Wars and ConflictsΒ permalink
Harriers vs Argentine AF
This discussion has been closed.
-
Message 1.Β
Posted by Erik Lindsay (U231970) on Monday, 31st December 2007
During the Falklands war, the only fighter a/c the Brits employed was the sea harrier which was confronted by Israeli-built Daggers, US Skyhawks and the French-built Mirage. The Mirages and Daggers are both good fighters and while the Skyhawks were a bit long in the tooth, they were good a/c. What's more, the Argentine pilots were well-trained and certainly did not lack in courage, yet the air-to-air combat was so one-sided as to almost defy logic. The harrier pilots knocked down 23 Argentine a/c without losing a single plane.
The harrier wasn't fast for a jet fighter of the 1980's and one wouldn't expect it to have the kind of advantage in air-to-air combat that figures indicate it evidently had.
What gave it such a huge impact as a fighter? -
Message 2
Posted by Brevabloke (U1685837) on Wednesday, 2nd January 2008
You will have to read "Sea Harrier Over The Falklands" - Nigel "Sharkey" Ward.
It explains all - basically it was down to the ability of the SHAR to "point" at the enemy very quickly, and avoid the same from the enemy. The Argentinan AF pilots had very good intelligence on the SHAR (La Meurte Negra!) and avoided combat when they could.
Rather controversially, in highly monitored combat simulations (as close as you can get without actual war) the Sea Harrier (or was it the pilots??) was superior to the F15, F16, and the F5. -
Message 3
Posted by George1507 (U2607963) on Wednesday, 2nd January 2008
The Brits did lose Harriers in the Falklands conflict...
But also maybe the Argentine objective was to attack ships rather than engage in dogfights with British planes. -
Message 4
Posted by Brevabloke (U1685837) on Wednesday, 2nd January 2008
No Harriers were lost in air to air combat. The Argentinian pilots don't claim any I believe. Any losses were due to ground fire, either guns or missiles, or accidents. And I know 1 SHAR was lost due to sliding off an icy deck, and one GR3 lost due to sucking a sheet of metal into the engine, and most likely 2 SHARs collided with each other (we'll never know).
Yes It's true George the Argentinian AF was after the ships, that was the whole crux of the matter, thats what the Daggers and the A4s were tasked to do. -
Message 5
Posted by Mani (U1821129) on Wednesday, 2nd January 2008
As has been already said, the entire Argentine Policy was to avoid engaging the Harriers at all costs.
I believe this cost them the war.
Given the limited resources of the RAF - I would have adopted the policy of engaging the Harriers, regardless of the cost. Everyone lost could not easily be replaced.
Whilst it's true the Harrier wasn't supersonic, it's manoeuvrability far exceeded anything any Air force could field. -
Message 6
Posted by Brevabloke (U1685837) on Wednesday, 2nd January 2008
The decision to get rid of the Mk2 SHAR was a very bad one. No organic air power, and yet again the RAF wins the propaganda war (if not the Falklands Confict!).
-
Message 7
Posted by JB (U569100) on Wednesday, 2nd January 2008
I like the story of the Harrier pilot invited onto the Aerospatiale stand at the Paris Air show to talk about how he was shot down by a ROLAND SAM. He told his tale, then couldn't help noticing they were claiming three kills during the 1982 conflict, him plus two Argentine "Blue-On-Blues."
-
Message 8
Posted by Brevabloke (U1685837) on Wednesday, 2nd January 2008
The seriously considered court martialling that guy JB, despite him doing his job very well. 801 CO hit the roof when he heard about the CM moves, and luckily it did not happen. 801 had to fight both the Argentinian AF AND those in charge of Operation Corporate.
-
Message 9
Posted by Backtothedarkplace (U2955180) on Wednesday, 2nd January 2008
Hi Mani,
The Falklands are or were pretty much at the edge of the effective range for the landbased jets. Once they got there it was drop the bombs and turn for home. Dog fighting eats avgas. The argentinians only had a limited air to air refueling capability. One or Two C130's? which they restricted to supplying fuel to homeward bound jets.
If they tried they would have to send a limited number of planes and restrict any other operations while the "anti harrier" flights were in the air. I am not an expert on this but my gut feeling is that the numbers they could use would be less than the harriers they were trying to hunt, and the tankers would have to be closer to the battle areas possibly making them more vunerable as well. -
Message 10
Posted by Sabre-Wulf (U2142937) on Wednesday, 2nd January 2008
The SHARs were also fitted wiht the latest version of the Sidewinder, which the US generously supplied. Even with the manouverability and training of the FAA pilots, I don't think they'd have had the success they did without these.
It should also be noted that amongst the kills recorded by the FAA were some Puccaras, which were slower than the fast jets mentioned, and also a C130 which I'm guessing doesn't take a huge amount of skill to bring down?
SW -
Message 11
Posted by Brevabloke (U1685837) on Wednesday, 2nd January 2008
Pucaras are indeed much slower, as are Sea Harriers v Mirage III...
And it was quite difficult to find those nightly C130 flights, the AAF were very skilled and no mugs. I bet I couldn't fly a Sea Harrier at night and bring down a C130.
-
Message 12
Posted by U3280211 (U3280211) on Wednesday, 2nd January 2008
Re: loss of Harriers in the FC.
Was the 'Atlantic Conveyor' carrying spare Harriers when it was hit by the Exocet?
I have heard vague rumours that there was an attempt to remove Harrier/s from the ship before the fire took hold.
Any truth in that? -
Message 13
Posted by Brevabloke (U1685837) on Wednesday, 2nd January 2008
It was and they got them off - but lost all the Chinooks but one.
-
Message 14
Posted by merlin (U10448262) on Wednesday, 2nd January 2008
The Harriers destroyed a total of 22 Argentine aircraft - 9 Daggers, 8 Skyhawks, 2 Mirages, a Cambera, a c-130 Hercules and a Pucara, mostly by Sidewinders.
There may have been more Mirages - but they were pulled out of the 'battle' to protect the mainland against any attack by RAF Vulcans!
"What was apparent to the British was that the Argentine pilots had little idea of how members of a good flight formation could give each other mutal cover when attacked by the Harriers. Indeed, they were briefed to avoid air fights and if attacked, to get down low where it wouod be every man for himself. They knew that they were outclassed by the Harriers and their Sidewinders, and felt that there was no point in even trying to combat them. Being engaged on attack sorties against RN ships, they did not even carry air-to-air missiles and in any event the Argentine missiles - the Shafrir, Matra-Magic and early model Sidewinders - could not equal the AIM-9L."
Source: Aircraft versus Aircraft by N Franks. -
Message 15
Posted by Brevabloke (U1685837) on Wednesday, 2nd January 2008
Ah yeah those Vulcan attacks - what a waste of jet fuel. As I said above, the RAF certainly won the propaganda war against the FAA.
Now the hiatus until the F35 comes into service, with all the skills lost.... -
Message 16
Posted by U3280211 (U3280211) on Wednesday, 2nd January 2008
The Vulcan attack.
Yep, costly in fuel, certainly, but what a scare for the Argentines in Stanley. Just to realise we could do that?
I seem to recall that putting a big dent in the Port Stanley runway prevented its later use by long-take-off-run fast jets like the Mirage and Dagger.
Did the Harriers have no luck against the Super Etendard? -
Message 17
Posted by Brevabloke (U1685837) on Wednesday, 2nd January 2008
Having just read the book....the Vulcans barely touched the runway at Stanley. I think 1 bomb skirted the edge. 1 whole mission was wasted as the bombs were not fused!! And the other mission missed completely. The Shrike raids; well they launched the Shrikes, and what a surprise the missile radars were turned off - not stupid these Argies!!!
Everyone involved has an axe to grind, certainly Sharkey Ward does!! But he has a few good points as well (more than a few IMHO). Each Vulcan raid cost (IIRC) about 1 million gallons of jet fuel.... -
Message 18
Posted by stalteriisok (U3212540) on Wednesday, 2nd January 2008
wasnt the aaf vs raf combat the same as the battle of britain - the aaf couldnt afford dog fights because they were at the end of their operational range and could only get in - bomb - and get out
the VERY lucky thing was that they went for high profile targets - the warships - if they had gone for the transports or fleet auxiliary targets they could have easily won - the atlantic conveyor held chinooks and other helicopters (the harriers had already gone) - tents, metal landing strips that would have allowed the harriers to be based on the islands etc etc
the black buck vulcan raids were crap - the 2 holes were filled back up by lunchtime - destroying arentine morale ?? - how much were the dug in troops morale affected by this ??
if sharky was correct there was a better way to fight the war
a question i would like to ask is if the fleet carriers had still been alive - how would the Phantoms have performed ??
ST -
Message 19
Posted by RedGuzzi750 (U7604797) on Wednesday, 2nd January 2008
Not a lot of RAF combats Stalter, nearly all FAA!!
Not sure how the Phantoms would have gone, their radar systems were I suppose pretty old...but faster than the SHAR, much less manoeverable.
It was a bit like the BoB. As you say, Ward reckons the AAF should have set up an airbases there asap, then gone after the Harriers, even accepting a few losses as ultimately they could handle them. Once the SHARs are gone, its open season. -
Message 20
Posted by stalteriisok (U3212540) on Wednesday, 2nd January 2008
hi SS
sorry - lost u on the faa bit ????
(bit thick here lol)
i read a bit where it said that "if we had kept the fleet carriers - we would have mopped up the aaf using phantoms" - is that correct??
where they better than the aaf planes ??
st -
Message 21
Posted by VF (U5759986) on Wednesday, 2nd January 2008
I was lead to believe from various texts that whilst the pilots were very good,and the harrier itself was a very capable aircraft,the job would have been a lot tougher if the RN/RAF had not been able to procure the latest model of the AIM "L" Sidewinder.
From what I can gather this version of the missile was far more capable of "locking on" (is that the right term) than earlier marks.
Vf -
Message 22
Posted by RedGuzzi750 (U7604797) on Wednesday, 2nd January 2008
Fleet Air Arm. To call them the RAF is a huge insult.
True enough the 9L was a much better missile than the previous marks - so it had a big difference on the capabilities, but everything I have read about postwar jet combat points to the same thing; pilots count.
All sorts of schemes/aircraft/systems were sold on the basis that the man was less important than he used to be everything from the F86/Hawker Hunter onwards;
The F100
F102 & 104
Voodoo
Lightning
and a few more Like the Draken, Mirage possibly too..
until the penny dropped when well flown Mig21s were shooting down Phantoms in Vietnam...hey pilot quality and dogfighting ARE important.
And that started off the F15/16 era that were at least meant to tangle sucessfully with enemy fighters.
The Harrier didn't start out as being a dogfighter at all, but this was discovered when they were working it up for service with the FAA. Quite a handy discovery. -
Message 23
Posted by lindavid (U10745308) on Wednesday, 2nd January 2008
the reason was that FAA & RAF pilots have THE RIGHT STUFF,
-
Message 24
Posted by Grumpyfred (U2228930) on Thursday, 3rd January 2008
More to the point, we would have still had Blackburn Buccaneer strike aircraft, able to attack ground targets with bigger loads.
-
Message 25
Posted by U3280211 (U3280211) on Thursday, 3rd January 2008
To Sceptical Scotty.
but everything I have read about postwar jet combat points to the same thing; pilots count.Β
I'm not for one moment disagreeing with that. Sharkey Ward makes it clear that 801 was always honing 'combat skills'.
What I think has changed since Vietnam or the 'Sailor' Malan era is that pilot skills now involve much greater knowledge of avionics than before.
The phrase 'dog-figthing' implies "guns at close quarters" (like Galland, Stanford-Tuck, the Red Barron), but that's not how we won in the Falklands and it is even less relevant in the era of the Phoenix missile, which can lock on to an unseen intruder at 50 miles and bring him down, more or less regardless of the stick and rudder skills of the victim.
As others here have pointed out, the Harriers of 801 were essentially pursuing faster, often un-armed air-superiority fighthers, desinged for high speed, high altitude engagements. They were grossly inefficient at the low altitudes they were forced to select and this meant that their fuel burn gave them only a couple of minutes over the target before they had to return home.
They could out-run a Harrier, but not the 'Sidewinder' carried by the Harrier.
When Sharkey destroyed a Dagger on the 21st of May, 1982, he was in level flight at low altitude when he launched his (left) Sidewinder. The Dagger had passed at speed, from beneath the Harrier and was several miles in front, with re-heat on, and pulling-away well. Sharkey was being left behind, it was the missile which closed the gap in a few seconds and destroyed the Dagger.
Sharkey's primary role was to eyeball the enemy, confirm identification and turn rapidly to ensure a possible 'lock'. To do all this upto 300 nm from his home carrier is brave and impressive, but I'm not sure that 'dog-figthing' best descibes modern jet combat. -
Message 26
Posted by VF (U5759986) on Thursday, 3rd January 2008
Sceptical Scotty
Yes I know that the Fleet Air Arm are the Royal Navies airwing,I was under the impression that some of the Harriers were GR3's which had been in RAF service and then deployed by the Fleet Air Arm.For that reason I referred to the Harriers themselves as RN(Fleet Air Arm) or RAF,I do not know if the actual instalation of the missile had subtle differences between Sea Harrier (with its "Blue Fox" radar) and the GR3.In addition I believe that it was RAF pilots that flew the GR3 of HMS Hermes.
I was not questioning the skills of either the pilots or the aircraft itself,what I was saying that it has to be to their advantage to have a missile that was more capable than those of your enemy.I fully agree with you on the matter of dogfighting,missiles are fine as long as you have your enemy at range advantageous to you and not up close and personal!
Vf -
Message 27
Posted by Brevabloke (U1685837) on Thursday, 3rd January 2008
Very true guys - the knowledge required now is just incredible!!
-
Message 28
Posted by Sambista (U4068266) on Thursday, 3rd January 2008
The Argentine Mirages and Daggers, after the first day, stayed at low level. That, and the overload tanks, made sure they were subsonic. The decision seems to have been forced on them by their understanding that, at medium and hiugh level, they were sitting ducks for Sea Dart (see the experiences of the "22/42 combos" when the "42" didn't obscure the "22"s Sea Wolf A-arcs).
I'd suggest that a Fleet Carrier would have shortened the war considerably - less from the Fox-4s performance than from the AEW ability of the Gannets, and the low-level strike capabilities of the "Flying Bananas". I reckon a single long-toss attack on Stanley airport would have got at least 8 of the 16 1000-lb bombs into the business area - and 25 de Mayo would have been lucky to be able to get back to port.
FAA is a vexed term here - means both "Fleet Air Arm" and "Fuerza Aerea Argentina" so is best avoided if you want to be clear. -
Message 29
Posted by Erik Lindsay (U231970) on Thursday, 3rd January 2008
RE the Vulcan attacks: There obviously was a reason for these, and such a fuss was made of them afterwards that I have to think some good -- militarily or via the media -- came of them.
I know very little damage was done, but I also recall that the Doolittle raid did almost no damage and every a/c was lost, but it had a profound on the enemy and boosted allied morale enormously. -
Message 30
Posted by Sambista (U4068266) on Thursday, 3rd January 2008
They were the pay off to a 70s piece of idiocy. The so-called "mobile global RAF" where the Crabs claimed (and conned the politicians into beleiving) that there was nothing a carrier could do that they couldn't do. To do that, they actually falsified the maps to put areas they couldn't reach closer to their bases. Bearing in mind that it took something like 11 tankers to get one Vulcan to the Falklands and back, I'd reckon the resources could have been more usefully employed elsewhere.
There were light blue unforms amomgst the Shar pilots - every single carrier-qualified Shar pilot from the RAF and the RN went South - but the GR3s were just that - Ground Attack rather than air-air fighters, and were used in that role. -
Message 31
Posted by VF (U5759986) on Thursday, 3rd January 2008
Thats pretty much what Rowland Whites book "Vulcan 607" stated.It confirmed that the British actually were serious about re-taking the Falkland Isles and sowed a few "seeds of doubt" in the Argentine High Commands minds.
regards Vf -
Message 32
Posted by VF (U5759986) on Thursday, 3rd January 2008
"They were the pay off to a 70s piece of idiocy. The so-called "mobile global RAF" where the Crabs claimed (and conned the politicians into beleiving) that there was nothing a carrier could do that they couldn't do. To do that, they actually falsified the maps to put areas they couldn't reach closer to their bases."
Evening Urnagal
Didnt the RAF do something similar to get CVA-)1 axed in the 1966 defence review?I pretty sure that they "moved" Australia 300 miles to prove that they could proved air cover.
Vf -
Message 33
Posted by VF (U5759986) on Thursday, 3rd January 2008
oops sorry that should have said "provide air cover"
Damned keyboard!
Embarrassed Vf -
Message 34
Posted by stalteriisok (U3212540) on Thursday, 3rd January 2008
scotty -
oops i see your point lol-but as mentioned - werent some of the pilots raf in the gr3s who had to take a crash course (no pun intended) on landing on carriers - not sure if they took part in aerial combat
from what i remember of mr wards book - the upgraded sidewinders supplied by the us (out of their war stocks) enabled the harriers to engage "head on" instead of from behind (good old usa - many thanks )
wasnt it also the fact that the buccaneers could -1 target laser guided bombs and - 2 provide some sort of early warning radar cover ??
st -
Message 35
Posted by Grumpyfred (U2228930) on Thursday, 3rd January 2008
The Bucs. were fitted to the laser guidence system for the First Gulf War. I don't think The R A F had them in 1982. Again, I don't think the carried A W A C type radar. That was the Gannets. There was a suggestion that they retro fitted the old system back onto a few gannets and sent them south on the Hermies. But to fly off it, the navy would have had to loose its ski ramp, thus would not have been able to opperate Harriers with full loads.
-
Message 36
Posted by Sambista (U4068266) on Thursday, 3rd January 2008
Might well have been nobody available who was qualified to fly the Gannets by then, either.
AFAIUI, 617 first pioneered the Pave / Spike system on Buccs when they were the aircraft left behind during Gulf War 1, and the Tornados had gone to the Mid-East. Got that story from one of the Dambusters pilots who acted as a consultant for the company I worked for then, who was still in touch with 617. -
Message 37
Posted by stalteriisok (U3212540) on Thursday, 3rd January 2008
gf
think u r correct about the first GW - cos they could fly the buccs from airfields - not in 82 because the fleet carriers had gone
gannets - oh yes thats probably the ones i meant ?
were they awaacs ??
st -
Message 38
Posted by Grumpyfred (U2228930) on Thursday, 3rd January 2008
They started their lives as Anti Sub/strike A/C then finished as A W A Cs. (If you look at pictures of later models, you will see a large Bump under the fuselarge.
-
Message 39
Posted by Grumpyfred (U2228930) on Thursday, 3rd January 2008
Gannet AEW 3 The A W A C version
-
Message 40
Posted by Sambista (U4068266) on Thursday, 3rd January 2008
Not quite AWACS - they didn't have the Command & Control facilities of true AWACS, but certainly gave good radar coverage of the area up threat from the Main Body.
-
Message 41
Posted by Grumpyfred (U2228930) on Thursday, 3rd January 2008
Would have been better though than the Sea Kings. I do remember a company offering to fit out a blimp as an A W A C. They stated it would be able to stay in the air for over 24 hours, and could have been serviced by any type of ship from a S T U F T to a warship. How it would have managed in the South Atlantic weather though I wouldn't like to say. But Helecopters managed.
-
Message 42
Posted by Sambista (U4068266) on Thursday, 3rd January 2008
No question about that - service ceiling for Gannet AEW 3 was 25,000 ft, 250 knots to get on task, 5/6 hours on task. Not sure about Sea King's service ceiling, but the hover was about 5,000 ft.
-
Message 43
Posted by SONICBOOMER (U3688838) on Monday, 18th February 2008
Ironic wasn't it?
An (often derided), small, subsonic, rather specialised VSTOL type, beat out a much larger AF which had one of the great post war fighters in the inventory (Mirage III).
The A-4's could carry sidewinders, had guns, was nimble (why do you think the USN's 'Top Gun' used them for years).
The Argentine AF did attempt to engage the SHAR's on 1st May, after getting a serious mauling they were ordered to stop.
Big mistake, the Argentines had the numbers to absorb losses, unlike the UK forces in theatre.
On delivery, the SHAR's had the standard AIM-9G/H, which had arrived with the RN and RAF Phantoms in the late 60's, better than the AIM-9B's the other side had, but they also had the Israeli upgraded copy.
AIM-9L was on order, from a European consortium, to equip the RAF starting with RAF Germany (the front line then) from late 1982.
So the USN released 103 to the RN.
However, the AIM-9L's selling point, being capable of a heat seeking lock on from the frontal aspect, did not occur during the war.
But AIM-9L had other improvements, more reliable, better lock on generally, much more lethal warhead.
The SHAR was not even that well regarded before the war here, the RAF resented any RN fast jets, numbers were small, as well as the other VSTOL driven performance limitations.
In fact, it had only been procured to ward off Soviet long range naval aviation platforms, like the TU-95 'Bear', which could provide over the horizon targeting for anti ship missiles fired from Soviet ships, subs, aircraft.
In support of the RN's role then, mainly anti sub warfare, the ships that carried them were essentially platforms for a fleet of Sea King choppers.
('No minister, these are not aircraft carriers, they are anti submarine command vessels')
Of course, the likes of 'Sharky' Ward did see the inherent versatility of the Harrier.
But in 1982, the capital ships of the RN were nuclear subs, both attack and Polaris carrying vessels.
In the 1960's, the UK could not afford, or the RN man post conscription, both a fleet of conventional carriers and a required fleet of frigates and subs for the North Atlantic.
CVA-01, was a lemon of a design, too much on a too small displacement.
The day of it's cancellation was recalled by it's chief designer, as 'the happiest day of my life'.
The RN had failed to make a compelling case for new large carriers, including not mentioning the potential threat to the Falklands.
As for the Vulcans, the raids were of great importance well beyond bombs on target.
The Vulcan's aging nav/attack systems meant that dropping the bombs to cross the runway, was by far the best means.
To protect the aircraft, for fuel, for chances of a hit.
That crater was only superficially repaired by the Argentines, it did render the runway unuseable for jets like the A-4.
The attack shook the Junta so much, they ordered the bringing forward of a planned seaborne pincer movement.
To the North, the carrier 25th of May, with crews actually trained in anti shipping, with the appropriate 'retard' bombs, with much more fuel and potential of attacks from several directions.
To the South, the Belgrano group.
The A-4's would attack, the Belgranos large guns mopping up.
But on 2nd of may, the wind over deck was too light to launch the A-4's with a decent fuel/bomb load.
(Something not a problem with the VSTOL Harriers with the ski jump assist).
The Belgrano was sunk, the Argentine fleet ran home, the best chance they had of getting major RN units like the carriers, was gone.
Partly because that Vulcan raid had made the Junta order the capable Admiral Lombardo rush into his planned attack. -
Message 44
Posted by U3280211 (U3280211) on Tuesday, 19th February 2008
Excellent stuff Sonic. Worth waiting for.
-
Message 45
Posted by collins6789 (U7571065) on Wednesday, 20th February 2008
I was working at the old airfield at Culham, Oxfordshire during the Falklands war. The ash pans at Didcot Power station were being used to train Harrier pilots in flying from non-airfield sites, so they ofter carried out mock attacks on the bieldings at Culham. This was fun to watch, but some of the African people I was working with would get very scared and hide in the bushes around the site. One day when I was having a walk around the site during my lunch break a saw a Harrier with a Red Arrow's Hawk on his tail, the Red Arrows were acting as a aggressor squadron. The Harrier could not shake the Hawk off until it dropped low and went under the very high voltage power cables running over the site and the Hawk chickened out of following it.
About this Board
The History message boards are now closed. They remain visible as a matter of record but the opportunity to add new comments or open new threads is no longer available. Thank you all for your valued contributions over many years.
or Β to take part in a discussion.
The message board is currently closed for posting.
The message board is closed for posting.
This messageboard is .
Find out more about this board's
Search this Board
Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ iD
Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ navigation
Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ links
Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ Β© 2014 The Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.
This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.