So we can say that the reason why SUE’s couldnt operate from 25 de Mayo were due the proplems of the ships powerplant, and not that whole Class of ex-RN ligth fleet carriers couldn’t field the plane, as long as there would have been proper take-off&landing devices.

Thanks, you all have enlightened me alot, over this matter…things arent always what they seems to be, eh? 🙂

Gollevian,
I´m not entirely sure if drawing that conclusion is entirely safe. The plane could operate on a Colossus type deck (the size and weight being roughly similar to the A-4), and fitted on elevators and inside the hangar. So far, so good.

It could be launched and recovered (assuming no mayor carrier propulsion problems, lets say, being able to cruise on about 25 knots during flight operations and having 10 knots or more of stern wind), but (the big BUT) we don´t know exactly under which weight/configuration/payload conditions those take-offs could be done. Launching an underarmed or underfueled plane would not be off any use.

I´m not sure under what payload the A-4s could be launched either (may be someone has data for the aussie carrier on this issue, under ideal conditions). For the May, 2nd 1982 aborted attack mission against the RN Carrier Group, the CANA A-4s were supossedly configured to carry two 250kg bombs and fuel for 300 miles (600 miles, round trip). And the mission was aborted due to lack of enough windspeed over deck to launch the planes with that payload I mentioned. As a comparison, A-4s operating from mainland airfields took off with 4 x 250 kg, or 2 x 500 kg plus fuel, but were ususally refuelled on the way in and on the way back (900 to 1000 miles round trip).

How does the lenght of the Colossus type catapult compare to the french Foch type catapults? Could the old french carriers operate SUE with full weapons and fuel payload, or did they refuel inflight (buddy-buddy) when on the way to the operational area? Note: Foch class were slow ships.

I figure this could have worked fine for the ARA (inflight refuelling with buddy packs) when flying anti-shipping sorties (a pair of SUE´s with Exocets) or close range fleet defense (CAP with Magic´s), but would not have worked when flying bombing runs with iron bombs against land tragets, for example, due to the fact that the carrier only hauled 12 jets, and you need to deploy one buddy tanker for each two attack planes. That would have put to few planes on the target area, assuming you can coordinate all those planes in the air with only one catapult (roughly one plane luanched every two minutes, with those old systems cable sling systems). Thats almost half hour before you have your whole wing in the air.

King Jester

The FAA (argie AF) had a F-86 team in the 60´s. In the 90´s a new team with Su-29´s started performing at airshows. Haven´t seen them in a while, rumors go that the Su-29 are in poor shape due to budget restraints and some problems with Suchoi providing spares.

More pics at http://www.cmargentinos.com.ar/secciones/Aviones/SU-29/sukhoi_Su-29.html

Thanks to the C.M.A. for the pics.

King Jester

This is why I thought about using only what is already available to the country mainly because they would have spares around for the upgrade, well as a trial ship for starters then if it works they’d order more systems in and upgrade the rest..

That is a seriously limiting game rule, specially for navies who have ONLY older systems on inventory…what is it going to be, do I substitute my old SeaSlug for my old SeaCat, or viceversa…

As for the 25 de Mayo, no, they don’t have her anymore, though she is still there rusting away, she has finally been taken off the registry, especially after the last fire with caused much damage as to put her beyond ecconomical repair. This is why they are looking for a new carrier but the money is the big issue (they don’t have any).

Ja, mate. Those are old news, she was taken of duty in 89, taken of the register in 95 and towed to Aahlang in 1999, were she was made into razorblades long, long ago. There have been some pictures of her being cut at Aahlang on the web for quite a time, already.

Nuff nitpicking for now, lets do some ship upgrading.

ARA´s Type 42´s (Hercules and Santisima Trinidad):
Weapons: keep the 4,5″, scrap the Sea Dart and replace by 8 cell Aspide with 24 reloads mag (same as on Meko 360s), take it to Aspide 200 standard. Two cuadruple MM-40s (Block III, or whatever Block is said in french) replacing the older MM-38s. Lay out hanger as on Hercules (wider, deeper, taller) to fit two SeaSprites (OK, we don´t have SeaSprites, but the Pentagon would be willing to transfer a few). Close range AA? Don´t know what would fit and be accesible to us at the same time…
Engines: totally valid layout as it is, two plus two gas turbines. No need to fix what isn´t broken (OK; Santisima Trinidad would need new engines, as hers are out of order since the mid 90´s)
Systems: Throw away all the antique Plessey stuff, replace by a suitable radar for the Aspides (obviously, by scrapping Sea Dart the ships aren´t AAW anylonger, but still would have decent point AA capacity. New towed sonar, suited to operate with the Sea Sprites. SCLAR rockets, and ECM suit.

So modified, the commonality with Mekos would be greater, and the hulls still have some 15 years ahead of them. I would also think of a wider hanger and pad for Sea Sprites on the Meko 360´s (never really had a capable helo, after the brit embargo on 8 Sea Linx helos).

ROU Comandant Riviere Class (Artigas, Uruguay and forgot the thrid one)
Weapons: keep the bow 100mm, strike the aft turret. Strike the Limbo style mortar, and the AA guns. Ask the french to deliver at least a pair of MM-38 (whcih they took off before delivery). Install a Breda Bofors 2×40 AA on B position, 1 or 2 MM-38 on each side, a flat helo pad on the aft. Bo-105 or may be Panther, with some small torpedoes and SAR duties.
Engines: fine working Pielstick diesels, IRCC, No need to change them.
Systems: a working surface radar and a working AA radar (Breda Bofors works optronically, IRCC). Some ECM, chaff…

Would make fine riverine, estuarine, brown water vessels. Jsut taking out the second 100mm gun and the Limbo style mortar would take relieve the crew by 15 or 20 men. Thats good for the navy´s economy.

I also would like to mention the clever and extensive upgrade the chilean navy did to two of their County´s years ago. They even looked good after the upgrade. Good by Sea Slug, welcome two Cougar helos. New Baraks, new electronics, nice job.

King Jester

In Argentina AFAIK IA63 Pampas from IV Air Group operate from road strips regularly. IA 58 Pucaras from III Air Group as well.
I have seen what appear to be paved landing strips (enlarged road segments, about 2k long, 20 mts wide) every 20 or 30 kms in Patagonia, close to Rio Gallegos, Comodoro and Rio Grande on Tierra del Fuego. IRCC the CANA Super Etendards were dispersed every night to these “alternative” airstrips during the Falklands/Malvinas war, to prevent them from being taken out in a single blow by potential british bombing raids. Turns out that probably that information leaked to the brits, who halted Operation Mikado (commando raid to destroy the Super Etendards on the ground). Of course, that last piece is speculative on my part.

Will try to post some pictures of Pampas operating from roads (Pampas are compact, puny little aircraft, they operate from just any road, not needing enlarged strips.

King Jester

No more.. They are being repainted into two-tone gray/yellow.

A pitty. If I would be any close to be the modell builder I wish I would be, the iranian Tomcat in desert cammo would be one of the (very) few modern jet fighter subjects I would choose for a project.

King Jester

You talk about the equipment while ignoring the political realities when discussing a “possible” invasion, so ok, reality check folks: In 1982, Argentina was controlled by a military dictatorship. The loss of the war directly lead to their downfall, it is now a functional democracy. .

Please, don´t drag the topic away. That said, I would like to state the following: Rivers of ink have been wasted over the years on this particular theory. It does not hold water, though. It could be argued that an argie “victory” (that is a military victory, i.e. preventing the Task Force from retaking the islands or a political victory, i.e. keeping the island without having to fight for it, as it was intended in the first place) could (and I stress “could”) have let to a longer (prolonged) period of military dictatorship.
The statement that “The loss of the war directly lead to their downfall” is completely ignorant of the political situation in Argentina, in South America and specially of the White House towards South America at the time.
The loss of the war let to the replacement of General Galtieri, the same way (and excuse my frivolity for using such a banal example) a football coach yields his place when the team doesn´t make the qualification for the World Cup. Galtieris replacement “ruled” the country for another year and a half (out of 7 seven years total of military dictatorship). I have heard of no country so far which quitted playing football after a poor performance in the World Cup.

And to be honest, people got back to their usual bussines only weeks after the argie defeat on the islands. Veterans (both professional army and conscripts) where hidden from the public eye, and by 1983 NOBODY even remembered MALVINAS.
I have said it before and I repeat it here: what let to the downfall of the military regime was the rapidly deteroriating economy and the shifted attitude of the White House towards ALL South American military regimes. Most military regimes in SA, which did not loose any war against the UK, reintroduced elections about the same year as Argentina did.

So, speacking of wet dreams, I hate to bring you and the rest who think like you back to Earth, but the UK did not “defeat” Argentina back into the XXth century, or into democracy, for that instance. Ironically, the only SA country on the side of the UK got to enjoy another ten years of Pinochos regime.

They will never make the same mistake of invasion again

As of that, I agree that in 1982 the invasion was both a political and a military mistake. And I also agree that the political mistake will not be commited again, but while “wet dreaming”, one can argue that the military mistakes would not be done again (i.e. both sides learned from their mistakes).

Likewise the British will never make the same mistakes again, which is evident by the detatchment of Tornados and military presence on the islands. It was obvious weeks and months before the invasion happened, that the Argentinians were building up – the British didnt respond, they didnt believe there was a real threat of invasion. Do you honestly think that will happen again? The merest hint of a military build up will lead to the implementation of a massive plan to get even stronger defences in place.

Fortress Falkland was a the time a “political sign” geared foremost to the british public opinion. Maggy´s way of saying “we went, we saw, we won”. In the meanwhile, it has become meaningless, IMHO. And I agree again, the Foreign Office did a very poor crisis management, or did they have some masterplan in mind, while letting events evolve rapidly and out of control? Just a thought.

So stop your wet dreaming

Nuff said.

King Jester

I forgot about a peace keeping role, do you think these ships are the most cost effective for Argentina’s needs?

As for cost-effectiveness, a second hand commercial Ro-Ro ship* would probably be better (very small crew, small operating costs, commercially available spares, indeed far better ton/milleage for the buck…) but a commercial Ro-Ro ship is prolly way to large for the argie transport needs (they seem to be better suited to move US Army Brigades around the globe, than to move a small peace keeping force and a dozen AFV´s), commercial Ro-Ro ships need at least some basic harbour facilities (piers and docks), and they also need deep water under the keel.
The french TCDs are autonomous in terms of loading and unloading cargo (rolling or palletized cargo), they are confortable in shallow waters, and they can carry helicopters, they also have accomodations for 300 or 400 men and a fully equipped hospital. Their diesels are the same type as on the A-69 the ARA operates. There is a lot of communality.

Such ships (ship? singular?) will serve both purposes (logistic transport and assault , if need be) for many years on a relatively economic budget. Just as they did for the Marine Nationale and french foreign policy for three decades.

King Jester

* in fact the ARA has one commercial Ro-Ro type ship in “reserve”. Reserve is an eufemistic way of saying that the “ASTRA Luciano Federico” hasn´t moved from its dock at Costanera Sur in at least a decade. A real shame.

I take it that the Sea Dart System is inactive? :rolleyes:

I´ve heard rumours about some chinese fireworks, which are to be launched to celebrate new years eve…

Well, not really. The SAM system fired for the last time almost two decades ago. They should have taken everything down by now, the domes, the launcher and magazine, etc etc. The alledged “upgrade :rolleyes: ” to anphibious support ship only went halfway through.

King Jester