Forum: Air Power

Thanks Pucara:

Would you by any chance have some photos of those planes. Now hat you mention it, I have seen a little photo of those in Air Forces monthly.
I will see if I can dig out some info about the war from my archives, specially photos.

F-16.net Sponsor

Hi F16Viper: check this site www.faa.mil.ar, also try to search at yahoo or google with words like Mara fighter, Argentine Mara fighter, Argentines fighter, or even in spanish. By the way, would you have by chance spare decals for a 1/48 F-16 C block 30/32?, see you!

Thanks for the link.
No unfortunately I have not built any models for at least 20 years and have no decals.

Kind regards

Let`s try to clear a few things up here...

1. All the SHAR 9-Lima kills in the war were REAR aspect.

2. Invincible hit by an Excocet, utter drivel. Any evidence? I know a couple of guys who were in the fleet, they neglected to tell me of any "Excocet hit" on Invincible.

3. The availability/reliability of the SHARS right through the conflict was 90%.

4. The attrition rate of SHARS AFTER the war was indeed high, half the original machines have been written off although they were replaced. (FRS1s.).

5. Tragic if you were frigate or destroyer crew but the RN KNEW they would lose some of these during the conflict, it`s called ATTRITION. Some frigates were left as targets to draw Skyhawk fire in San carlos water and other landing sites to screen troop ships. It worked because the troops landed.

6. RWR would have been useful for AAF planes in combat. Not just because of the dangers form SHARS but from ship based SAMS. On the other hand, you could also say that the AAF was lucky not to be in range of Ascension Island, if it was the AAF would have had RAF Phantoms to contend with along with much more frequent visits from the V bomber force... People can argue about ifs and buts, the facts are, the SHAR and her pilots did a top notch/professional job.
To say that the only reason the SHARS were successful only because of the Aim9-L is a slur on the skill of the pilots. In addition, UK troops didn`t lose a SINGLE ground battle AND against LARGER forces. What are the excuses for that ? Don`t forget, it`s not just about equipment V equipment, it`s about the people......their quality/training/expertise/aggression/tactics/leadership/logistics.... Even losing all of the air lift capability on Atlantic Conveyor, troops just marched across the islands and did the job.

7. 28-0 ratio is correct in favour of the SHAR. That is still as impressive as 32-0! No Harriers were lost A2A, that is fact. The main reasons you can argue about all day.

8. I think the whole episode was a sad chapter and needlessly cost the lives of over 1,000 British and Argentinian service people; just because a dictator needed a distraction to take peoples minds off his destruction of the Argentinian economy.

The only bright light for me was the end of dictatorship and the embrace of democracy in Argentina. It might, just might have been worth it just for that.

Hi Snypa777:

I have read again what I wrote and will retract the word ONLY because you are right, and there is more to it than just the AIM-9l missiles, but I still believe that the -9L was one of those weapons that gave the SHAR the superior edge. It is clearly mentioned as such in any book you read about the War.

Otherwise why were those missiles rushed to the British forces. I did not mention what I believe was the probably superior training of the British pilots which I think it is a fact.

I cannot tell you what the performance of the Sidewinders used before the -9Ls would had been from the rear aspect, but it is widely recognised that the _9L was a generation beyond what was existing.

You need the best weapons to complement the skills of the pilots. There is absolutely no intention to insult those british pilots. The AIM-9L/Sea Harrier/RN pilot is In my opinion a kick a$$ combination.

I am not sure how to take the issue of frigates being left as "practice" targets, but it seems to have worked.

F16VIPER wrote:

Quote:

I am not sure how to take the issue of frigates being left as "practice" targets, but it seems to have worked.

Take it just like the issue of WW2 US destroyers around Okinawa which took most of the kamikaze hits, so less Japanese crashed on the decks of US and British carriers.

Hello folks. I'm Brazilian, and read some old books I have o the war. Too bad a site from an Argentininan bud is off... the site was excellent. Both sides were lucky once in a while.

1st, the missiles were the mainstay of the combat, as discussed elsewhere on this site: http://www.f-16.net/index.php?name=PNphpBB2&file=viewtopic&t=2236&highlight=.

The AAF missiles were clearly inferior, and the -9L was one of the first - if not the overall 1st - all aspect IR missile. And how could UK have this missiles before NATO is still a mistery...

2nd, Argentina had only 5 Exocets when the war began, and someone else mentioned the Brits frustrated further sales for them

3rd, Argentina's subs were ineffective due to their torpedoes, which malfunctioned. For what I know, they engaged the Invincible, but the torpedo failed, and it wasn't possible to fire again.

4th, the bombs fuzes failed due to extremely low altitude of the AAF Skyhawks, so low it was insane: the Sir Gallahand lost the last meter of the mast due to collision with an A-4! For what I know, almost every Brit ship got hit at least once by the bombs, but the AAF didn't expect such fuze failure, and they only adjusted the fuzes for the following attacks, when the Harriers were ready for them

5th, the UK Navy was not ready for sea skimmers - they were as new in combat as the Harriers - so they could not avoid the Exocets

6th, the Harrier was, at least, 90% unknown for the AAF, and the pilots couldn't beat the VIFF the Brits used.

7th, the Chinooks didn't arrive on time, giving some chance to the Argentinians defending the islands.

Last edited by snypa777 on Jun 19, 2006 - 01:42 AM; edited 1 time in total

F16 VIPER, sorry if it looked liked I was having a "go" at you, it wasn`t meant to come across like that! It was just aimed in the general direction of people who believe that the ONLY reason the SHAR was effective was ONLY because of the 9L. The 9-L was overall a superior missile to earlier Sidewinders, not just because it was all aspect, the seeker was brand new and much more effective than the seeker in the 9-J/H, the Lima also had lazer proximity fuze, better turning ability, ECM resistance, new guidance section, modified Mk36 motor, double delta canards...It`s PK was 80% in the conflict. No wonder the RN wanted it. Israel also used the Lima over the Bekaa valley in 1982. Yes, it was a big advantage for the RN, no doubt. The 9-L was in US service between 1976 and `78, so it was 4 years old when the Falklands conflict began.

Why did the UK get it? The military relationship between the US/UK in terms of co-operation is FAR closer than most people realise, including me Wink

Ask yourself how many countries have access to US TLAM/Trident/SSBN technology?
You will find your answer there.

Using ships to screen other ships is basic naval strategy, RoAF mentioned it.
You sacrifice some forces to protect others..why, because you look at the wider strategic picture. You want to get troops on the beach so you protect them. You know the enemy is going to fly in and bomb your surface assets, you present them with "easier" to hit targets than troop ships. The frigates also took their own toll on the attackers though. You will notice, from various archive film, that the RN frigates were stationary in the landing waters, for operational and tactical reasons.....

RENATHOM, hi,

1. As I have mentioned, it is certainly no mystery why the UK got the 9-L. NATO later got the 9-L but the RN needed it sooner!

2. Argentina had about 5 Excocets, maybe more. MI6 stopped them from getting any more along with the DGSE of France....

3. I have heard this rumour of a submarine getting a torpedo hit on one of the carriers or another ship. Rumour is all I have seen.

4. At least 11 RN warships took direct hits from bombs that were duds or incorrectly fuzed but I am not sure about this number. It certainly wasn`t nearly ALL ships. remember, the task force numbered over 120 ships of all types.

5. The RN trained for a war against the Soviet fleet, which didn`t have sea skimming/Harpoon/Excocet type ASMs. The frigates were optimised for ASW, not anti-air. The Argentines had their own Type 42 destroyers, so knew how they worked, this can be seen with Excocet attacks on Sheffield and Glamorgan, where the Super Etendards "pecked" the radar lobes of the ships. The AN knew how RN radar worked. The UK never had a contingency plan on defending the Falklands, it was an improvised/mobile operation.

6. The Harrier was unknown to the AAF yes, more importantly, they had no tactics to counter the then new 9-L Sidewinder. The use of "VIFFING" in the conflict is exaggerated.

7. The Chinooks were destroyed on the Atlantic Conveyor, the Argentine army still didn`t defend the Islands successfully. Most of the Argentine army were conscript forces where all of the UK units were professional soldiers. The pro` troops the UK faced such as the Argentine commandos put up stiff resistance when they were encountered and were good opponents.

Guys, let me say something that I figured out a while ago.
Many years ago, before the Malvinas war I saw a photograph of an Augusta SH-3D ASW helicopter carrying 2 AM-39 Exocets. I almost fell off my chair.
Until I saw that photo, I never knew the Fuerza Aeronaval del Peru had such missiles and it had never been mentioned in any publications.
I had an uncle that was a Navy pilot and never, ever disclosed that information.

My point is, given the relationship between Argentina and Peru, I would not be surprised if those missiles went to Argentina to arm the Super Etendards.
So to say that they only had 5 is correct in terms of the available information but it is quite possible they had actually more in stock because of this.

I am not certain Argentina had 5 Exocets. It is rumoured, and I say rumour that some Aerospatial technicians from France stayed in Argentina throughout the conflict, they had been there since 1981. They had been helping the ARA/COAN integrate Exocet/Sue combo`. Some say that the Argentine ARA could not have even used the Exocet if those technicians hadn`t been there. I don`t know if that was true , I honestly believe the Argentine navy did the hard integration work on their own...

On the first Exocet strike against Sheffield, two Exocet rounds were fired, one hit the target, one went astray.

The second Exocet attack tried to hit Invincible, the details are not very clear but 2 rounds were fired at Invincible, chaff was put up along with other countermeasures, one missile went astray or was possibly shot down. The second round had it`s lock broken on the Invincible with the use of countermeasures, but instead acquired the Atlantic Conveyor, destroying it. This is where this fantasy of the Invincible being hit with a missile comes from....

The supposed last Exocet attack was on the 30th May 1982, again Invincible was attacked, by Sue`s and A4 Skyhawks. The Exocet fired was shot down. The Skyhawks then mistook the wrecked hulk of the Atlantic Conveyor and bombed it.

This leaves the Exocet attack on Glamorgan a destroyer, Glamorgan saw the missile coming and turned the ship so the missile scored a "glancing" blow on the ship. It is believed that this Exocet attack was launched from the Falkland islands themselves with an air launched missile converted to be launched from an improvised land site from the back of a truck!. This would count 6 Exocets, nobody who knows the true number is really talking...

At the time, France also stopped further deliveries of Exocet to Peru. Peru did indeed have the missile, it is possible that the ARA could have gained additional rounds through that route...In any case, there were only 6 reported firings, with three missiles hitting the target, one target evading destruction. With a 30 to 40% success rate, it doesn`t look very impressive. However, it forced the RN to develop tactics and deployments to counter the missile, it was a constant threat in the minds of the Task Force sailors so had great psychological effect.

The missiles failure in half of the attacks could have been due to several factors, anti-air tactics /employment by the RN, missile malfunction/ missiles being launched at the limits of their range...In efforts to stop Argentina getting more Exocet rounds, US intel` agencies were said to be involved too. The US publicly declared support for Britain during the conflict.

It was a fact that the argentine pilots were not trained properly in dogfighting, being as it was the main task for our Air Force, give air to ground support to the Army, besides the Mirages were used primarly as interceptors, not dogfighters, this were rectified after the war, and argentine pilots are fully trained now in dog fighting, as an example during Aguila 2, -Mirages IIIEA, Fingers and Fightinghawks flew mock air to air combats against some ANG F-16C, the kill percentage for the argentines pilots were more than 85%, not too bad for a nearly 30 years old plane (MirageIIIEA) and refurbished Skyhawks (APG-66 radar). There is another mith, that the argentines technicians were soo dumb that they needed the french assistance, wrong again pals, all the french technicians went back to France, as France put an embargo and called back all its people, it is very common for some first word people to think they are the only ones with brains (the same goes for the ones that said that iranians Tomcats were unable to fly, well, guess what, Wrong again!!, they are fuly operational). Argentine technicians made the Exocet work properly, and only five Exocet were available, all the attemps to buy more were frustrated by the superb British MI-6 (in my humble opinion the best intelligence service in the word). And third, that war was a stupid one, like every single war the mankind fought, we should never fought with the british, there was no reason, diplomacy should have been enough to solve the whole matter. In fact, did you know that more than 100 argentine pilots flew with the RAF during WWII?..God save the Queen, and Viva Argentina!!!

pucara70, desde Mar del Plata te doy la bienvenida a F-16.net. Very Happy

snypa777 wrote:

This leaves the Exocet attack on Glamorgan a destroyer, Glamorgan saw the missile coming and turned the ship so the missile scored a "glancing" blow on the ship. It is believed that this Exocet attack was launched from the Falkland islands themselves with an air launched missile converted to be launched from an improvised land site from the back of a truck!. This would count 6 Exocets, nobody who knows the true number is really talking...

Snypa, IIRC the Exocet launched by Argentina from the Falklands (using the Air Force's Radar) was a MM-38, not AM-39, but I'm not 100% sure. I think that we fired 5 AM-39 from the Super Etendards and 1 MM-38 from the islands. Have you got any info, pucara???

Cheers Cheers

The missile launched from the ground was possibly an AM-39 (air launched version) converted to a ground launched version. It is difficult but not impossible to do this.There was a documentary on Discovery about that very attack.

The alternative story Ryan is that it was indeed an MM-38 (surface launched version) which was taken from an ARA corvette. The attack on the Glamorgan took place on June 12 `82.

Pucara70, Viva Argentina and Viva Brittania indeed! Cool

Gracias amigo marplatense!!.
The Exocet that hit the HMS Glamorgan was a MM-38, not AM-39, it was taken for one of the ARA corvettes, the installation was called by the argentine personnel ITB (Instalación de tiro berreta), I don´t know how to traslate it into English, as this was some kind of "slang" in Spanish, it means that was a non standard fire installation, a very handmade one, combining the missile with an air force ground to air radar..., and yes, only 5 AM-39 were fired...

Snypa:

The Exocet fired from the ITB (ITB = low-quality missile launcher) was a MM-38, taken from the ARA Guerrico, an A-69 corvette.

Cheers

Forum: Air Power

Aerial Combat during Falkland Campaign 1982