Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Well they tried to.Go on offense -- the Argentine aircraft carrier and other surface ships and air forces attack the British task force.
As the old saying goes, "nothing ventured, nothing gained."
You can't expect to achieve anything if you never take any risks.
The Black Buck raids will likely still come in early May, but they were ineffective. For all their postwar fanfare the raids put one hole in Stanley's runway that was quickly filled in. Argentina's engineers have more than a month to extend the runway before the first Sea Harriers are overhead. If plans, materials and equipment are prepared in advance a runway extension might be doable. Otherwise you might be right. And that's one of the issues, that Galtieri did not give his armed forces time to prepare, since like many a dictator he was reacting to domestic issues. But for argument sake, I'm going to assume our Argentine air boss has been thinking about extending Stanley's runway for some time.Extending a runway might take time they don't have, or resources they can't bring in, in time.
What is often forgotten is that the Black Buck missions were not all about dropping bombs. The aircraft on Black Buck 1,2 & 7 dropped bombs with only that single hit on the runway in Black Buck 1 to show for the effort. Black Buck 3 was a bombing mission cancelled before take off due to unfavourable winds.The Black Buck raids will likely still come in early May, but they were ineffective. For all their postwar fanfare the raids put one hole in Stanley's runway that was quickly filled in. Argentina's engineers have more than a month to extend the runway before the first Sea Harriers are overhead. If plans, materials and equipment are prepared in advance a runway extension might be doable. Otherwise you might be right. And that's one of the issues, that Galtieri did not give his armed forces time to prepare, since like many a dictator he was reacting to domestic issues. But for argument sake, I'm going to assume our Argentine air boss has been thinking about extending Stanley's runway for some time.
It must have surprised the Argentines when two days after the surrender of Stanley, HMS Hermes and Invincible sail at the head of a task force. Not the expected reaction - but that was Maggie, a PM you underestimated at your peril.
Oh yes, I agree. But our air boss has to do his best. My plan would be to throw everything at the task force, including stressing the carrier's engines and catapults to get those 4x500lb armed Skyhawks into the air.Personally I think that whatever the Argentines tried they were onto a loser anyway.
Apparently notwithstanding the issues you mention, they gave it a go.Hi,
I think we should keep in mind the logistics that would likely be involved not only in doing something like "lengthening" an airstrip but also what would likely be entailed in supporting any additional aircraft, aircrew, support personnel, support equipment, and other general support issues that would likely be required. As I understand it Argentina had a fair amount of issues just adequately supporting the troops that they had on shore at the time.
As is I understand it Argentina only operated the following fixed wing attack aircraft from Port Stanley; Pucaras, Aeromacchis and Mentors. Adding even a small number of Super Entendards and A-4 would likely add a significant enough logistics stream, especially with regards to fuel, munitions, and support equipment and personnel to make it probably a non-starter given the state of Argentina's air and sea transport capabilities at the time.
Regards
Pat
It is clear that the Argentinians tried to do just what you are suggesting on 2nd May 1982. Problem was that they just couldn't get the numbers to add up.Oh yes, I agree. But our air boss has to do his best. My plan would be to throw everything at the task force, including stressing the carrier's engines and catapults to get those 4x500lb armed Skyhawks into the air.
If they can cripple one of the two RN carriers things will change, and if Argentina loses their carrier in the process, it makes little difference to Argentina's position.
They tried but they couldn't pull it off.It is clear that the Argentinians tried to do just what you are suggesting on 2nd May 1982. Problem was that they just couldn't get the numbers to add up.
Well yes, minus the Harriers lost on the carrier. And without a ski ramp the Harriers cannot carry much fuel or weapons.Of course, IF the UK had lost a carrier the Harrier could take off from just about any flat surface...
ISTR that at one point there was a suggestion that they might try to buy Harrier in the 1970s. Not Sea Harrier. Can't find the reference for that just now. Will see if I can find it tomorrow unless someone beats me to it!Well yes, minus the Harriers lost on the carrier. And without a ski ramp the Harriers cannot carry much fuel or weapons.
Did Argentina ever look to buying Sea Harriers for their 5 Mayonnaise carrier? That would have made for fun IFF.
Maybe they'd buy Matadors from the US instead, like Spain. Though considering their recent purchase of two new Type 42 destroyers from Britain, perhaps late 1970's Argentina is okay with buying British. IIRC, Spain was annoyed about Gibraltar at the time they were seeking aircraft for their carrier.ISTR that at one point there was a suggestion that they might try to buy Harrier in the 1970s. Not Sea Harrier. Can't find the reference for that just now. Will see if I can find it tomorrow unless someone beats me to it!
Could the early Harrier or Sea Harrier carry the Exocet or Harpoon?Found this online.
Did you know that the Argentine Navy could have been the first export customer for the Harrier Jump Jet? - The Aviation Geek Club
The UK was not against a Harrier sale, as the situation regarding the Malvinas/Falkland Islands was relatively satisfactory at that time.theaviationgeekclub.com
No.Could the early Harrier or Sea Harrier carry the Exocet or Harpoon?