Lessons from the 80s

Maior · March 7, 2013

thanks. take your time :) 160 pages will take me a couple of days to read :)

Eihort · March 9, 2013

Aye, every Tom, Dick and Bob's an expert........All you need is a keyboard :megalol:

The F-35 and Pak-Fa threads certainly prove this.

Maior · March 15, 2013

http://www.airspacemag.com/military-aviation/falklands.html

Falklands war. Another bit from the 80s. :) This bit clearly shows the importance of force multipliers. The british had less fighters who were also less capable than the Argentinian mirage. They did inflict serious casualties and managed to defend the fleet. They were able to generate more sorties per plane than the Argentinians. Good stuff.

Jona33 · March 15, 2013

http://www.airspacemag.com/military-aviation/falklands.html

Falklands war. Another bit from the 80s. :) This bit clearly shows the importance of force multipliers. The british had less fighters who were also less capable than the Argentinian mirage. They did inflict serious casualties and managed to defend the fleet. They were able to generate more sorties per plane than the Argentinians. Good stuff.

I'd disagree on less capable, lacking in some areas certainly but the AIM-9L is a fantastic missile, in the cold of the falklands it worked perfectly, the radar ships, the SHAR's maneuverability and Blue vixen radar meant that in an equal numbers fight the SHAR was almost certain to come out on top. (The SHAR had only just entered service at the time so how it would perform was largely unknown at the time.

(Passing thought here: In the falklands referendum only three voted against remaining british. Probably should leave it there but interesting none the less.)

Enjoyable article though, I liked it.

Edited March 15, 2013 by Jona33

Maior · March 15, 2013

I'd disagree on less capable, lacking in some areas certainly but the AIM-9L is a fantastic missile, in the cold of the falklands it worked perfectly, the radar ships, the SHAR's maneuverability and Blue vixen radar meant that in an equal numbers fight the SHAR was almost certain to come out on top. (The SHAR had only just entered service at the time so how it would perform was largely unknown at the time.

(Passing thought here: In the falklands referendum only three voted against remaining british. Probably should leave it there but interesting none the less.)

Enjoyable article though, I liked it.

Quite right of course. However, most of what you mention adds to the force multipliers I mentioned. The ability of the Harriers to perform more missions than the Etendards and Mirages of the Argentinians was due to them. Ship's radars were essential as basically, they could direct the few Harriers where they could cause most damage. The Argentinians had to resort to the aircraft sensors which meant that many sorties would be patrols over wide areas diluting their force. The British could almost always achieve number superiority thanks to that. Situational Awareness is the cause of British success. It just proves that asset integration is just so big a force multiplier...

The Harriers were in numerical inferiority and against Mirage III and Daggers were outclassed in a 1on1 basis since both of the other models could fly higher, faster and carry a bigger payload iirc. It was asset integration which tipped the scales.

This war also makes me think the kind of capability the RN carrier fleet will gain once the F-35 enters service.

It'll increase many fold the force projection ability of the RN that's for sure.

RIPTIDE · March 16, 2013

Quite right of course. However, most of what you mention adds to the force multipliers I mentioned. The ability of the Harriers to perform more missions than the Etendards and Mirages of the Argentinians was due to them. Ship's radars were essential as basically, they could direct the few Harriers where they could cause most damage. The Argentinians had to resort to the aircraft sensors which meant that many sorties would be patrols over wide areas diluting their force. The British could almost always achieve number superiority thanks to that. Situational Awareness is the cause of British success. It just proves that asset integration is just so big a force multiplier...

The Harriers were in numerical inferiority and against Mirage III and Daggers were outclassed in a 1on1 basis since both of the other models could fly higher, faster and carry a bigger payload iirc. It was asset integration which tipped the scales.

This war also makes me think the kind of capability the RN carrier fleet will gain once the F-35 enters service.
It'll increase many fold the force projection ability of the RN that's for sure.

The Argies didn't have enough fuel to stay in any fight, though. It's a poor comparison really.

Maior · March 16, 2013

The Argies didn't have enough fuel to stay in any fight, though. It's a poor comparison really.

That wasn't their only problem. From what I gathered, the English had more sensors in the operational area giving them better SA. Also, it was the bombing of the runway in the islands that forced the Argentinians back to the mainland making their situation worse. Not that the runway was very effective though. They also withdrew their aircraft carrier After the sinking of the Belgrano. So, they lost two very important assets that could increase mission time and sortie rate.

They also rerouted the Mirage 3 to protect Buenos Aires from the Vulcan.

Jona33 · March 16, 2013

Quite right of course. However, most of what you mention adds to the force multipliers I mentioned. The ability of the Harriers to perform more missions than the Etendards and Mirages of the Argentinians was due to them. Ship's radars were essential as basically, they could direct the few Harriers where they could cause most damage. The Argentinians had to resort to the aircraft sensors which meant that many sorties would be patrols over wide areas diluting their force. The British could almost always achieve number superiority thanks to that. Situational Awareness is the cause of British success. It just proves that asset integration is just so big a force multiplier...

The Harriers were in numerical inferiority and against Mirage III and Daggers were outclassed in a 1on1 basis since both of the other models could fly higher, faster and carry a bigger payload iirc. It was asset integration which tipped the scales.

This war also makes me think the kind of capability the RN carrier fleet will gain once the F-35 enters service.
It'll increase many fold the force projection ability of the RN that's for sure.

Oh hell yes, when it does enter service it's gonna be one hell of a fighter.

104th_Cobra · March 17, 2013

The Argentines failed to improve Port Stanley runway and establish a consistent air cover umbrella based in the island. They have from April 2nd, the day of the invasion, until May 1st, the day of the 1st attack on the runway, to do so.

Possibly, establishing an aerial coverage based on the Falklands islands has never been a strong goal since the Argentine government never had in account a strong response by the British government. There was an overestimation of aerial capabilities based on the continent, even after it was public knowledge the departure of two british aircraft carriers. It is one of the heaviest factors in the defeat of the Argentine forces.

Edited March 18, 2013 by Xpto