Bummer, He brought some good stuff to the site.
Although his extreme opinions on the Islannds ie kicking all the Kelpers off the Isalnds and packing them off to UK didn’t sit well.
Bummer, He brought some good stuff to the site.
Although his extreme opinions on the Islannds ie kicking all the Kelpers off the Isalnds and packing them off to UK didn’t sit well.
Mate, if you can demonstrate the relavance of this post toi the topic of Air War or Falklands War I will leave it up.
If you cant I’d prefer you to remove it. Cheers.
As always feel free to PM me on ANY subject…
I was thinking about starting a thread to be fair, I believe it to be a valid part of the war, and thus this forum.
I’m a guidance and control engineer, I’m very interested in the subject of aircraft avoiding missiles since its a fascinating area of nonlinear control theory. Hence, I’m interested in what systems were used and how they avoided them.
Its a particular problem for an aircraft like a 707 as its limited to a 2 ‘g’ manoeuvre. The classic tactic against any SAM is to pull a tight max ‘g’ turn at the optimum moment. This works against CLOS guidance because the dynamics of CLOS are such that the maximum manoeuvre commands are made toward the end of the engagement. In Proportional Navigation or pursuit guidance, it works because the guidance law assumes a non-manoevring target, if you manoeuvre late in the end-game the system can’t respond fast enough to null the rate of change of the sightline.
However, you can show that if the missile has sufficient speed and manoeuvre advantage, then nothing that the aircraft does matters. A 2 ‘g’ aircraft versus a 30-50 ‘g’ SAM kinda falls into that category.
I’d love to help LR, but without some sort of flare/chaff or direct intervention from anti-missile missile I can’t see how it could survive either.
While possibly a valid part of the war, as discussed elsewhere, I’m not sure this is relevant to the actual Air War over the islands. An element of thread creep is allowed here, but an actual thread hijack isnt.
I see no relevance at all in someone being thrown out of a C-130 over the S Atlantic in a thread about an air war. Unless of course you have any information pertaining to Argentine suicide Sky Divers that is?
I read part of the document and as a research paper it has some errors which are basic so make me wonder if the rest is a little ify.
The Malvinas had been a festering problem ever since Britain had illegally seized the islands in the 1830s
Bit harsh and open to debate.
Unlike their British opponents, the Argentinians had no precision-guided bomb capability and required skilled pilots and accurate aircraft to hit targets with their “dumb bombs.
This is a basic error and puts into question the authors knowledge. Britain only had dumb bombs as well, unless you count the ARM which where hastily attached to Vulcan by the SA.
British brigade with full equipment.
If you believe that you will believe in fairies.
The FAA possessed some frontline aircraft equal to any in the world—including Mirage III interceptors. During the previous decade, they had acquired Israeli-made Mirage 5 fighters (called Daggers), which can operate at Mach 2 and are effective in both the air-to-air and strike roles. The naval air arm was in the process of acquiring a squadron of Super Etendard fighters from France.
The Harrier was a more technically advanced aircraft than anything the FAA flew
Bit of a contradiction, either the front line aircraft are equal to anything in the world or not as advanced as the Harrier. Was this done by two people who did not read each other’s work?
One must also assume that the United States provided the British with satellite imagery of Argentine air bases that allowed them to count and identify enemy aircraft on mainland runways.
One must not assume if you are writing a factual document. Although the Argentinean keep saying the US helped and that is why they lost, it is clear to most that they did not provide this service.
At this point I stopped reading.
Whilst basically true, not quite.
At the start of the war the UK had no precision capability they could deploy. There was an urgent operational requirement to fit Laser Guided Bombs to the Harrier and at the same time put through an Operational Emergency Clearance. They managed it but only just. A single Harrier dropped a single LGB at the end of the conflict, taking out a 155 mm Field Howitzer.
Also the Cluster Bombs dropped by the British were far more effective than than the Iron Bombs used by the Argentinians.
PS the question of the provision of satellite imagery comes up repeatedly. The UK asked for American assistance but the Americans refused to retask one of their satellites. This was one of the reasons behind the disastrous Zircon project to launch the UK’s own surveillance satellite.
How much help di dthe Argentines receive from the Russians?
I don’t believe that what would be one of the very few “proper” wars involving one of her enemies would they allow an intelligence coup like this go by.
I am sure, that the Argentines could have been tapped for information on the British in exchange for some info from the Russians.
ie the Bears that pretty much trailled the fleet down.
How much help di dthe Argentines receive from the Russians?
None.
Air view of the Stanley airfield 29 april 1982.
There was a bunch of SA-7 ‘Grail’ launchers found in Port Stanley post-conflict. However, they could have been bought on the open market.
Ideologically I think help from the Russians would have been nigh on impossible to contemplate.
Is that an AWACS on the runway???
Although I am still pretty sure the Russians would have loved to have been able to get first hand details on the British.
Ideologically, direct help would have been nigh on impossible, however, that said indirect help may have been possible if not actually carried out. In the same way many nations helped and hindered all manner of nations intentions and actions during the war!!!
I remember reading that, post war, both the Russians and the Americans ordered immediate reevaluations of the British Armies capabilites.
The proliferation of the Grail would have made it very easy to sell to the Argentines for info, via middlemen of course.
No, I don’t think you could actually land one of those on the Port Stanley airstrip… in those days.
I think it looks more like a civilian business jet sort of aircraft. Could be for bringing VIPs in, or taking the undesirables out.
I have to disagree… although im not sure what it is! It does not look like a civilian airliner. Look at it closely. From the top down view it really looks like an AWACS. Which can take off an Aircraft Carrier. Now im not sure of the length of the Port Stanley airstrip but i would guess its longer than your average ACC.
To me I see 2 jet engines and a Semi-circular shape over the mid fuselage.
Gimme a different aircraft!
Now I admit I could be totally off but the rest of the AC surrounding the runway look to be of ww2 vintage or not much more. A few props and a few jets.
The jet on the runway is a Learjet. It was used by the Argentine Airforce for beacon calibration and reconnaissance. The beacon at Port Stanley was destroyed by the Royal Marines in preparation for the Argentine invasion.
We’re at cross purposes here I feel.
You are on about small AWACs.
ie the E2-C Hawkeye.
AWACs to a Brit would mean an E3-D as operated by the RAF.
picture shows E3-A.
I think, although I am not sure, that most AWAC platforms are fitted to long endurance AC. In this case the size of the AC would dictate turbo prop engines of the E2.
According to the wiki, Fokker F-28s were used for supplies and ferrying wounded. It certainly looks like the ac in the piccy, with a T type tail and engine pods.
Older style Learjet:
Not the position of engines relative to the wings.
The Sa-7s were bought in Libia not Russia.