Forum: Air Power

Hi: I made a mistake in my previous posts, the kill ratio for the Sea Harrier against the Mirage IIIEA was 1-0, because the Mirage piloted by Capt. García Cuerva was shot down by the argentinian AAA, who made a mistake and thought that his plane was a Harrier, in fact, he evaded the AIM-9L launched by one of the Sea Harriers, he entered in a cloud, so the missile couldn´t follow the heat source, sadly, while he was aproaching Puerto Argentino airstrip, he pulled out the fuel tanks, as he did so, the triple AAA men, thought mistakenly he was firing missiles and shot him down. He was one of the best Mirage pilots, very capable. The Mirages suffered a lot of disadvantages, only 5 minutes of fuel to enter a dogfight, and they couldn´t use the burner, plus inferior missiles...it was not a fair engagement....and as I said before, at the begining of the engagement, the pilots were informed that only one Sea Harrier was approaching......As a colourful note, before 1 May, the french sent one Mirage III Sqn to UK, to allow the brits some ACM practise...the results were not very good, all the Sea Harriers were shot down, zero Mirages, but, there, the Mirages fought without the operational limitations they found at Malvinas theatre.....

F-16.net Sponsor

Quote:

As a colourful note, before 1 May, the french sent one Mirage III Sqn to UK, to allow the brits some ACM practise...the results were not very good, all the Sea Harriers were shot down, zero Mirages, but, there, the Mirages fought without the operational limitations they found at Malvinas theatre.....

Not to mention the far superior training of the AdA pilots...
About Capt. Cuerva's Mirage - wasn't it damaged in the fight? - that's what I know. Otherwise why would it try to land on the islands?

For 3 weeks prior to there deployment the Harriers trained at Bitburg AB in Germany against the USAF F-15's. I know this because I worked in cross-servicing and had the chance to help work on them. Both the ground crew and the pilots were a great bunch of guys. When they left they all had great attitudes. And yes on some days they even waxed the Eagle drivers!

Quote:

About Capt. Cuerva's Mirage - wasn't it damaged in the fight? - that's what I know. Otherwise why would it try to land on the islands?

The answer is very simple, as I mentioned before, only 5 minutes of fuel for air combat, so after 1Lt Perona was shot down, García Cuerva fought against 2, I repeat, 2 Sea Harriers, with better weapons and more fuel, so he used more fuel than he had to, and he carried on flying in order to reduce the weight of his fighter, this would allow him to land, that´s also the reason why he ejected his wing fuel tanks, to got his fighter with less weight in order to land safetely in the short air strip at Puerto Argentino...he hadn´t got enough fuel to return to the continent after the dogfight, he tried to save his plane, for him, it would be easier to eject, but he knew the value of the fighter for our Air Force, he did what he had to, he was a hero..

pucara70 wrote:

The answer is very simple, as I mentioned before, only 5 minutes of fuel for air combat, so after 1Lt Perona was shot down, García Cuerva fought against 2, I repeat, 2 Sea Harriers, with better weapons and more fuel, so he used more fuel than he had to, and he carried on flying in order to reduce the weight of his fighter, this would allow him to land, that´s also the reason why he ejected his wing fuel tanks, to got his fighter with less weight in order to land safetely in the short air strip at Puerto Argentino...he hadn´t got enough fuel to return to the continent after the dogfight, he tried to save his plane, for him, it would be easier to eject, but he knew the value of the fighter for our Air Force, he did what he had to, he was a hero..

I think RoAF is correct..This is from Globalsecurity.org. I appologise in advance for the long post.....

Captain Gustavo Cuerva and his wingman, Carlos Perona received information from Falklands/Malvinas radar that there were Sea Harriers at twelve o'clock. Cuerva spotted two Sea Harriers and fired two missiles which missed. The Harriers then curved around and fired their Sidewinders - one exploded near Cuerva causing sever damage.... Perona's Mirage was hit by the missile from the second Harrier and the aircraft exploded into a ball of flames.... On the sixth mission of the day Jose Ardiles was killed in his Mirage by a Sidewinder from another Sea Harrier. As a result of these heavy losses...it was decided to pull the Mirage III's back to the mainland to stand alert for a possible Vulcan attack.

So...it seems Capt. Cuerva was forced to land because his aircraft was damaged. The engagement was actually 2 Versus 2. The Mirages also fired the first shots.
Also on that site, same page, it says more than one Mirage was shot down during the war so a ratio of 1-0 is not correct... What is the difference between a Mirage III and a IIIEA?

EDIT- Also form the same site...

This is a continuation of the mission flown by Capt. Cuerva and Lt Perona.

Lt. Dave Smith of the Royal Navy's 800 Squadron based on the HERMES explained the failure of the Argentine missiles. The MATRA's utilized were semi-active, radar guided AAM's. Once launched, they must be guided to the target by the firing source, usually with the aircraft's fire control radar. In this case, "the Argentine pilots broke away rather than continuing to illuminate their targets until impact." This engagement was felt by the British to be "the closest thing to a dog-fight in the whole operation." After this, attacking Argentine aircraft jettisoned their bombs to increase maneuverability and turned away rather than engage the Harriers.

Also, this recounted by Captain Alberto Boigorri who was on the first
Canberra mission.

About 250 miles from the target the #3 in the flight called a missile headed my way - I looked toward the right and saw the missile hit the #2 aircraft... The bomber continued off my right wing with an engine in flames as it started down - I saw them both eject before it hit the water. Above I saw the Sea Harrier looking to see whose turn it was next! I broke right and told my #3 to break left ... I saw the Sea Harrier above us but apparently it could not see us on its radar screen so we got out of there. After making sure the Sea Harrier was not around, we turned around and tried to locate the pilot and navigator but we could not find them - they were lost.26

As a result of the action on May 1, the Canberras, like the Mirage III's, found the maneuvering against the Sea Harriers to be beyond their capability. They changed tactics, and were subsequently employed mostly at night against the ships farthest from the islands dropping their 1,000 pound bombs from 500 feet.27 This tactic was, for the most part, unsuccessful.

Another account from a Skyhawk pilot, ok not a fighter but another encounter with Harriers. This time 4 Skyhawks.

.......Captain de Corbeta Philippi's flight was successful on ingress but not so fortunate as they attempted to depart the area. As they followed the same route as their ingress, a flight of Harriers intercepted them. Philippi recounted:

I immediately ordered external cargoes ejected and to escape with the hope of reaching refuge in the clouds that were in front of us. But I felt an explosion in my tail and the nose of the airplane elevated uncontrollably; I needed the support of both hands on the stick that was unresponsive. I looked to the right and saw a Sea Harrier at 150 meters coming in for the kill. ...I reduced speed [and ejected]. I felt a forceful explosion when the canopy ejected, and, immediately there was a forceful pain in the nape of my neck. My final thought before passing out was, "I am falling like a rock."

The pilot of the second aircraft was shot down and lost, while the third was hit by small arms fire and had to eject, to be rescued by an Argentine helicopter, one of the few located on the islands.

On the "sinking" of INVINCIBLE....

ler Ten. Ernesto Ureta flew one of the A-4's. ...we flew into the target area just skimming the surface of the sea. The Exocet was launched and the four of us went in together - in thirty seconds we were in the target area. The waves and salt spray blocked much of the view through the windshield so we had to make our own judgment as to the proper release point. Before we could get to the ship, Sea Darts shot down Captains Jose Vasques and Omar Castillo. Alferez Gerardo Isaac and I pressed into the target. The attack was made about 30 degrees off the ship's stern and the bombs were released according to the size of the carrier. After flying directly over and away from the carrier, I made a turn thirty feet above the water and then confirmed the impact of my bomb. A great cloud of smoke had formed and this confirmed that the bomb had hit the carrier.

That evening the Argentine press confidently reported that the INVINCIBLE had been hit. Across the sea however, the British announced otherwise - that the ATLANTIC CONVEYOR had
taken more fire and had sunk.

It was a controversy mostly without meaning. The INVINCIBLE remained in service.

More on Mirages.....

Only one more air encounter would occur, eight days later on June 8. Perhaps the fighting that day indicated the desperation on the part of the Argentines as they again
resorted to employing the Mirage III in the escort/attack role. The fate of the Mirages had not changed, however, as the Harriers awaited their arrival. Three Mirages out of
eight were lost.

The Harrier was also impeded in endurance as the carriers were based 200 miles away from the Falklands to preserve them. The Harriers were also helped out because Chile had allowed the British to base a powerful radar near to the Argentine border which gave early warning of aircraft ingress...

The Sea Harrier commanders also knew there were only a couple of routes that the Argentine forces could travel because of fuel concerns. Not all of the Argentine aircraft could re-fuel inflight, with only two tankers it was even more difficult. From the article, I see that there was a reluctance to engage the Harriers, because of the 9-L and it`s maneuverability...

snyppa777. I repeat, the kill ratio for the mirage against the Sea Harrier was 0-1, only Perona was shot down, none of the mirages fired a missile, because cuerva neither Perona obtained a lock on for their missiles, the engagement was frontal and our pilots knew very well that firing a Matra in that condition will be useless, the brits saw the explotion of the ejecting fuel tanks and mistakenly though the Mirages had fired missiles to them, again, García Cuerva Mirage was not hit by a Sidewinder, nor cannon fire....On 8 June no Mirages were lost, only Daggers, no Mirages IIIEA, attack HMS Plymouth at San Carlos Channel, hitting it with its cannons and bombs (that didn´t explode), the Mirages flew that day as bait, and the Sea Harrier fell in that trap, allowing the Skyhawks A-4B from Grupo 5 de Caza to destroy RDA Sir Tristram and Sir Galahad at Bluff Cove. there is strong evidence from swstellite information, that one of the carriers was hit, furthermore, if it was not, why the brits retreated to the west and why their arerial activity decreased after that day. I repeat again, the kill ration for the Shar against the Mirage III was 1-0. And 28 argentine aircraft in total were downed by Sidewinders, plus 4 by cannon fire, in that total are included 1 Mirage III EA, 9 Daggers, and about 10 Skyhawks, 1 C-130 Hercles and some Pucarás...The Mirages didn´t engage the Shars again because of the fuel limitations, it was not a fair fight, would you fight with another guy with both arms tied up at your back?, c´mon...It´s a fact that before that encouter the Shars were reluctant to climb at 33.000 ft, were the mirages were orbiting and having all the advantages in terms of manouverability and performance, only after the radar at Puerto Argentino communicated them of 1 Shar (mistakenly) and the Mirages descended loosing their marginak advantages, the shars engaged..

PUCARA70, with great respect, I posted the article from Globalsecurity.org because I felt this topic needed a source, rather than just our opinions...

Capt. Cuerva himself said that the Mirages fired 2 Matras` in that days` engagement. That section I posted was his own account of that days` action.

Can you possibly tell me why the Matra was useless in a frontal attack? I thought that semi-active radar guided missiles were actually better performers in a frontal attack rather than a tail chase or oblique attack? I could easily be mistaken. It would be a mistake if the range was too close, or they didn`t get a lock. The SHAR pilots who fought in the same engagement said that the Mirages didn`t stay around to illuminate their targets for the Matra to work. That would suggest to me that range wasn`t the issue......Also , why would jettisoned fuel tanks explode???

Additionally, the Sir Tristam was only hit by rocket fire and not destroyed, Sir Galahad was effectively hit with great loss of life. I have a colleague whom was on board at the time....3 Mirages were lost that day according to that website.

With only 28 Harriers, it would be easy to saturate British defences, the RN knew this, the RN hoped to hit the opposing aircraft on the way in and out creating a battle of attrition....

You are right, I wouldn`t want to fight a SHAR below 10,000ft either! The threat to Argentine forces was from the Harriers, the Mirages should really have come down to fight them but they didn`t have the fuel, weapons, or inclination to do so. It was indeed a difficult position for the Argentine fighters.

What I didn`t do in my previous post was post a link to the page, well here it is. I would ask you to take note of the conclusions at the bottom of the page, as well as the sources for the article, which are many, about 60 including many interviews with Argentine pilots. As I have said, all of the accounts from my previous post were from the very pilots involved, including Capt. Cuerva...

The conclusions are that the British won out because of better training, tactics, thinking, and better leadership. Not luck as some would prefer to believe.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ ... 84/DWF.htm

Dear snypa777,

It would be very interesting to know, where Capt. García Cuerva, and specially when did he say that, because he died that day, our own triple aaa shot him down, so, when did he say that he fired misiles, he only cleaned his fighter prior to landing, that was the cause he was taken by an enemy aircraft and shot down, check the official site of the FAA, he is a KIA, so, I repeat, when did he say that?. The Matras has semiactive guidance, but were built with '50 decade technologies, so the SHAR ECM didn´t allow a lock on, we didn´t have Sparrows or AMRAAMS remember?, so it was easy for the RN pilots to avoid them using ECM, the Mirages couldn´t obtain a lock on, besides the Mirage radar was old too, the SHAR radar was newer. No Mirages were lost on 8 May, check the FAA site, also Falkland, the Air War (Burden), andmore info.

There are a lot of internet sites written by people who didn´t know the fact, or aren´t interested in History, the 3 "Mirages" shot down that day, were in fact A-4 shot down by British pilot Dave Morgan, he thought he had downed Mirages, after the War, the evidence show they were Skyhawks (one flown by 1Lt. Danilo Bolzán after sinking Foxtrot4 a Fearless´troop boat, from Grupo5 de Caza). check the links, and look the little damage caused by rockets??. Any A-4 flew with rockets, they flew with bombs (some Mk-117 British built, some spanish, some argentinian)http://www.fuerzaaerea.mil.ar/conflicto/dias/jun08a.html it is in Spanish, but I can translate if you want, there are also some photos. i repeat again, on rthat day none Dagger was shot down, and no Mirage enter combat, just flew as bait...

Mr PUCARA70, my bad! The engagement between the SHARS and Capt.Cuerva was an "account" of that battle, it didn`t actually state it was recounted by the Capt. himself, my apologies. The website Globalsecurity, as far as websites go, seems pretty good to me. the editors/writers seem to have exhaustively researched the subject and used a huge number of sources. "Falklands, The Air War", a book you quoted, was also used as a source.

I am always dubious about exact numbers, if you get figures from the Argentines or the British or any other source they are always different! I think it is not in question though whether a ship was put out of action or not though.

The small landing boat "Foxtrot 4" was indeed destroyed, Sir Tristam wasn`t.
Thanks for the info on the Matra missiles. Royal Navy pilots stll say that the Mirage didn`t stay around to illuminate their targets. You get a radar "lock" with your AI radar first, guide the missile to a point where the missiles own radar takes over. It is easy to believe that modern ECM defeated those Matras in the terminal phase or even "broke lock" of the AI radar. Never-the-less, Matras WERE fired.

On so called "facts" it depends whose propaganda machine you believe. I tend to take with a pinch of salt a propaganda machine which told it`s people that Invincible and Hermes were sunk 4 times each!

Flt Lt David Morgan, RAF shot down two Skyhawks and two helicopters making him the most successful pilot of the war. He knew the difference between a Mirage and a Skyhawk, especially when on their tails.

Here is an interesting aside, I previously knew nothing of this plan...A team of Argentinian Monteneros(I hope that is correct) planned to attack a British warship in Gibraltar during the war with Italian limpet mines and divers.
Apparently, MI6/GCHQ had intercepted comms between Argentina and Spain and decrypted them. they then informed the Spanish police who then arrested the 3 man team.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Gibraltar/sto ... 02,00.html

Dear snyppa777, i agree with your signature, I may not agree with what you say...but I will defend to the death your right to say it...first of all, let me put in clear terms the fololowing issue, you, and not only you, seem to be confused, Capt. Cuerva flew in fact 2 misions that day, with the same wingman, on the first one, his Mirage was configured in this way: 2 underwing drop tanks (1.700lts.), 2 Matra 550 Magic I and one Matra 530 in the centreline rack. On the second one, in wich he would become a K.I.A., his aircraft was configured in this way: 2 drop tanks (1.700lts) and only 2 Matra 550 Magic I, as the FAA already realised that the 530 was useless. Second, both RauxN ships at Bluff Cove were destroyed, nor sunk, and third, the silouetes paitend on the Shar that Morgan flew that day, despicted mistakenly 3 Mirages silouethes instead of the correct Skyhawks ( Falklands Air War, Burden), also the british recognized that fact, nor Mirrages were shot down that day (Neither M-III or IAI Daggers), only Skyhawks. And finally, not only in this war, in all wars the pilots made wrong id from enemy aircraft, since WWII, pasing trough Vietnam, so it is very acceptable he also made a wrong ID on what planes he shot down....Greetings...

PUCARA, I have already agreed that information is confused sometimes. I have read the account by David Morgan a few times over the years. He DEFINITELY knew the aircraft he was attacking were A4s`. He and wing man David Smith shot down 3 A4s that day. Mirages were not dropping bombs on ships now were they! Ok, the wrong silhouettes were slapped on the aircraft, Morgan himself probably didn`t put those silhouettes on!!! Got any pictures of these? I have just ordered Flt Lt Morgans new book.

Either way, details aside, the war was won because of superior tactics, training, leadership and strategy, weaponry. Your navy and air force did very, very well.
But not as well as the RN. That is beyond doubt.

PUCARA, we will probably never agree but it has been an interesting discussion, thank you! Wink

You are welcome snyppa777, at that time, yes you were better trained and have better weapons, also better leadership, here some stupid morons were on the Goverment, now that we live in democracy, our military can train better in their job, we are very proud of our pilots from both the Argentine Air Force and the Naval Aviation. It was very interesting indeed. Feel free to e-mail me anytime you want friend...Take care, cya in another post!!!!!

Quote:

Here is an interesting aside, I previously knew nothing of this plan...A team of Argentinian Monteneros(I hope that is correct) planned to attack a British warship in Gibraltar during the war with Italian limpet mines and divers.
Apparently, MI6/GCHQ had intercepted comms between Argentina and Spain and decrypted them. they then informed the Spanish police who then arrested the 3 man team.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Gibraltar/sto ... 02,00.html

Hey, snypa, the link doesn't work, it says:

"We haven't been able to serve the page you asked for."

Can you bring another link, please?

About that plan I haven't got idea too. I knew that the Montoneros were the guilty of the attack to the ARA "Santisima Trinidad". Here's some info from Wikipedia:

Quote:

The ARA Santisima Trinidad is a Type 42 destroyer, of the Armada Republica Argentina.

She was built at the Argentine AFNE shipyard and commissioned in 1980. Commissioning of the ship, whose construction began in 1973, was long delayed by a bomb attack carried out by the terrorist organization Montoneros in 1975. Santisima Trinidad's hull suffered severe damage and the ship's performance after entering service was greatly hampered as a result of the attack.

IIRC, the ARA "Santisima Trinidad" and ARA "Hercules" were used by our Naval pilots to practice the attack to the HMS "Sheffield", being these of the same type.

Cheers Cheers

Hey Ryan dude! I really didn`t know that the ARA Type 42s` were built in Argentina? It is strange that the Montoneros were used in the Gibraltar plot...

I will post the link again, something seems to have gone wrong when I posted it the firet time. I have checked this link and it seems to be ok.

I have a fantastic link from "Casahistoria.net" an academic site, which looks at the history of the Islands, the political scene in the UK and Argentina at the time. It is very interesting if you are into history. It also looks at Galtieri and the dark days when he was in power.

It also looks at the dark days when Maggie Thatcher was in power!!
Thatcher was one of the most hated people in the UK when she was in power, most people abroad don`t realise that..There was just no viable alternative, the other political leaders were useless!! It was only years later that people had a quiet admiration for her even though she near destroyed the country! People respect her because she NEVER backed down. That also means that she was a stubborn S.O.B.!!!!

In fact, the site I will link to has links to almost everything you wanted to know about that time. It even has an American perspective on the air war and a German look at the events in Port Pleasant (San Carlos water)....

It has a vast amount of information.
Try this for the attempt to sink a RN ship in the Med`.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/falklands/sto ... 01,00.html

This is the link for Casahistoria.net. It has views from people in Argentina and the UK, in fact from everybody!

http://www.casahistoria.net/Malvinas_Falklands.htm
Wink

The Harriers ripped the Argentine Air Force and Navy to Shreds. Yeah the British lost quite a few ships, but in the end the "spanish speakers" lost the war. The British just decided to give them the islands anyway cause they were really of no military value. But The Harriers played a key role in defence of British shipping

Forum: Air Power

Aerial Combat during Falkland Campaign 1982