targets that are predominantly considered "low altitude fighters and cruise missiles".

Sea Dart was not a particularly good missile unless the target never maneuvered, this is especially true given ramjet missiles (such as the Odin) suffered from major lateral acceleration problems. I'm not entirely sure if the Argies could have taken advantage of this, because it didn't seem to help them as they don't appear to have done much evasive maneuvers against Sea Dart, but that's probably because they had poor training.

As they found out the Sea Dart was quite effective at engaging low altitude targets. Had they been moving perpendicular to the incoming missiles it's likely they would have been able to evade but that would require abilities beyond them. Sea Dart's rather notorious poor performance against crossing targets wasn't widespread knowledge in 1982.

Sea Dart only hit the rocket because it was more or less zeroed in on Exeter and locked onto Andromeda. Had another missile come barreling down perpendicular to that one, or high off axis, it's highly probable the Sea Darts would have missed because they had bad performance against crossing targets at medium (10-15 km) range.

This is exactly the issue the British faced with Sea Dart Mark 2 and why it was ultimately replaced with Aster 15, after all!

But as I said that was relatively unknown at the time, perhaps even to the British, so the Argies definitely wouldn't have the sense to do such a thing as they wouldn't be aware of Sea Dart's weakness, but it would be the optimal method of attack to hit from two or more directions vectored on Invincible.

By flying perpendicular to incoming SAMs they could easily present a crossing target that is far too difficult for the rather crummy lateral acceleration of the Mark 1 Sea Dart to hit.

Your knowledge of Sea Dart is pure fiction, way off the mark or poorly researched irrelevant projections from other systems;- .

Fiction - Sea Dart had poor low level performance, against manoeuvring and against crossing targets, Argentine pilots didn’t manoeuvre
Fact 1 - The Sea Dart kill of Skyhawk C301 on 30 May, destroyed at 9-10 miles, at 100ft altitude while in a hard turn. ref Falkland The Air war
Fact 2 - Sea Dart engagement attempt on Exocet which was crossing HMS Exeter bow at 5 miles at 30-50ft, again on 30 May, Successfully track achieved, missile launch and it guided. Results not observed either visually or by radar as the Exocet dropped below the radar horizon a few seconds prior to engagement completion. Ref HMS Exeter Operations Log. The Sea Dart is not credited with the kill although the Exocet didn’t complete its expected flight range.
Fact 3 - Sea Darts specification NSR 6502 Issue 4 required no degradation in missile performance for targets crossing at up to 70 deg, including receding targets.
i- The Sea Wolf had a crossing target problem because only one of its engagement mode would allow it, ie CLOS using the TV camera on the launcher.
ii- Argentine A4’s mostly lacked RHWR’s (All Navy, and a high percentage of AF)

Fiction - Sea Darts Odin suffered from major lateral acceleration problems.
Fact - Sea Darts intake is axis symmetrical so fundamentally could not have a problem only in the lateral (or horizontal) plane. The Odin was the flame tube which was supplied with air via a meter and a bit long tube so it always processed very straight flowing air. Ref - simple examination The Thor on the Bloodhound initially suffered from flow disruption shed from the forebody (fuselage) while pitching ;- terminal accuracy was significantly improved by late interception phase control de-restriction. The axis symmetrical intake was selected in the next generation because it inherently avoided this problem.

Fiction - relatively unknown at the time, perhaps even to the British, so the Argies definitely wouldn't have the sense …..they wouldn't be aware of Sea Dart's weakness
Fact - The Argentine Navy operated Sea Dart, used the same tactical engagement doctrine and had jointly trained with the Royal Navy.

Fiction - Sea Dart 2 was cancelled due to poor target crossing performance
Fact - Limited U.K. funding in 1978 meant there was a simple choice;- 34 additional Sea Harriers or Sea Dart 2;- The choice was extra Sea Harriers so the Sea Dart mk2 was cancelled. Subsequently the Sea Dart mk 1 was upgraded with a bunch of mods including mid course guidance, frag warheads and IR prox fuses (some of which came from the mk2 study)… BTW I worked on Sea Dart Mod1 upgrade between 84-86 and while I remember quite a few issues, poor crossing target performance wasn’t amongst them. And then in1991 a Sea Dart destroyed a Silkworm that was a crossing target.

Concerning the claim in another post about the superior turning performance of the Mirage/Dagger. Ah no, pure delta’s have terrible turning because of the tiny pitching moment which can be generated by the elevons;- they’re just too close to the cp.This is particularly true of the Dagger which had no LE slats, which tends to move the cp forward thus increasing the moment arm. Pure delta’s were intended as interceptor as they were unsuited to ACM. This is the reason there’s no more pure delta’s;- they all have canards to provide pitching moments and hence turning performance.

If you wish to dispute the above, please provide reference documents for all your Sea Dart claims.

OK, I'm not going to dispute what amounts to a speculative tangent on my part.

My impression of Sea Dart's performance against missiles mostly comes from the fact that it was fired on multiple missiles during the Falklands and never shot down an Exocet, rather the Exocets tended to fail on their own accord (possibly the missile running out of fuel?) or were duped by chaff. Conversely they were quite good against Silkworms coming in on a straight line towards Glamorgan during GW1. Obviously whatever causative issue could very well be related to Exocet or some other circumstantial failures, rather than the missile itself, as Sea Dart had relatively little trouble hitting Skyhawks and the like. However, the Skyhawks typically came in abeam the ships rather than parallel with them as a high-flying CAP might. I don't know what sort of radar the T42s used nor its technical characteristics, but I do know that aircraft can and do fly in certain courses relative to an emitter to appear to be moving below its velocity gate and subsequently be ignored by it. While this would do little for a bomber trying to hit the ship, it would be useful for a CAP fighter trying to avoid being hit by it.

Anyway, thank you for providing this information.

Perhaps then the performance on the British side came back to the operators, or the lack of AEW, or lack of CEC on the warships and aircraft, or what-have-you. Whatever the case it's not a big deal since the circumstances of what the missile or its associated air defense system are being used could change to fit the problem better aren't in question. The technical details aren't hugely related to the facts that a missile and multiple attack aircraft got close enough to be engaged by deck gun fire from an escort.

The question is more "what if there were more missiles coming from more directions", as it's somewhat obvious that if a single missile and three fighters, hardly an overwhelming quantity in an informational or targeting channel sense, penetrated rather deep into the main air defense zone of the battlegroup and got pretty close to some ships, then multiple missiles (two or three perhaps, as opposed to one) from the same or an additional axis would probably hit a ship.

Whether that points to performance of Sea Dart, the associated naval combat system, a lack of AEW, or whatever, is not too important, as much that the weakness itself existed and could have been exploited if Argentina had only a few (perhaps three or five or so) more missiles.

I don't think there's anything terribly controversial or disputable in the more distilled argument I'm making, even if my understanding of the technical and engineering specifics aren't exactly stellar the basics of the matter are easy enough to grasp, which are:

1) Putting interceptors in Stanley and using GCI to fight the British is dumb. They would be bombed to death by strike aircraft probably. Even if they got airborne they would be more meat to a grinder against an air force that is demonstrably better at shooting down other aircraft.

2) Replacing the Super Es with some other aircraft is bad for Argentina because it was under a major arms embargo for years at the time. Unless they had Soviet (at which point we're discussing pure fantasy I guess) support it's unlikely they would be able to maintain a fleet of anything other than French aircraft. The USA didn't want to sell them anything and the UK probably wouldn't either.

3) More missiles is vastly more dangerous than anything else, because the British performance against Exocet and iron bomb threat was rather bad given how many escorts were damaged or lost by bombs or missile strikes, and this is a weakness that would not be cured for a long time, at least until after the war had ended, if not later with the deployment of things like Sea King AEW, a second CVS, or whatever.

Given that the primary "alternate history" discussion boils down to "what if Argentina forward based planes from Stanley with improved airports for jet aviation" I think they're all reasonably applicable.

This would all have a much, much lesser effect than the addition of a few more missiles. Exocet was by far and away so high performing during the war that nothing else approaches it in risk to the task force. Aerial refueling, full airborne C2, and expanded fighter operations from Stanley, all of which are beyond the reach of the junta to begin with, would be completely dwarfed by the addition of literally two or three more Exocets arriving from France before they stopped delivering.

Perhaps the Argentinians might have been somewhat more profligate and expended their missiles on more ships, or perhaps they might have put them on trucks and kept there, or possibly could have massed additional rockets from different directions on Invincible's task group on May 30. The last one would be the greatest possible danger, the smallest possible change, and the only thing that seems "reasonable" to discuss much given the context I suppose.

 

[Zoo Tycoon]

Conversely they were quite good against Silkworms coming in on a straight line towards Glamorgan during GW1.

It wasn’t HMS Glamorgan, it HMS Gloucester and it wasn’t heading “on a straight line toward” HMS Gloucester. Please watch attached engagement animation;-

View: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=DDfDnZ7FiZg&t=573s

 

[zen]

Assumption: more missiles launched would result in more ships hit.
Internal Assumption 1: ADS of fleet would be overwhelmed.
Internal Assumption 2: multiple missiles launched in a single attack at a single target.

It's also an Assumption that the successful penetration of ADS of fleet is a reliably repeatable task, not based on luck.

Problems with this.
1. Affordability and availability of missiles and aircraft wired to launch it.
2. Environment to permit multi-vector attack. Such as open ocean.

It's also an Assumption vector 2 is as accessible as vector 1 and that vector 3 is equally so and so on.

Reality is rather different.
Not all vectors are equal.

Where was it mentioned the guidance systems of the SAMs failed?
Because each Type 42 and Invincible have 2 TIR sets.
Making a second vector of attack no better than the first...it's also an assumption this second vector is no worse than vector 1.

 

[Fluff]

if you want to attack from multiple directions, the argentinians would need AAR, either 707 or buddy(yet more aircraft). I would also point out, that if this was the case, then the British tactics would therefore be different. i.e. give Argentina 3 707 tankers. UK delivers 1 totally deniable 'fire accident' at their mainland base, no more 707 tankers.

 

[zen]

Hmmmm would terrible if a Type 42 got it's Sea Dart system in range of 707s tanking Mirages.......

 

[alejandrogrossi]

One important thing to remmeber i that at the time of the war the only memeber of the Mirage family was the F-1
The F-1C200 entring on service to de AdA. From Wiki: "By October 1971, the Mirage F1 was under production at both Dassault's Bordeaux facility and at SABCA's own plant in Belgium, work at the latter having been performed under an industrial arrangement associated to Belgium's order for 106 Mirage 5 aircraft.[8] The 79 aircraft of the next production run were delivered during the period March 1977 to December 1983. These were of the Mirage F1C-200 version, which featured a fixed refuelling probe, which required an extension of the fuselage by 7 cm."
Or the the F-1A ground-attack fighter aircraft, with limited air-to-air capability. From Wiki (F1AZ for South Africa. 32 delivered 1975–1976)
The Mirage IIING prototype flies in December 1982
No Mirage III or V/ Dagger with real IFR, beecause you can find this


Mirage III-2RV
Trainer version for the crew of the Mirage IV bomber (IFR probe was fake)

 

[Archibald]

Pretty simple... the bulk of France 450 Mirage III fleet (first flights 1956 - 1958 ) were manufactured before 1964, when C-135FR were procured - and exclusively for the Mirage IVA fleet to reach Moscow. It was a luxury.

First tactical aircraft able to IFR were the F-100s, courtesy of Uncle Sam. Very useful in Africa.
First French aircraft to IFR were the Jaguars and Mirage F1, IOC the same year: 1973.

When Dassault created the Mirage III in the late 50's, IFR was not the norm - for them at least. For USAF it was different of course.

Note that, just like the F-5E, Mirage IIIs were retrofitted with IFR probes... in the 1980's and beyond. The whole bunch of Israeli / South Africa / South America variants: Finger, Panter, Cheetah... had the probes.

That Mirage IIIB trainer for the Mirage IV had its (dry) IFR probe on the nose just because the Mirage IV had its refueling boom, same place.
-Two-seat ? check
-Mirage delta ? check
-IFR probe on the nose ? check
None of the two had a radar in the nose AFAIK, so it helped (unlike the 2000 B/D/N who still had a radar).

Compared to a Mirage 2000, putting an IFR probe on a Mirage III (rounded fat short nose) is kind of PITA as a) the nose is note the same shape and b) the intakes are a bit on the way.

The Mirage V is a bit easier as it essentially passed it main fuselage, nose included, to the Mirage F1 that flew the same year, 1967.

So any Mirage V derivative with the long and pointy nose can borrow the IFR probe of the F1.

Note that Mirage IIIs carries their IFR probe above the air intake when Mirage V have it on the nose, F1 style.

 

[alejandrogrossi]

Pretty simple... the bulk of France 450 Mirage III fleet (first flights 1956 - 1958 ) were manufactured before 1964, when C-135FR were procured - and exclusively for the Mirage IVA fleet to reach Moscow. It was a luxury.

First tactical aircraft able to IFR were the F-100s, courtesy of Uncle Sam. Very useful in Africa.
First French aircraft to IFR were the Jaguars and Mirage F1, IOC the same year: 1973.

When Dassault created the Mirage III in the late 50's, IFR was not the norm - for them at least. For USAF it was different of course.

Note that, just like the F-5E, Mirage IIIs were retrofitted with IFR probes... in the 1980's and beyond. The whole bunch of Israeli / South Africa / South America variants: Finger, Panter, Cheetah... had the probes.

That Mirage IIIB trainer for the Mirage IV had its (dry) IFR probe on the nose just because the Mirage IV had its refueling boom, same place.
-Two-seat ? check
-Mirage delta ? check
-IFR probe on the nose ? check
None of the two had a radar in the nose AFAIK, so it helped (unlike the 2000 B/D/N who still had a radar).

Compared to a Mirage 2000, putting an IFR probe on a Mirage III (rounded fat short nose) is kind of PITA as a) the nose is note the same shape and b) the intakes are a bit on the way.

The Mirage V is a bit easier as it essentially passed it main fuselage, nose included, to the Mirage F1 that flew the same year, 1967.

So any Mirage V derivative with the long and pointy nose can borrow the IFR probe of the F1.

Note that Mirage IIIs carries their IFR probe above the air intake when Mirage V have it on the nose, F1 style.

You note that the frist tactical aircraft was F-100
In my hipotetical alternative view, i would like to replace (equal numbers) the Dagger for F-100
If the refueling from this

The Kc130 can.
But we buy the the Dagger (1978) because we have an embargo from USA due to the coup of 1976.

 

[Archibald]

Never realized the delta Mirages were not... slow enough for KC-130s. The issue was moot whatever happened during the Falklands as they had no IFR probes; but if they had, the KC-130 could have used the old method of diving to gain some speed for the jets behind: KC-97s did it all the time, and the KB- bomber conversions, too.

 

[BLACK_MAMBA]

Yes the radar was exceptional but that doesn't matter in 1982 because it didn't have anything that could make use of it. Without Skyflash or something it's just a strobe light. Yes, only the entire USAF's tactical air force of 1994, given the Phantoms and F-111s were long gone by then, could match the SHAR's combat system. That says more about European air forces in 1994 than it does the Harrier's capabilities in all seriousness. Outclimbing an F-4 isn't a stupendous feat considering the Phantom is from 1958 and the SHAR is from like 1974 or whatever when the RN ordered it. It'd be more impressive if it outclimbed an F-15, but it didn't, because the F-15 was the F-4 of 1974.

Harrier has stubby little wings and SHAR inherits this somewhat since it's, at the end of the day, a low altitude subsonic bomber with a fairly high wing loading and thus bad sustained turn rates. That's the main advantage that Kfir and Mirage III and all those other French planes has over the SHAR. Which is kind of a duh moment as this can be discerned simply by looking at the two planes: Mirages have big massive wings and tiny bodies, while SHARs have stubby fat bodies and tiny wings.

Kfirs and Daggers could probably have outturned the SHARs if their pilots were good at the job of "fighting other planes" and they had decent air warning controllers and capabilities to direct combat ACI.

I feel this needs commenting on as I haven't seen it done yet.

The Shar, while lacking many of the charateristic traits of a "good fighter" actually was a very good one. A big part of that was because it was viewed as 'just a bomber' so crews against were poorly prepared in terms of its capabilities.

By using viff-ing the Shar could often match turn rates that surprized even F-16 pilots, so a Mirage/Dagger with a poor thrust to weight ratio would have one good turn on the Shar then lose a lot if energy and then be scrambling to recover it. Sustained turnrate on the Mirage/Dagger really isn't good as already pointed out before. Instantaneous was good, bit it lacked the thrust to do such an manuver more than once or twice before it lost all its energy.The Shar had very good acceleration in comparison and could theoretically turn much much tighter even though it lacks the big wing one would think is required.

And year of production is not a great measure of pure performance and its value. The Lightning could match the F-15 and it was years older... Not nearly as good as a combat aircraft certainly, but discounting the Shar climb rate against the Toom purely because its a newer design so it should match it isn't exactly a solid starting point. Fact is the Shar could out accelerate most of its peers of the day. It did however lack top speed which was its main disadvantage. It could with clever nozzle use, well trained pilots and excellent acceleration prove more than a match to fighters of the day.

Later upgrades to the weapon system made it even better and it remained quite potent - mostly because the hot-shot Viper pilots saw a "souped up bomber" and came to a fight poorly prepared and paid for it with shattered egos.

The Shar isn't the perfect fighter - by no means - but it is a lot better than its given credit for. Had the FAA properly utilised its Mirage III fleet it might have done some damage, but war and especially this one wasn't as simple with multiple things influencing decisions with multiple what-ifs that would have swayed the conflict.

 

[Archibald]

Some of Argentina Mirages (Daggers) had actually done wonders in the past - at the hands of Israeli pilots, obviously. Later Argentina would receive their Mirage IIIC that had killed 300 MiGs or more, plus countless others gunned or bombed on the ground.

So these Mirages were recognized as a threat for and by the British, even more against subsonic SHARs.

So why did they failed ?

Because the Falklands is no Middle-east, by a long shot.
- range was a major issue (unlike Israel minuscule air space)
- weather was atrocious (unlike sunny middle east)

What's more, SHARs had the AIM-9L: unmatched by old, crappy AIM-9B, R-530 or even Magic 1 (Magic 2 would have been a match).

And all the above, plus smart british pilots led by Sharkey Ward, was enough to turn the tide.

That's what makes the Falklands air war pretty fascinating, in retrospect.

Imagine how aghast were analysts in April 1982, before the shooting started: Nobody in his right mind had imagined an air war opposing
- "seasoned" Israeli Mirages
versus
- subsonic SHARs armed with Sidewinders

While in retrospect the British victory in that air war seems obvious, as of April 1982 it wasn't obvious by any mean.

Everybody expected the Mirages to dash supersonically at high altitude and (even if the R-530 was already known as a piece of junk) the Mirages would fall from high altitude and blast the subsonic SHAR's with their DEFA guns, - and then outrun them away, unscathed.
SHAR's, performance-wise (I say, raw performance, not avionics) were seen as VSTOL Mig-17s. And Israeli Mirages had killed hundreds of MiG-17s with their guns.

So, why ?
-Distance between the mainland and Falklands decided otherwise.
-Also it wasn't obvious at the time Port Stanley airstrip was unsuited to Mirages.
- crucially, 1982 was The Year Missiles Proved Worthwile And Efficient At Least.
1960's generation missiles had been hopeless - essentially until the end of Vietnam in 1973-75. Even in the Middleast and even the Israelis had mostly given up missiles for guns - the Mirages scored 98% or more with their DEFA guns in clear weather and without much use of the radar.

Israeli Phantoms did better, but mass kills by missiles, even for ISrael, had to wait their F-15s and F-16s beginnings - circa 1981: Opera, Syria, and then the next year (1982 !) the Bekaa valley turkey shot that overlapped with the Falklands AIM-9L pornfest.

In a sense, June 1982 was the key moment AAMs proved their worth at least, after the Vietnam absolute misery.
Ruminating their failure, the Americans frantically reworked AIM-9 and AIM-7 to try and turn the tide - just like the Phantom went away for F-15s and F-16s.

Yet, once again that wasn't obvious by April 1982... Vietnam was only 8 years away.

 

[Kat Tsun]

The Israeli performance is telling in other aspects. Pilots ultimately don't lose because their planes are low on fuel or because the weather is bad. The Argentinians had little trouble hitting British ships at port on other days, despite relatively poor weather, which is a task which requires the ability to fly the plane and navigate over featureless terrain for hundreds of miles (similar to 1967 and the Sinai!). This is not simple in the slighest, especially when you rely on pathfinders like was done in 1982 instead of modern GPS and moving-map displays, but it is not particularly impressive either.

Plenty of US pilots in Iraq had to ditch their fuel bags and run on fumes pulling up to tankers at the Saudi border because of Package Q's SAM ambush. They weren't all shot down by SAMs though, although several were damaged enough that they had to eject later on . Nor were American pilots in the opening hours jumped by Iraqi jet fighters taken out (Package Q was intercepted by a squadron of MiG-29s), despite the GCI network being mostly intact at that time and the Iraqis actually able to scramble some interceptors. By all accounts the Iraqis should have won on a technical merit since they not only ambushed the Americans but held initiative. Had it been a tank or infantry battle it likely would have been a massacre. Contrary, the bombers were able to fight the interceptors away and returned to base with rather few losses.

Yes the Middle East might not have rainstorms or whatever but it has haboobs, high winds, and hot temperatures, which can all affect the ability of an aircraft to fly. Before they even crossed into Iraq a few planes had fallen so far behind while RV'ing with the tankers that they had to return to base for want of fuel. The comparisons between Falklands and Package Q isn't something I pulled out of a hat; they're extremely similar demands on the pilots.

Because, ultimately, pilots lose because they're fighting better pilots. It's how Sea Fury kills MiGs and how hundreds of MiG-23s lose to F-16s and F-15s with almost no kills in their favor. It's that simple.

Innate talents, training, and practice matter more in piloting an aircraft than the actual capabilities of the aircraft or its onboard weapons. To an extent this is true for all manners of warfare, but it is incredibly magnified in air combat, because you must juggle many different events occurring simultaneously, and respond more or less without thinking, because the time windows for response are often measured in seconds or less. This requires hundreds of hours of practice a year in a specific model of aircraft against identical or similar-enough proxies for an opponent aircraft, the ability to juggle three or four or five simultaneous tasks and switch between them in a fraction of a second, and an understanding of things you cannot see directly (such as IFR cloud layer and temperature/pressure effects on aircraft maneuvering and payload) with your own eyes (and should know enough to understand when your gauges tell you one thing but another thing is occurring). This is mentally taxing beyond most humans ability, which can be evidenced from g measurements of pilots versus other "elite" occupations like medical doctors or PhD researchers.

Comparatively, a tank crewman merely has to listen to the TC, move a joystick, and press a trigger all while shouting into a microphone. Which is all to say that very few people can become pilots for a given size of population, and fewer have sufficient resources or investment necessary to be good pilots, and poorer, smaller countries would either necessarily have absolutely smaller air forces or proportionately weaker trained ones.

I doubt the Argentinians were putting in the requisite 200-300 hours a year including the DACT it takes to make a Cold War era jet pilot. It was probably closer to half that, which is enough flight time for a pilot to retain something of a basic navigation and flying ability, and essentially zero air combat ability, because planes are hard to fly against other planes.

The technological aspects are massively dwarfed by the human factors in air to air combat because machines are only as good as their operators, and aircraft require a tremendous amount of physical and mental aptitude to function, while performing their most basic tasks.

The Shar isn't the perfect fighter - by no means - but it is a lot better than its given credit for. Had the FAA properly utilised its Mirage III fleet it might have done some damage, but war and especially this one wasn't as simple with multiple things influencing decisions with multiple what-ifs that would have swayed the conflict.

The only what-if that matters is how many Exocets Argentina has. Literally nothing else Argentina could do would compare to punching a hole in Exeter or Invincible or something and sending her home, because Britain has many more SHARs and the RN and RAF many more pilots, than the RN had Type 42s or carriers.

Argentina was smart and played to their strengths of bombing people and employing guided missiles at range.

Also VIFFing is a bit of a meme. You don't really want to shed all your energy in favor of turning on a dime pretty much any case. The reason F-16 pilots would lose is because of arbitrary restrictions on ROE forcing them into close combat with what amounts to a A-4 that takes off like a helicopter. You obviously don't get into close combat or try to turn fight a thing that can out turn you. You zoom away with full afterburner and turn hard to avoid a missile shot up the tailpipe, and you attack in higher energy slashes using weapons like AIM-7, or just ignore it because it cannot hurt you.

But that's how almost every Red Flag-esque exercise goes. It's more about getting experience in the bizarre and oddball cases like "if you have to fight a Yak-38 or Mi-24, don't do this and we'll show you why" than it is about relatively boring stuff like slinging simulated Sparrows into a SHAR from 20,000 feet. Of course the SHAR would die because it is VIFFing and cannot evade the Sparrow or any other missile.

VTO aircraft can act like a helicopter but this is a great way to get killed in real life. Which is why SHARs acted less like helicopters and more like Skyhawks with Lima Sidewinders.

 

[Archibald]

I doubt the Argentinians were putting in the requisite 200-300 hours a year in DACT it takes to make a Cold War era jet pilot. It was probably closer to half that, which is enough flight time for a pilot to retain a basic navigation and flying ability, and essentially zero combat ability, because planes are hard to fly.

This. Exactly. We tend to forgot how shitty was the Junta in many, many areas. Pilot morale is kind of important, and even if faithfull elite soldiers willing to fight (unlike the poor conscripts send as cannon fodder against the British), let be clear:
By 1982 in Argentina, everybody and his dog had enough of the bloody junta since 1976.
Even the Air force elite pilots. The Mirage fleet lacked spares, bombs, missiles in quantity, and wasn't too well maintained either.

 

[BLACK_MAMBA]

Also VIFFing is a bit of a meme. You don't really want to shed all your energy in favor of turning on a dime pretty much any case. The reason F-16 pilots would lose is because of arbitrary restrictions on ROE forcing them into close combat with what amounts to a A-4 that takes off like a helicopter. You obviously don't get into close combat or try to turn fight a thing that can out turn you. You zoom away with full afterburner and turn hard to avoid a missile shot up the tailpipe, and you attack in higher energy slashes using weapons like AIM-7, or just ignore it because it cannot hurt you.

But that's how almost every Red Flag-esque exercise goes. It's more about getting experience in the bizarre and oddball cases like "if you have to fight a Yak-38 or Mi-24, don't do this and we'll show you why" than it is about relatively boring stuff like slinging simulated Sparrows into a SHAR from 20,000 feet. Of course the SHAR would die because it is VIFFing and cannot evade the Sparrow or any other missile.

VTO aircraft can act like a helicopter but this is a great way to get killed in real life. Which is why SHARs acted less like helicopters and more like Skyhawks with Lima Sidewinders.

Viff-ing needs to be understood correctly. The correct approach is a fast and small deflection of the nozzles momentarily to a maximum deflection of around 10 degrees. Not a sudden full forward deflection to come to stop as most people understand it - that is simply suicide in combat. That momentary swivel cuts a couple degrees of your turn radius. Repeat the descrived manuver 5 times and you have cut 50 degrees! Not often used, but it was done and practised by Shar pilots. Of course this is only useful in WVR fighting.

Any ideal fight is at long range but even there the later Shars had the advantage over most F-16 operators with earlier AMRAAM introduction and a very good radar. But in the Falklands where neither side had really capable BVR weapons (M530 really wasn't a very good missile) the FRS.1 Shar was very lethal.

 

[Kat Tsun]

Also VIFFing is a bit of a meme. You don't really want to shed all your energy in favor of turning on a dime pretty much any case. The reason F-16 pilots would lose is because of arbitrary restrictions on ROE forcing them into close combat with what amounts to a A-4 that takes off like a helicopter. You obviously don't get into close combat or try to turn fight a thing that can out turn you. You zoom away with full afterburner and turn hard to avoid a missile shot up the tailpipe, and you attack in higher energy slashes using weapons like AIM-7, or just ignore it because it cannot hurt you.

But that's how almost every Red Flag-esque exercise goes. It's more about getting experience in the bizarre and oddball cases like "if you have to fight a Yak-38 or Mi-24, don't do this and we'll show you why" than it is about relatively boring stuff like slinging simulated Sparrows into a SHAR from 20,000 feet. Of course the SHAR would die because it is VIFFing and cannot evade the Sparrow or any other missile.

VTO aircraft can act like a helicopter but this is a great way to get killed in real life. Which is why SHARs acted less like helicopters and more like Skyhawks with Lima Sidewinders.

Viff-ing needs to be understood correctly. The correct approach is a fast and small deflection of the nozzles momentarily to a maximum deflection of around 10 degrees. Not a sudden full forward deflection to come to stop as most people understand it - that is simply suicide in combat. That momentary swivel cuts a couple degrees of your turn radius. Repeat the descrived manuver 5 times and you have cut 50 degrees! Not often used, but it was done and practised by Shar pilots. Of course this is only useful in WVR fighting.

Any ideal fight is at long range but even there the later Shars had the advantage over most F-16 operators with earlier AMRAAM introduction and a very good radar. But in the Falklands where neither side had really capable BVR weapons (M530 really wasn't a very good missile) the FRS.1 Shar was very lethal.

If the pilots VIFFed all their energy away in 50 degree instant turns they would be easily killed by a R.530 or an AIM-9B.

But they didn't because VIFFing is a meme. No one has ever used VIFFing in air to air combat, only in air to air "practice" with artificial and arbitrarily imposed rules of engagement, which are designed to force artificial and arbitrary fight conditions for bizarre and unusual engagements.

I'm not sure if "practice" is the right word for Red Flag, it seems more like the aviation equivalent of backyard wrestling or amateur boxing. Less boring than a simulator practice and you get to fly around with some cool guys who fly neat planes and talk about it with them at the bar, but this comes with a natural fixation in focus on actually difficult aspects of air combat training such as maneuvering against opponents and setting up rather artificial scenarios like "the enemy has gotten behind you, quickly do something" or whatever.

It only stands to reason that an aircraft capable of a somewhat unorthodox method of movement would be able to take advantage of this, much like a F-22 pulling a post-stall Cobra maneuver to get on the tail of a Polish MiG-29 or something, it's more a cheeky thing meant to skirt around some of the limits of the scenario where you don't have to worry about things like energy or flying back to base because you're flying 20 miles away from your airstrip.

It's not something they would do ever in real life.

I guess this makes movies like Top Gun and other promotional military aviation films the equivalent of pro wrestling. Much safer than backyard wrestling, about as over the top, and about as comparable to getting into a real fight as either are to actual air combat in the jet age. The latter usually involves one side being caught with its pants down and destroyed on the ground, or turning tail and lighting its burners the second you show up, or something of the sort. Very rare for two sides to be in opposed air combat outside of individual engagements and when they do occur they are often lopsided in one side's favor due to aforementioned training and informational infrastructure issues.

Planes much more about planning and preparation than actual flying I guess. By the time you're airborne you should have already won the battle.

 

[BLACK_MAMBA]

If the pilots VIFFed all their energy away in 50 degree instant turns they would be easily killed by a R.530 or an AIM-9B.

Which is exactly where the Shar's great acceleration and energy recovery comes into play... Recovering energy and speed fast! Viff-ing isn't a meme, it's a tool available. It isn't used in each engagement but only where it would give an advantage. It most certainly won't be used BVR and sparingly in WVR when oppertunity allows. You seem to get the idea it's a SOP which it isn't. I am merely pointing out the Shar had quirks that enabled it to compete against theoretically superior aircraft.

Many factors are responsible for the Shar's remarkable performance over the Falklands. Even the kills it did make were all far from testing the AIM-9L's capabilities and even the Golf would have sufficed in the situation. It has attributes and weaknesses like any fighter and it is usually because it is so underestimated/misunderstood it performs so well.

But we are drifting far off topic discussing Shar capabilities...

 

[Zoo Tycoon]

In talks given by Falklands Shar pilots Ward and Morgan they both said what they feared was a sustained effort with BVRAAM’s as they couldn’t match it or do little more than try to avoid them. Even if the kill probability of the R530 was low, a sustained attack with lots of attempts could account for a significant percentage of the Shar force. On the way South they did a lot of reading up on the Marta R530 and during the first day of combat they saw vapour trails coming from distance Mirages;- They thought their worst fear had been realised. However post war research found these were probably vapour trails from punched off drop tanks and either no, or maybe only one or two R530 launched during the whole war.

 

[H_K]

Was VIFFing used in the Falklands? I remember reading that it took a while for the technique to become adopted and for pilots to train for it… can’t remember when it was first used.

Back to my idea of basing fighters at Port Stanley… since more Super Etendards would be hard to come by and would be prioritized for Exocet missions, that got me wondering what if the Argentines had received a squadron of surplus Etendard IVMs at the same time as the Super Etendard, for lead-in training. There were about 28 IVMs still flyable of which 10 were used by the French for lead-in training… so maybe 12 or so could be sold off?

The IVM was a slightly worse fighter than the SuE, but easier to maintain in field conditions and anything that could fly CAP from Port Stanley would be welcome IMHO.

 

[Zoo Tycoon]

Was VIFFing used in the Falklands? I remember reading that it took a while for the technique to become adopted and for pilots to train for it… can’t remember when it was first used.

According to Ward and Morgan, no. Not because they thought it wouldn’t work or couldn’t or didn’t want to;- There were no opportunity that needed it as the vast majority of engagements amounted to rear aspect ambushes.

Ward was very keen to have a go at viffing against an adversary and thought it would have been very effective.

 

[Hood]

On the subject of Sea Harrier VIFFing, this is what Rowland White says in Harrier 809:
VMA-513 was responsible for forming the air-to-air tactics for the USAF and deployed to Area 51 to practice against MiGs, and it was they who came up with the concept;

"The trick was to use the technique sparingly; to tweak the nozzles briefly to nudge the nose more tightly into the turn before rotating them backwards again before too much forward speed was lost. An additional benefit, it seemed - and one which neither the computers nor Harrier Chief Designer John Fozard's calculations had predicted - was that by artificially lowering the load on the wings using the vectored thrust from the engine, the Harrier was turning more tightly than its small wing should have been theoretically capable of doing. When he first received a phone call from an excited Marine Corps test pilot saying it was so, Fozard refused to believe it. But in the end it was undeniable."

The FAA attempted to pass on this knowledge to the RAF's GR.3 pilots but they seemed reluctant to take that on board.
Lt Bill Covington briefed 1(F) Squadron pilots on evasive manoeurvres - spilt 'S', VIFFing and deploying full flap above 300kt, warning it might overstress the jet but wouldn't kill it and might save their lives. The 1(F) CO declined to accept this advice, saying none of that applied to them as they wouldn't overstress their aircraft.

He doesn't recount any use of VIFFing in actual combat however - other than one GR.3 pilot who used the technique to raise the nose of his crippled GR.3 in an attempt to avert a crash landing and get enough momentum to get back over British lines.

 

[Archibald]

Back to my idea of basing fighters at Port Stanley… since more Super Etendards would be hard to come by and would be prioritized for Exocet missions, that got me wondering what if the Argentines had received a squadron of surplus Etendard IVMs at the same time as the Super Etendard, for lead-in training. There were about 28 IVMs still flyable of which 10 were used by the French for lead-in training… so maybe 12 or so could be sold off?

The IVM was a slightly worse fighter than the SuE, but easier to maintain in field conditions and anything that could fly CAP from Port Stanley would be welcome IMHO.

Now that's a terrific idea...
-non afterburning Atar (similar to Mirages and... S.E)
-swept wing, STOL
-can lob iron bombs like a Skyhawk
-can carry sidewinders
-DEFA 30 mm guns
-rocket pods
- LWF DNA
It brings together, somewhat the best of Skyhawk, Mirage, S.E and Aermacchis... on Port Stanley airfield.

 

[H_K]

Now that's a terrific idea...

It brings together, somewhat the best of Skyhawk, Mirage, S.E and Aermacchis... on Port Stanley airfield

Port Stanley was limited in its facilities and available space so I wouldn’t expect fighters based there to do more than fly CAP. They would be hard pressed to keep more than 5-6 flyable… basically just enough to fly 1 or 2 pairs at any given time.

But my assumption is that would be enough to distract the opposing Sea Harrier CAP, and cause some additional attrition of the 17-25 SHARs available, which would cut down losses of A-4s and Daggers striking from the mainland (~18 aircraft shot down by SHARs), and allow more strikes to reach their targets without having to dodge Sea Harriers. Additionally the air bridge to resupply PSA might be able to operate by day instead of only by night… which would improve the overall defensive position.