Mission security would be a critical issue and I’m not completely sure how to handle that, but the element of surprise is critical. Otherwise the Argies would need to wait until the Brits were occupied elsewhere.

Its going to be impossible. How can a modern western democracy gather up, purchase and put into service 500 combat aircaft un-noticed? Buying one combat aircaft will get noticed, buying 500 second hand heritage-warbirds is probably not going go unseen, as is the corresponding increase in manpower.

But remember, the dream of having an aircraft engage multiple targets at BVR and score multiple kills has rarely taken place in real life.

Generally because of rules of engagement, not because of a lack of ability. If you are aware that the multiple targets flying towards the Falklands aren’t stray 747s, which in this fantasy will be the case, then its “weapons free” and last one to shoot off their AMRAAMS (or in this time frame METEORS) is a rotten egg!

But seriously, the idea is to use the J-6s to degrade the British defenses to the point where the Argies can conduct airborne and/or naval landings that are hassle-free. That means to neutralize all British combat aircraft, at least some of the air defenses, and any British warships that are in theater, and also to attack the British barracks. For the naval attack we might need to add a number of Q-5s to the orbat. Some of the Q-5s were armed with anti-ship missiles. I believe that these are no longer in service; the Argies need to get their hands on these. Here again, the Argies will rely on numbers to defeat the Brit naval air defenses. Now, if Britain has subs in the area Argentina will likely have to use airborne assault only, unless some of their other assets can neutralize the subs (admittedly doubtful).

Any number of J6s and Q5s are not going wear down UK defences.

The Q5s with no radar will have to be in visual range to shoot anything at shipping and i’m afraid a combination of Harriers/SeaKing ASAC7 with Typhoon/E3D supported by Type 45/Sea Viper and Type 23/Seawolf and finally backed up by Goalkeeper/Phalanx means they will get nowhere near enough, you would be better sticking with the Entendard/Exocet combo of 1982, though with adequate AEW cover thats a pretty dead end too.

The J6s will get nowhere against a handful of Typhoons supported by E3Ds, i’m afraid it would be a turkey shoot of the highest order.

Quantity is only superior if the gap in technology is perhaps a generation eg 500 F16s would likely suceed against a small force of current gen aircraft. But the J6/Q5 are basically 1950s aircraft based on late 1940s design theories with no modern avionics what so ever.

You are also forgetting that capabilities like E3D, Nimrod R1, Sea King ASAC etc are what actually put the UK in the first tier of airpowers, one of those aircaft is worth several squadrons of fighters. A single E3D flying over the Falklands can paint a radar picture that will see your J6s actually taking off in Argentina.

Sorry, don’t want to sound arrogant but you have to be a very well equipped adversary to take on UK Air these days, the leaps in tech since 1982 have been massive.

The Falklands are only about 480km from Argentina.

Ferry range is 2,200km with drop tanks, or 1,390km with standard fuel. The combat radius is 685km with typical weapon load and two drop tanks.
http://www.sinodefence.com/airforce/fighter/j6.asp

Ok I have all sorts of figures for the range/radius of a J6/Mig-19 but none of them are that optomistic.

Sounds like that is certainly enough for a one way invasion as well as for a round-trip attack.

A one way invasion? You planning to land these things then?

Radar and missiles on the aircraft are unnecessary, although a powerful ground based radar would be very helpful. Leave quality to the Brits. The Argies can win with quantity.

No radar or missiles are neccesary :confused: And where is this ground radar going?

So your going to pick a nice sunny clear day and basically play a massive game of “british Bulldog” with four typhoons? and lets face it a build up of 500 J6 would not go unnoticed so after a swift reinforcement from the UK of a couple of Typhoon squadrons, a flight of E3Ds and some tanker support you are going to have the shortest most one sided air battle in history.

20 odd typhoons vs 500 manned drones loaded with fuel, with no EW, no missiles, no radar….really?

What a non-story. In what world is Argentina going to say “Oh yeah thats fine, you can base those in the Falklands” This story is for both domestic audiences- the protest for the argies, the reporting of it for sun readers.

Swerve, yet again I love the analogy. 😀

Sad fact for the Argetinian AF is that the RAF has gone through three generations of fighters at Mount Unpleseant while they are still scrapping around for spares for the same kit they had in 82. Same in almost all aspects of the two armed forces.

Oh i’m sure it won’t matter that much to the big two, though it will help BO with his hand in negotiations.

I just mean in the big game of Diplomacy which we have been doing very badly at since 2003 this might be read as a positive.

We’ve already made the gesture down to 160, I don’t recall anyone else doing likewise?

To be honest I don’t see this as doing anything to hasten nuclear disarmament, that has to come from the USA and Russia first, when they hold 95% of stocks of warheads between them anything coming from another nation smacks of token gesture.

Its really interesting how the rest of the word view it. I used to run a school in Tanzania, there people assumed the UK still runs the world and the reason the US needed Britain on board in iraq is to give the US permission.

In ten years time people will have forgotten the financial imperative to this and will be noting how ‘progressive’ the UK is being in building less. With the financial imperative being a global issue I would not be suprised if a small reduction in most arsenals is quietly started. Obama will be desperate too and this might give him the extra leverage after scrapping the ABM to restart START etc.

Im with Obi Wan Russell here carriers are the best way to project air power when needed as you dont have to grovel to some random nation to allow you basing rights which they could pull at any point.

and strategic bombers…. carriers are great for the long game but when you need instant boom booms on targets the yanks have shown that keeping B52s and building B1 and B2 was a good decision.

In both Gulf wars and now in afghan who can say that we couldn’t have very usefully used a squadron or two of “vulcans”. The stand off deterrent value is immense. In the summer of 1990 half a dozen bombers sent to cyprus or BIOT would have done the job at much less cost of a wing of Tornados and all its neccesaries sent to saudi. Today in afghan CAS supplied from 24 hour bomber coverage would be darn useful.

Not Leander, 4th rate of the late 1700s then? :p