Cap now do this the other way around! "Could the Argentinian carrier launching its own airstrike on the British fleet and sink at least one of the carriers?" It almost happened in real life according to Dr. Mark Felton! kzread.info/dash/bejne/d6qqrtp8YdXcorQ.html I really want to see that! 😊

@grimreapers

Жыл бұрын

This is the closest we have: kzread.info/dash/bejne/kX-np6dyeNypmrg.html

@ElValuador

Жыл бұрын

I doubt it. The Argentine pilots were so badly trained they didn’t even know they should turn in dogfights.

@Dragonman1OOO

Жыл бұрын

@@ElValuador Sorry bro but I don't buy this bullshit! That is part of basic training in every nation since the beginning of aerial warfare! And I didn't said anything about dogfights only bombing the carriers! Fast hit and run tactics!

@ElValuador

Жыл бұрын

@@Dragonman1OOO That’s testimony from the British pilots who fought them. Thirty harriers, not known for dogfighting, destroyed 30% of the Argentine Air Force.

@Dragonman1OOO

Жыл бұрын

​@@ElValuador If the Argentinian really didn't used turning maneuvers in dogfight it wouldn't be the cause of bad training but the cause of lack of fuel. That is the only reason I see why they didn't did it! The Argentine pilots only had fuel to reach the British and do one or two hit and run attacks then they had to go back or they go down! And dogfighting consume a lot of fuel! So probably they didn't wanted do go into maneuvering to much in the first place! And maybe they were not as good in dogfighting as the British was, but stating that they didn't know that they must turn in a dogfight is beyond believable! It like saying that the a soldier didn't use a grenade because the soldier didn't know you must throw that thing to the enemy! Sorry but this still sounds like exaggerate propaganda!

British Aircrew were highly trained in Night Ops whereas Argentine aircrew were not and so a night attack would've been more realistic choice as it would have made the Argentine pilots life hell, trying to figure friend from foe at night in crowded airspace.

@dan.vitale

Жыл бұрын

Tigercats were also wire guided and required manual visual aiming so a night attack would have rendered these useless.

@Valorius

Жыл бұрын

How would the sea harriers aim? they didn't have FLIR did they? Did their radar have a bombing mode?

@rednaughtstudios

Жыл бұрын

@@Valorius Not sure about radar bombing but I've certainly read about SHARs operating at night and using flares to light the target. Sharkey Ward's book has a very good account of the training 801 Squadron did on the way down which included dropping flares at night and dropping bombs. Sharkey also describes how 4 Harriers could have done the Vulcan raid for a fraction of the fuel used and presumably this would mean they could put bombs on target at night.

@rednaughtstudios

Жыл бұрын

@@maxich9325 That's a load of tosh. There are multiple accounts of FAA SHARs operating at night, conducting intercepts, recon and ground attack/bombing. You can start here if you like. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sharkey_Ward

@Valorius

Жыл бұрын

@@rednaughtstudios Flares makes sense, they did that in WWII afterall.

The real sneak attack was sending in Top Gear with a fully armed and operational license plate.

I love how Cap just ignored the "Aim for the bushes quote" from "the other guys: lmao

@dampsok

Жыл бұрын

It turned out to be rather prophetic... leaping soul-first off the deck of the carrier and slamming into the wall of Argentinian CAP.

I used to volunteer at an aviation museum with a guy who served on HMS Invincible during the Falklands war. He was an aircraft controller - who described his job as "launching harriers". Absolutely lovely guy - some incredible stories.

interesting this that most people don't realize that the Argentina's General Belgrano used to be the Untied States ship USS Phoenix that survived Pearl Harbor and WW 2.

Brave, Brave Cinco de Mayo, bravely ran away!

A sneak attack? Nah, this was the Harrier equivalent to the _Charge of the Light Brigade!_

@timonsolus

11 ай бұрын

Agreed. Especially since the attack was in broad daylight.

One of the RN conventional Subs (O Class) returned to Portsmouth from the South Atlantic with damaged bow torp doors with a live torp stuck in the tube. This was the result of collision/grounding having infiltrated the harbour which the Argie Carrier was moored. They asked several times for authority to sink it and it was declined. At least that is what I was told at the time.

@revisionreader1922

10 ай бұрын

have heard similar

@Grim Reapers In general terms in the Falklands War HMS Hermes did most of the ground attack missions and HMS Invincible did most of the CAP missions. HMS Hermes gives you almost twice as many airicraft. Also the Sea Harrier had the best air to air radar of any fighter in the conflict.

A-4 Skyhawk? That’s all you had to say. Harrier FRS? Bonus! Amazing aircraft!

hello Cap, greetings from Argentina, a tip for pronunciation of rio Gallegos, say the LL of gallegos like the "SH" from the word "shop" ..... LL=SH

The Harrier pilots all said that they would only ever engage the Argentinian aircraft at low level where they had the advantage.

@FLMKane

Жыл бұрын

Ah that makes sense. The fight would have stayed subsonic and harriers accelerate like crazy at low altitude

Followed this channel for ages OUTSTANDING I was 15 in 1982 remember the Falkland war like yesterday Cap much respect from Derbyshire I've been watching you're videos all day , day off today lol chocks away chap's 👍👍

I think the plan was for one of the Royal Navies subs in the area to put her on the bottom, but their navy sailed home as soon as Belgrano was taken out.

Aegis ships have either 2 or 4 fire control directors (DDG & CG). This means they can only schedule threats when they are not illuminating a target when the SM asks for it via datalink. So all Aegis ships in a datalink will prioritize and schedule their fire in a coordinated way to avoid multiple SM’s per target. When I served the firing policy on a target was Shoot, Look, Shoot, Shoot. Many radars today, like the E-2D, Provide fire control quality tracking for targeting allowing the SM’s to be guided by them and AWACS- which lessens the loads on the ships fire control to schedule faster threat engagements. That’s a little piece of history for you! The ships and aircraft in the data link (Aegis or NTDS ships) coordinate and schedule their fire, with a Force Anti-Air Warfare Coordinator (FAAWC) and Force Track Coordinator (FTC). I served as both during the Gulf War. This way, other than last minute self-preservation shots, Aegis will have birds in the air on as many targets as it can fit into delta of the number of fire control illuminators available… During my time as FTC, I reported SPY-1 SCUD detections over datalink and verbally called on a Patriot battery in Saudi Arabia in the link with A heads up. They confirmed and engaged both Spy-1 tracks. That was the beginning of the AEGIS Ballistic Missile Defense and Aegis Ashore programs. Admiral March, in his after-action report, says that Mobile Bay and Bunker Hill while serving as FAAWC and FTC at their respective times detected, tracked, identified and reported over 65,000 air contacts with no Blue-on-Blue engagements- during the 100 hour period.

@hotdogdcs2761

Жыл бұрын

Actually really interesting, recently been reading about the gulf war.

About the Sea Harriers' payload; I'm pretty sure the FRS1 only had four underwing pylons, so with fuel tanks fitted it could only carry two Sidewinders, and a single thousand-pounder on the centreline. At some point (I believe later than 82) the FRS1 could be fitted with dual rails for the Sidewinders on the outboard pylons, but I don't think they could take bombs. Apologies if you're aware of this already.

@ianlower3128

Жыл бұрын

You do have your facts correct

@grimreapers

Жыл бұрын

Roger, we can't take bombs on the centre-line of the AV-8B(I don't think so anyway), so had to use a bit of creative license.

@fhlostonparaphrase

Жыл бұрын

A real shame that the task force didn't sail with the dual rails.

@SPiderman-rh2zk

Жыл бұрын

@@fhlostonparaphrase Well, seems that the modification was developed during the Falklands conflict, and began appearing on the fleet in August 1982.

@fhlostonparaphrase

Жыл бұрын

@@SPiderman-rh2zk Yes, I've read that they "became available" as the war nearing its end. Double the firepower could made a difference.

Fun video but no way Sandy Woodward would of risked his limited numbers of Shars / GR3s in an attack like this. I highly recommend his book “one hundred days” really great insight into the mind of a naval commander at war and helped make the events of the war as I knew them far more real and meaningful

@krismurphy7711

Жыл бұрын

Read it. Agree.

@rednaughtstudios

Жыл бұрын

Not to mention HMS Invincible.

@davidlockwood9192

10 ай бұрын

100 Days is a great book, also worth reading “Sharkey Wards” book as the CO of the Harriers on HMS Invincible

@krismurphy7711

10 ай бұрын

VS....The Argentines who should have waited to have a "confirmed" location on the Brit Carriers and then SENT 100% of their airplanes in a one way raid. (Argies knew if the Brits lost just one carrier it was over???)

They could have if the carrier went into the designated warzone around the island & a UK submarine had found her.

@vapormissile

Жыл бұрын

"pingggggg...."

@EfftupSmith

Жыл бұрын

Or if it hadn't been foggy on one particular night when HMS Splendid was sitting just outside international waters at periscope depth and ARA VDM was sitting just inside then. As far as the Captain understood the rules of engagement, if he could get a visual verifiaction, he could sink her. He couldn't see clearly enough.

@admiralmallard7500

Жыл бұрын

Actually they could've sunk her anywhere but Argentine territorial waters. The exclusion zone mainly applied to 3rd party interference

Very exciting video. Keep up the great work reapers!

That Seacat missile that hit that house though...

Those British AV8B liveries are just stunning. I wonder if it's a maritime camouflage or just for looks lol

@mstevens113

10 ай бұрын

They didn't even use that paint work, it was painted over all grey on the trip down to the Falklands never to be seen again.

Very good job squirrel as GCI. Good vid as always. Thanks

Awesome video guys, thanks for the entertainment, wish I could fly with you

@grimreapers

Жыл бұрын

Doors are always open.

Awesome ! Loving these semi-historical , what-if scenarios Cap ! So many opportunities now with all the new mods ! Is this Argi carrier part of the South atlantic Map update?

@grimreapers

Жыл бұрын

Hi, are you the nice Canadian chap we met? If so, William is loving his red knight! Carrier is just part of core game.

@xxxautopsy99xxx

Жыл бұрын

Indeed i am my friend :) And that's great ! Glad he is getting an early start on the mil/av love ❤. With all those fantastic airshows in Britain, he's going to be well-versed on it all, and ready to carry on the GR legacy ! (PS: how'd the Starfighter shirt fit?) Cheers.

**Poosh gets hit by sidewinder** "It's just paint damage!" 😂

Great video CAP!

Exceptional mission. Kudos, boys!

Great work super intense

Great Fun - Thanks Cap!

Great mission. Given the limited number of Harriers available to the British fleet, I doubt they would have expended them all in this way.

Sock: "Aim for the bushes" Cap : "Anyone else ..." LMAO

That wasn't how the exclusion zone worked - its intention was to warn Neutrals to stay away from what was becoming a war zone. Argentina had been warned in Mid April that its forces would be attacked basically on sight anywhere.

@WilkyTheFlyingScotsman

Жыл бұрын

not really, it was for Argentina as well

@cryhavoc999

Жыл бұрын

@@WilkyTheFlyingScotsman From the 12th to the 22nd April with regards to the "Maritime exclusion zone" yes but from the 23rd April the Argentines had been advised in no uncertain terms "in a message that was passed via the Swiss Embassy in Buenos Aires to the Argentine government, the British Government clarified that any Argentine ship or aircraft that was considered to pose a threat to British forces anywhere in the South Atlantic would be attacked:" And so it proved with ARA Santa Fe being attacked on the 24th April and badly damaged at South Georgia (well outside of the exclusion zone) and the ARA General Belgrano Sunk on the 2nd May (also outside of the exclusion zone which is where a lot of people seem to get offended by the sinking). A new Zone "Total Exclusion zone" was communicated on the 30th April warning all Neutrals that the area was effectively a war zone and to stay out. This was to prevent things such as 'Russian Trawlers with lots of Aerials' and Civilian airliners overflying the task force and giving away its position (I understand that a Brazilian Airliner was very nearly engaged with a Sea Dart at one point) and not intended for the Argentines. Obviously this scenario takes place after the Argentine Carrier returned home in early May so the 23rd April RoE are in effect. Just to be clear while it was fun to watch the Scenario is unlikely to have happened for a variety of reasons.

@WilkyTheFlyingScotsman

Жыл бұрын

@@cryhavoc999 I agree with the scenario being unlikely.

Very well played.

Argentina went on quite the strategic shopping trip before they kicked this off, didn't they?

@grimreapers

Жыл бұрын

Yup, but the list was not quite long enough?

The exclusion zone was for commercial and 3rd party vessels as I understand. Nowhere did we say we wouldn't attack the argentine navy as long as it stayed outside the circle.

@krismurphy7711

10 ай бұрын

During War, every military facility, ship, airfield, truck is a target.

HMS Splendid had the Aircraft carrier in her sights and had orders to sink it if she launched her aircraft. The Argentine Aircraft carrier fled the scene after Her destroyers spotted a Sea Harrier approaching and before Belgrano was sunk.

The Harriers look awesome in the RN colour scheme 👍🇬🇧

@mstevens113

10 ай бұрын

Which was painted over with a lower vis scheme before they arrived at the Falklands...

Good mission, very entertaining. I thought you were going to try and take it out while it was at sea and couldn't launch any fighters.

There is one major difference between the av8 and the British harrier. The British plane could actually exceed mach1 the American plane cannot because of the bigger air intakes

HMS Splendid did track VCDM before Blackbuck happened in the Falklands conflict and it was only down to foggy conditions that they didnt fire upon her.

haven seen all the mission yet but love it already............

Argentinian A4s should only have rear aspect sidewinders.

Shot down by Sea Mouse?

The answer is yes.The SBS had an attack planned but it never took place,it was said that the US kind of vetoed it.

Not sure if they had CCRP at the time but since you knew where the carrier is you could try toss bombing. This would allow you to stay away from the AAA and give the bombs the KE needed to penetrate the upper decks of the carrier. Another thing is attacking at night would allow you to sneak by as. Historically. The argentines weren’t very well trained in night battles. Also without great radars you guys could’ve hugged the ground to confuse the radar of the mirage/a4s.

@dogsnads5634

Жыл бұрын

Toss bombing was used in the Falklands along with 1,000lbers set for airburst to suppress Argentine defences at Stanley Airport. More of an area effect though.

why didn't you go low/at night to avoid detection for the longest?

I have to get up for work in 5hrs Cap, it isn't fair of you to do this to me, but I'm damn well gonna watch this video right now though.

@grimreapers

Жыл бұрын

I can only apologize....

Great video, love seeing you guys using the Harrier. How about a 2025 version of this mission?

@rodrigonunez9451

Жыл бұрын

lol we don't have carriers anymore. Not even 1 real fighter, just 6 A-4 AR with 2 AIM-L/M, RBS-70 and some destroyers with Aspide

The jets of that era are by far my favorite! Jets cannon fighting is SH1T!!!

in the harrier there is a magior nose wheel steering, you have to remove the skid and clock the nws/undesegnete

I believe that to this day HMS Conqueror is still the only SSN to have sunk an enemy ship in anger. That we know of, anyway....

@davebartos7743

Жыл бұрын

A Pakistani Sub 'Hangor' sank the Indian warship INS Khurkri in 1971. i think that was the first since the WW2.

@Cartoonman154

Жыл бұрын

@@davebartos7743 Not nuclear powered.

@Valorius

Жыл бұрын

@@davebartos7743 He said SSN.

@davebartos7743

Жыл бұрын

@@Valorius Indeed he did - my bad - Apologies.

@WilkyTheFlyingScotsman

Жыл бұрын

You are correct. Lets hope it stays that way.

1983: "Argentina re-establishes permanent control over the Malvinas" "A massive British air strike to damage the carrier ARA Twenty-Fifth of May was repulsed with devastating enemy losses while inflicting only minor damage to the carrier while in port. The resultant loss of virtually the entire complement of enemy fighter aircraft left the Royal Navy with little ability to achieve local air superiority. The Royal Navy having lost the initiative was forced to sail to safety outside the reach of land based attack aircraft. Argentine land forces continue to reinforce Malvinas unhindered. In other news: Emergency summit between Great Britain and the US scheduled...Soviet Union announces support for Argentina against British imperialism."

The Reapers will never get over Rio Grande.

The BAE Sea Eagle started production in 1982, I am not sure if it would have been available to the Sea Harriers, 110 miles range, speed mach.85 .

@LondonSteveLee

Жыл бұрын

Indeed - it wasn't available.

@viking1236

Жыл бұрын

One of the Harriers shot down was fitted for Sea Eagle as it was a test aircraft. When the Argentines inspected the wreckage and found it they assumed Sea Eagle was available even though it wasn’t.

The US offered the use of a carrier when negotiations failed. Thatcher turned them down but would make an interesting 'what if?' I seem to remember someone did an Intruder mod?

@Valorius

Жыл бұрын

A supercarrier could carry a hell of a lot of Harriers.

@fhlostonparaphrase

Жыл бұрын

@@Valorius A pity there weren't any more Harriers available than what was sent then...

@WilkyTheFlyingScotsman

Жыл бұрын

the offer was if the RN lost one of its carriers. Thats why it was denied. The british wasted to win the conflict their way. not by borrowing expensive equipment.

@Valorius

Жыл бұрын

@@WilkyTheFlyingScotsman A most outstanding avatar, btw. I have the same flag hanging in my workshop.

@WilkyTheFlyingScotsman

Жыл бұрын

@@Valorius haha thanks, I do like your flag but more of a navy guy xD

FRS.1 would've had access to the 1000lb with the RET tail, which was our snakeye equivalent. Also with bags the FRS.1 could've only carried a single 1000lb'er between the ADEN gun pods. Just to expand on this a little; Weapons 2 x 30mm ADEN (130 rounds per gun) 2x AIM-9G/L 4x AIM-9L (later block with the twin rail) 4 x RN 2" rocket pods (144 rockets) 2 x Sea Eagle ASM 5 x 1000lb Bombs (RET/FF/MFBF) 5 x BL-755 Cluster bombs Countermeasures 2 x AN/ALE-40 (60 flares/Chaff) Sensors Ferranti Blue Fox radar (ARI 5982) RWR (ARI 18223)

@grimreapers

Жыл бұрын

Thanks, I still think 1000lbs slick was the best bet. To avoid the AAA.

@dogsnads5634

Жыл бұрын

Sea Eagle wasn't available until long after the war I'm afraid. Dedicated chaff/flare launchers were also not fitted. Chaff was stuffed in the ventral airbrake and deployed by 'blipping' the airbrake momentarily for one 'shot'.

@Gunjob-Gaming

Жыл бұрын

@@dogsnads5634 Not all FRS.1 and GR.3 had AN/ALE-40's sure but some did. There was quite alot of retro fitting that happened. From the planned Shrike AGM-45 for the GR.3 that got lost out of Ascension Island and ended up in Uruguay, to C-130's being armed (and I'm not kidding) hand held radar guns for RWR and the procedure for decoying an IR missile was to fire a flare gun out the side.

@dogsnads5634

11 ай бұрын

@@Gunjob-Gaming The Shrike was on Vulcan, and ended up in Brazil after refusing to drop from the rail prior to entering Brazilian airspace.

@dogsnads5634

11 ай бұрын

@@Gunjob-Gaming AN/ALE-40 was also all post war....none on aircraft down south.

Yeah you kinda knew that was a one way trip

“Aim for the bushes” laughed so hard I woke up the wife…. She did not find it as funny haha

@pike100

Жыл бұрын

Brent, I don't get it. Aim for the bushes?

Gamer Alan Partridge

Argentina had intended to buy 15 Dassault Super-Etendards. They only had five and one of those was used for spare parts. They had five air-launchable Exocets. I understand the Etendard was not compatible with VCDM.

The Argentines would pronounce the ship "BAIN-tay SINK-oh day MY-zhow" And I'm not trying to make fun of them by saying "Sink-oh"

@grimreapers

Жыл бұрын

Oh man that's a real tongue-twister...

Slight correction re the TEZ: Argentinian vessels were a target no matter where they were found. The TEZ meant that ANY country's vessels encountered in it could, also, be attacked as fair targets.

@henricomonterosa4534

Жыл бұрын

Thanks for the response, however I have a question: Would Argentinian merchants have been targeted, even if US or USSR ships (as an example) would be potentially harmed as well? Because that's how I understand your post, it seems just extremely dangerous.

@axilleas

Жыл бұрын

@@henricomonterosa4534 I am not sure they would but they certainly could, that was the point of the TEZ, the fact that legally, with regards to international law and conventions, they had a justification to attack any vessel violating the exclusion zone.

@WilkyTheFlyingScotsman

Жыл бұрын

The TEZ looks like that on paper however in actuality it was not seen like that to either side. (except the admirals) take the sinking of the Belgrano for instance, it was outside the TEZ, yet it caused a massive political disaster, but the argentine captain came out and said that it was fair game.

I don't know if the Brit Subs carried missiles back then....but if they did, obvious in such an attack, subs would run in to the coast and fire missiles at radar and AAA sites.

@aztec0112

Жыл бұрын

Attacking the Argentine mainland would have instantly escalated it to, at a minimum, a regional conflict, much like a French sub firing missiles on London over fishing rights. 1983 was a fused bomb waiting to go off.

@krismurphy7711

Жыл бұрын

AND what would Argentina do in response??? They did everything they could later on...sent all the ground forces they could to the Islands. Their subs were diesel-electric...Brits had three (or more) nuke nuke subs down there. Argentina could not have done anything in response that they didn't do later...and if they had been able to, their ships would have been sunk... any additional planes would have been shot down. The ONLY chance the Argentinian Forces had was to have launched an INITIAL, ALL OUT, ONE TIME, COMBINED ARMS STRIKE, once the Two British Carriers had arrived. If they had launched ALL THEIR PLANES...in one mass sweep, they probably could have hit one of both of the carriers. Damaging/Sinking one would have caused the Brits to turn tail. @@aztec0112

@mstevens113

10 ай бұрын

This was long before uk subs carried missiles.

Love thes alt-histories. Yall grow up on harry turtledove too?

Dear GR ... while watching i had a bit of a giggle and thought .. after watching you drop "bags" .... i wondered . Has there ever been a case where a set have dropped bags have gotten a "bomb kill" per say . Would they act like an AirFuel bomb ? or would they do anything ?

That was a good un.

Confused why you keep talking about the brothers behind 90's hit band Oasis maybe a cousin @ River Gallagher ?? 🤷‍♂️😂

To fit the tactical approach used at that time could you re-run it with the SBS taking down the search radar before the raid and the SAS hitting the local airfield?

@Valorius

Жыл бұрын

How the hell would they get out? you'd just be trading dozens of POWs or KIA to save 5 aircraft at that point.

@aztec0112

Жыл бұрын

Why that's almost as silly as throwing the bulk of your very limited airpower on a suicide mission to damage a carrier that had already disembarked its combat wing, and was just sitting out the war in its cage (mooring)

@rednaughtstudios

Жыл бұрын

@tonypardoe1858 You should read about Operation Mikado or, as those involved in planning nicknamed it, "Operation Certain Death" which was a plan to land a bunch of C-130s carrying SAS troops on Argentine airbases and basically shoot/blow up everything. Wiser heads prevailed and it was called off. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Mikado

@WilkyTheFlyingScotsman

Жыл бұрын

@@Valorius Historically the SAS and SBS did do missions such as these. Its as crazy as some of the other not so well know stuff that happened.

@Valorius

Жыл бұрын

@@WilkyTheFlyingScotsman I'm familiar with the sorts of missions elite infantry undertake (my avatar actually does mean something ;). With no means of egress it would've been a far more politically catastrophic loss to lose a chunk of an SAS Sqn than five single seat fighters.

You guys should re-enact Tornado Down! in gulf war 1, John Nichols and John Peters

Slightly scary that 5 aircraft and GCI support could get hits on target 200 miles inside radar cover back then.

@grimreapers

Жыл бұрын

Yup, BUT it's a suicide mission.

@Valorius

Жыл бұрын

@@grimreapers The Mirage III's not having BVR missiles is what made it possible. You think you could've made it if the Argies had a standing CAP of Mirage III's?

@timonsolus

11 ай бұрын

@@Valorius : But wouldn't a standing CAP of Mirage III's be like, 2 planes on station at any 1 time? Not sure 2 Mirages can stop 4+ Harriers.

@Valorius

11 ай бұрын

@@timonsolus If 2 mirages are airborne they can intercept the Harriers well out to sea, and either make them drop ordnance, spoiling their mission... or make them go defense and evade, hopefully using up enough of their fuel to spoil their mission. And if they get lucky, they could even shoot down a few of the Harriers while they are at it.

The idea of using Vulcan bombers to strike the Argentine Carrier in port during the Falklands War would have been a non-starter (even for the RAF that was desperate to be involved in the conflict to avoid future budget cuts). The RAF's Operation Black Buck Vulcan bombing missions against the occupied Falklands Islands airfield clearly demonstrated that the budget constrained RAF were incapable of carrying out a long-range mission with any meaningful measure of success. What's more, the Black Buck Vulcan missions were carried out against the minimally defended Port Stanley airfield. It is unlikely the UK Vulcan's (and their nightmarish aerial logistics convoy) could have successfully penetrated and returned from a better defended Argentinian naval port on the mainland. The UK had no fighter aircraft or pilots trained and capable of escorting its small Vulcan sorties on such 14 to 16 hour missions. This scenario was fun, but the British fleet was terrified of both the ancient Argentinean submarine and the obsolescent A4 Skyhawks (let alone the Mirages). There is simply no way the RN would have risked such an aggressive action against Argentina simply because the RN were terrified at the possibility of losing naval assets (and only tangentially United Nations Security Council Resolution 502 considerations). The British reluctance to aggressively prosecute the conflict was far less about diplomatic concerns and far more about actual capability and attritable assets. Fortunately, the Argentine junta was equally averse and incapable of prosecuting a larger conflict, having used the best bits of it's surplus third-world military equipment in the initial seizure of the Falklands islands. Finally, the bot opponents are a joke for GR to handle. You lot have consistently demonstrated your skills at running the tables on DCS bots. You should have designated, at least, one flight of Human pilots for the Argentinian defense. I suspect we all know this would have greatly effected the results.

The Exclusion Zone was for any Shipping.

How long would an F-35B last in South Atlantic gale force sea spray? Could you even get one off the deck in those conditions? How long would it be serviceable? This is the thing people fail to recognise about this conflict, a practically brand new aircraft type flew relentless sorties (hundreds of sorties) in the most harsh conditions imaginable - and the aircraft were pretty much 100% available. Mind-boggling reliability and durability. I'm absolutely convinced that 20 F-35Bs going to war in the same conditions would be unavailable for combat within a week.

That should buff right out with a bit of polish.

Argie Here. The 25 de mayo task force has 2 type 42 destroyers with Sea Darts. The ARA Hércules and the ARA Santisima Trinidad.

@rodrigonunez9451

Жыл бұрын

Also we have some Roland missile system in mainland

@rodrigonunez9451

Жыл бұрын

I Almost forget the Sa-7 from Gadafi lol

@LondonSteveLee

Жыл бұрын

Only one of the Argentinian 42s was actually capable of aiming and firing her Sea Dart (active mode) due to previous British sanctions limiting spares.

Would never have happened, as what few SHARs were in the task force were needed for CAP, and why risk them on bombing a carrier cowering in port, essentially making it useless? If it came out to fight...then sure, attack it, but that's a job for the subs. But fun experiment in-game I suppose.

Is the Harriers VIFF modeled in the sim?

@LondonSteveLee

Жыл бұрын

Yes, but it wasn't used in the Falklands. Ditching all your airspeed would be suicide in a real combat unless it was a last-gasp action.

Well the sas was on the mainland . I'm sure they blew up some planes at an air base ?

Vectoring in Forward Flight - could that known technique have helped? For the young ones the Harrier had 4 moving thrusters enabling the Harrier to go vertical. So in the Falklands, the UK pilots could come to standstill mid-air while the star fighter had to zoom past. At which point the Harrier shot its missiles…

@aztec0112

Жыл бұрын

My understanding was the US Marines tested VIFF extensively, and while it appeared plausible on the white board, it didn't translate into practice. IIRC VIFF could be used sparing to provide defensive movement along the lift vector and disrupt a guns solution or to help cut a corner (figuratively) in pursuit. However the energy tradeoff was substantial. As a result, the USMC generally discouraged its usage in combat.

@kevincasey5035

Жыл бұрын

@@aztec0112 Being in the RAF at that time we heard "stories" that the Americans suffered a higher accident rate with the American version AV8-B(?) i.e. the American pilots found the Harrier very difficult to fly. Perhaps we could see what Simba could manage in the DCS.

@aztec0112

Жыл бұрын

@@kevincasey5035 The USMC used both the AV-8A and B. They did have issues. Interesting, I never have heard what the RN experience was with them. If you got info, I'd love to hear!

Wasn’t the Sea Eagle anti-ship missile available then?

@LondonSteveLee

Жыл бұрын

Nope - still in development - the only anti ship missiles available to the British were the unguided Martel (which Sea Eagle was based on) or Sea Skua which was a lightweight missile designed for patrol boat sized craft. Sea Dart had an anti ship mode it would have been risky getting a ship close enough to use it in that way - and it was largely untested in that role. The later solid state versions of Sea Dart had pretty good anti-ship and land-attack modes.

The UK almost did sink their carrier. The UK subs went looking for it and by the time HSM Splendid got into torpedo range the Carrier had entered Argentine waters. Splendid "could" have attacked but it would have been a potential political disaster sinking a ship in it's own waters when the UK wanted to be seen as playing a defensitve war.

EA6B prowler video?

They nearly lost the carrier hms splendid had been stalking the argentine aircraft carrier, but was stopped in its hunt when the carrier entered argentine waters

Great what if scenario, I was expecting the carrier to be attacked at sea, did or could the argentines of threatened the U.K. carriers?

@GjVj

Жыл бұрын

In short: yes. The Argentines were a very serious threat to the UK carriers, and the British knew it.

@mstevens113

10 ай бұрын

They did threaten the carriers, the Atlantic Conveyor which they sank was mistakenly identified as a carrier. Finding the carriers was the biggest problem the argies had.

If that had happened it would have been an opportune situation for the Argentines to sortie their Etendards with Exocets and catch the British fleet on their doorstep. The invisible would have been more vulnerable than ever before.

Good to see the Sock 🧦 back on blue

It was only poor maintenance of the De Mayo's boilers and lack of wind that stopped the Argentinians unleashing a world of pain on the British carriers.

@aztec0112

Жыл бұрын

You forgot the very real threat of torpedos

@WilkyTheFlyingScotsman

Жыл бұрын

No, they were scared of the submarines. The Argie carrier while a threat would not of got near the UK carriers if the submarines were doing their job.. which they were.

@LondonSteveLee

Жыл бұрын

@@WilkyTheFlyingScotsman They were well within strike distance - Morty stumbled across the fleet the night of the day the attack was supposed to happen and got a blast of Sea Dart fire control RADAR and legged it. If Sea Harrier without extra fuel could get there you can be sure it's well within range of Skyhawk! It's only because the incompetent fools on board Hermes that still wouldn't acknowledged any data 801 obtained by Sea Harrier RADAR that they ignored the contact as clutter or a fishing fleet - because 800 couldn't use or tune Sea Harrier's RADAR, they considered it to be useless dead weight (the arrogance of incompetent fighting men!) This incompetence cost the British HMS Ardent, HMS Coventry (RADARLESS CAPs) and HMS Sheffied (CAP sent on ridiculous mk1 eyeball scouting mission) leaving ships unprotected when a single sweep of Sea Harrier's RADAR could sanitise 100+ miles of airspace quickly. And to REALLY rub salt into the wounds we found out from the Argentinians after the war, that the presence of Sea Harrier RADAR contacts caused them to abort missions. So 801's CAPs were proactively avoiding attacks on the British fleet while 800 were encouraging them with their RADAR silence and Mk1 eyeball wild goose chases leaving holes in the CAP!

Regarding the Total Exclusion Zone: On 23 April 1982, in a message that was passed via the Swiss Embassy in Buenos Aires to the Argentine government, the British Government clarified that any Argentine ship or aircraft that was considered to pose a threat to British forces "anywhere in the South Atlantic" would be attacked: In announcing the establishment of a Maritime Exclusion Zone around the Falkland Islands, Her Majesty's Government made it clear that this measure was without prejudice to the right of the United Kingdom to take whatever additional measures may be needed in the exercise of its right of self-defence under Article 51 of the United Nations Charter. In this connection Her Majesty's Government now wishes to make clear that any approach on the part of Argentine warships, including submarines, naval auxiliaries or military aircraft, which could amount to a threat to interfere with the mission of British Forces in the South Atlantic will encounter the appropriate response. All Argentine aircraft, including civil aircraft engaged in surveillance of these British forces, will be regarded as hostile and are liable to be dealt with accordingly. (The term civilian aircraft alludes particularly, but not only, to the Boeing 707 of the Argentine Air Force that until then had shadowed the British Task Force on its journey south and had been escorted away on several occasions by Sea Harriers.)

At the beginning of the war a British sub tracked the Argentine carrier and was given permission to sink it if they got visual confirmation of the target. Theis carrier was saved by fog.

How about the F-8 The last of the gunfighters?

If we had the Buccaneer they could have gone in fast and low before anyone knew ..

The exclusion zone had nothing to do with Argentinian ships. Argentinian ships could be targetted anywhere. An exclusion zone simply tells other countries where their ships could be in danger.

I don't think the Arggies would have sortied their entire flightline of fighters in a situation like this scenario, maybe a four ship from each base, at most probably 2 four ships.

@krismurphy7711

10 ай бұрын

Maybe they would have if they assumed the Carrier was the target.

first time being this early

Without watching the video yet I’d say there’s a non 0 chance for that to happen

thank you all for being there... could a ww2 group of fighters that succeeded in battle of britain sorted out the japanese at Pearl Harbour

@timonsolus

11 ай бұрын

Nearly all the US fighters were destroyed on the ground at Pearl Harbor. Same would have happened to British fighters if the Japanese had decided to attack Singapore instead of Pearl Harbor. Surprise attack.

Hello GR, great video as always! The Falklands War was a war in which both the British and the Argentina suffered casualties. After watching a documentary on KZread, I noticed that the Argentinians attacked mainly with fighter planes attacked ships with French "Exocet" missiles and managed to hit at least 2 destroyers and 2 corvettes (Argentina only had 4 such missiles) the rest of the attacks were by bombs. The sinking of "General Belgrano" destroyer caused the Argentinians astonishment and shock, so that many attacks on the British battleships were successful, but the aircraft carriers remained unscathed thanks to the defensive arrangement the British employed. So, in my opinion the British could have lost the battle if Argentina had more modern anti-ship missiles

@dan.vitale

Жыл бұрын

Exocets were pretty modern at the time. they were in their 7th year of service in 1982

@mikeycraig8970

Жыл бұрын

1) Belgrano was a cruiser not a destroyer. 2) We WOULDN'T of lost.. Anyway you slice it.... because Margaret Thatcher had nuclear armed subs poised to take Buenos Aires if we did. Argentina COULDN'T win lol.

@osher87

Жыл бұрын

@@mikeycraig8970 You're right, it's a cruiser. I was translating my comment from Hebrew, the Heb word for cruiser and destroyer is the same word, משחתת. there is another word: סיירת. that one means only a cruiser. Thanks

@osher87

Жыл бұрын

@@mikeycraig8970 Your No' 2 in comment is not realistic, sorry.

@mikeycraig8970

Жыл бұрын

@@osher87 Sorry, but it's documented fact and she went on record to say as much after the war was won. She had nuclear subs ready for that order.

"La Muerta Negra"

@grimreapers

Жыл бұрын

Black death!

The British submarines were stupidly operating in cells which massively compromised their effectiveness. It didn't help that they didn't trust the new Tigerfish torpedoes and relied on the WWII jobbies which made interception much more difficult.