FMA IA-58 Pucara COIN aircraft.

There's a big difference between the Falklands War and the Gulf War. The United States had ground forces and air forces operational in the Middle-East, whereas the Royal Navy were the only operators of aircraft during the Falklands War until they got ashore.

The United States would have used more ships and planes to re-take the Falklands than Great Britain did. The U.S used more ships in Operation El Dorado Canyon than the British did in the entire Falklands conflict.

The United States would have used more ships and planes to re-take the Falklands than Great Britain did

Click to expand...

If you read a little more carefully, you would have seen that I did not deny that the US would have used more ships. What I did say was that we would not bring every carrier we had in for the conflict, which is not to say the British would have either. I'm saying that there would be a taskforce centered around a Carrier consisting of assault ships, destroyers, missile cruisers, and any other support ships that might be deemed neccessary for the operation. As per the quip about our units already stationed in the Gulf before the start of GW:1, what relevance is that? If the US went to the Falklands Conflict in lieu of Britain, then we would have relied just as much on our sea borne troops.

Glider implied, even stated, that the U.S would use three carriers. You denied this and brought the Gulf War into the equation. I never said the U.S would bring every carrier into the conflict (nor did Glider, for that matter).

There's every relevence to my statement about U.S forces already being in the Middle-East. The Royal Navy didn't have any ground based aircraft or units to support it's operations during Falklands, the U.S had this luxury. This is the reason they only used one carrier group during the initial phases. Instead of the U.S carrier being the main strike force (like the Royal Navy one was in Falklands), the U.S carrier was the supporting arm. If the U.S didn't have ground based operators, or air forces in the Middle-East, they would have used more carriers. Just like the U.S would have used more carriers during the Falklands.

End of the story is, Glider stated that the U.S would have used more ships and carriers than Great Britain did during the Gulf War. And his statement is true - the Gulf War was a completely different situation, and you're foolish to bring it into the equation - proof is easily found in Operation El Dorado Canyon. The U.S used more ships in one single strike than Great Britain did in an entire war.

I also admire the Argentinians, although not for what they were going to do, but rather for keeping up the fight, even with some out-dated units.

Click to expand...

The argentine military was more crippled for his poor planing and logistic than for the relatively old war equipment.

The Pucara ia a slick plane!!

[ The U.S used more ships in one single strike than Great Britain did in an entire war.[/QUOTE]

Isn't this a simple matter of "overwhelming your enemies"?. C'mon. If the Brits had been able to bear 10 Invincibles, they would have. Hell they had to buddy tank Canberra's for this conflict. I think you guys are comparing apples to oranges here. Be nice.

And I too have always thought the Pucara was one hot attack plane.

"Isn't this a simple matter of "overwhelming your enemies"?. C'mon. If the Brits had been able to bear 10 Invincibles, they would have. Hell they had to buddy tank Canberra's for this conflict. I think you guys are comparing apples to oranges here. Be nice."

The Royal Navy had more than one carrier in 1982, but we didn't send them all to the Falklands. So, I have to say, no. If Britain had ten aircraft carriers we wouldn't have sent ten. The task force to reclaim the Falklands was set up in three days, the British forces needed to be down there as quickly as possible. Setting up several carriers for the job would have taken too long.

My dad saw me scanning this thread, and being a veteran of the Falklands starting chatting away about his experiences there. And he got on to the Rapiers we were using there, I remember a discussion I had with Glider a couple of pages back.

Glider

"Simple maths and Physics. Put it another way, a car roof is probably as thick as a planes skin. So if a 100lb rock falling from a cliff with a terminal velocity of around 120mph, wouldn't bounce off your car roof. Why would a streamlined missile going roughly 18 times faster bounce off the same roof?"

My dad on the subject:

"What kind of idiot thought of creating a missile without a warhead, I will never know. Only in Britain! They just bounced off the Argie planes, pilots probably felt the bump and thought "What the f*ck was that?" and carried on. It was all well and good when the plane was flying at you, you'd get the combined speeds of the Rapier and the plane ... do some damage. But when they were flying away , you got to remember the collision speed is lower and the angle is never nought degrees. They used to hit the plane a skim right off them. You got a projectile going Mach 2 , hitting a plane goin' Mach 1, they only collide at Mach 1... "

AT-63 SUPER PAMPA MODEL 2006.













FIDAE 2006

AT-63 Pampa

DESCRIPTION:


With a fully upgraded cockpit and modern avionics suite, the new AT-63 under production in Argentina is setting a new standard for low-cost basic through advanced trainer and light attack aircraft. The Argentine Air Force has contracted to build 12 AT-63s. On June 19, 2001, Lockheed Martin presented this new aircraft during the Paris Air Show and is now offering it to customers worldwide.

The new generation AT-63 maintains the ease of maintenance and airframe stability of the original version, produced in the late 1980s as the IA-63, while adding advanced upgrades and additional combat capabilities.

The new AT-63 features:

A Honeywell TFE-731-2C turbofan engine with 3,500 pounds of thrust.
A state-of-the-art avionics suite with a Digital 1553B MIL STD data bus, full systems redundancy, a glass cockpit, laser ring INS/GPS NAV, a mission computer and an integrated weapons system.
Fully pressurized dual control cabin with a one-piece canopy that can be electrically fragilized in the event of ground emergency. The ejection sequence for the two zero-zero seats can be pre-selected.
Four underwing plus one under fuselage weapons stations enabling air-to-air and air-to-ground light attack capability.
The first upgraded prototype is scheduled to fly in mid-2005.

While the Argentine Air Force is the first customer for the new AT-63, other countries have expressed an interest, and the Argentine government is supportive of international sales of the aircraft. In addition to Latin America, export potential for the AT-63 exists in Europe, Africa and the Middle East.

Down-time for the in-service AT-63 fleet has consistently remained below design expectations. The AT-63 requires only 2.27 DMMH/FH while the total workload between major scheduled inspections is 3.80 DMMH/FH.
Characteristics
AT-63 Characteristics

Weight:
Empty
6,217 lb
2,820 kg

Internal Fuel
2,380 lb
1,080 kg

Max TOGW
11,038 lb
5,000 kg

Wing Area
168.3 sq.ft.
(15.63 m2)

Horizontal Tail Area
46.8 sq.ft.
(4.35 m2)

Aspect Ratio
6.0

Leading-Edge Sweep
5.4 deg

Service Life
8,000 hours

Engine Thrust
3,500 lb class
1,560 daN

Performance

Max Level Speed @ 26,200 ft
440 KTAS
815 km/hr

Cruise Speed @ 30,000 ft (Clean) 350 KTAS 650 km/hr
Stall Speed- Flap-Down 82 KCAS 152 km/hr
Maximum Operational Mach 0.8
Design Load Factor +6g -3g
Take-Off Run (ISA-S/L-Normal Fuel-8,300 lb)
1,410 ft
430 m

Landing Run (ISA-S/L-7,710 lb) 1,510 ft 460 m
Ceiling 42,300 ft 12,900 m
Maximum Climb Rate (8,300 lb) 5,120 ft/min 1,560 m/min
Range 1,140 n miles 2,100 km
Roll rate 200? /sec

Bet FlyboyJ would love to get ahold of that for a few hours!

And the comments above about the Rapier I have to only chuckle at. Missiles bouncing off aircraft at Mach 1 closing speeds. Phhhhhhttt. I don't give a sh!t what angle of incidence.

my dad's words whilst sat in hole in the ground near san carlos bay
"f**k me these guy's look quite good" as he watched skyhawks and mirages scream over at what seemed like head hight

In 1979 during a short stint with Garrett AiResearch in Phoenix, we were
working to sell the TPE-331 turboprops for use on the Pucara. I got to
fly with the chief test pilot (I wish I could remember his name) who was
an amazing stick and had a very thick German accent. Turns out he was
WW2 ex-Luftwaffe. A very friendly guy, too. Oddly enough, when in Spain
also helping CASA with the TPE-331, their chief pilot was an old German...
You just couldn't keep those old Luftwaffe eagles outta the cockpit for long.

Huhum..."lokolope" la informacion del AT-63 ya esta puesta aqui:

http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/modern/fma-ia-58-pucara-coin-aircraft-1599-2.html

In 1979 during a short stint with Garrett AiResearch in Phoenix, we were
working to sell the TPE-331 turboprops for use on the Pucara. I got to
fly with the chief test pilot (I wish I could remember his name) who was
an amazing stick and had a very thick German accent

Click to expand...

Probably that engines were for the IA-66 an upgraded version of the IA-58 wich never entered in production.





http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/modern/fma-ia-58-pucara-coin-aircraft-1599-2.html

Have you guys heard about this

In order to avoid the high concentration of British air defences, Argentine pilots were forced to swoop in and launch their bombs from a low altitude at the very last moment. The Argentines lost nearly twenty aircraft in these attacks, including several Pucarás on the ground.

While undoubtedly a brave effort of the air force, the late releasing of bombs meant that many never exploded, as there was insufficient time in the air for them to arm themselves. The problem was that—like many other items never used before by the Argentine Armed Forces in such ways—there was a problem in the way the bombs were armed. Days before the war ended, the problem was solved and the iron bombs exploded regardless of the altitude from which they were dropped, as seen on the 8 June attack.

Click to expand...

Political pressure from above to not risk the LPD forced Mike Clapp (Commander Amphibious Forces) to alter this plan. Two lower-value LSLs would be sent, but without suitable beaches to land, Intrepid's landing craft would need to accompany them to unload. A complicated operation across several nights with Intrepid and Fearless (her sister ship) sailing half-way to dispatch their craft was devised. The attempted overland march by half the Welsh Guards had failed, possibly as they refused to march light and attempted to carry their equipment. They returned to San Carlos and were landed direct to Bluff Cove when Fearless dispatched her landing craft. Sir Tristram sailed on the night of 6 June and was joined by Sir Galahad at dawn on 7 June.

Anchored 1200 feet apart in Port Pleasant, the landing ships were near Fitzroy, the ordered landing point. The landing craft should have been able to unload the ships to here relatively quickly, but confusion over the ordered disembarkation point (the first half of the Guards going direct to Bluff Cove) resulted in the senior Welsh Guards infantry officer aboard insisting his troops be ferried the far longer distance direct to Port Fitzroy/Bluff Cove. The intention was for the infantrymen to march via the recently repaired Bluff Cove bridge (destroyed by retreating Argentinian combat engineers) to their destination, a journey of around seven miles.

The longer journey time of the landing craft taking the troops direct and the squabbling over how the landing was to be performed caused enormous delay in unloading. It had disastrous consequences. Without escorts, having not yet established their air defence and still almost fully laden the two LSLs in Port Pleasant were sitting targets for two waves of Argentinian-FAA A-4 Skyhawks.

The disaster at Port Pleasant (although often known as Bluff Cove) would provide the world with some of the most sobering images of the war as TV news video footage showed Navy helicopters hovering in thick smoke to winch survivors from the burning landing ships.

Click to expand...

The Sea Harriers were outnumbered by the available Argentinian aircraft and were on occasion decoyed away by the activities of the Escuadrón Fénix or civilian jet aircraft used by the Argentine Air Force. They had to operate without a fleet early warning systems such as AWACS that would have been available to a full NATO fleet in which the Royal Navy had expected to operate.

The result was that the Sea Harriers could not establish complete air superiority and prevent Argentine attacks during day or night, nor could they stop the daily flights of C-130 Hercules transports to the islands.

Click to expand...

The 1982 Falklands War almost ended badly for the British had not the Argentine bomb fitters failed to properly fuse bombs for A-4 SkyHawks and Mirage III jets. Our days of being lucky at sea are about to end.

Click to expand...

Imagine if the fuses had been fixed earlier. Is it true that several ships were hit by bombs that failed to explode?

Falklands War - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Gadgetry trumps all to the Tofflerians

http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Hangar/2848/dagger.jpg

BAE Sea Harrier - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

What is the top picture? Super Etentards on attack run?

Skyhawks

Uhum.....The Falklands/Malvinas war have his own topic so....


Low flying Pucaras (video)

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qXLM3BUD-TY

Nice!

And here you got others. ( wacht out the second, a lot of ugly faces in this )

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SOOGUiABaNg


View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=acGwAOsXUug