MercoPress, en Español

Montevideo, July 21st 2019 - 19:43 UTC

 

 

Recalling Falklands' conflict: “Farewell to Argentina's Mirages, ”but glory is forever”

Tuesday, December 1st 2015 - 07:06 UTC
Full article 44 comments

Argentina said farewell to its remaining fleet of French built Mirage fighter bombers which have been operational since 1972 and played a crucial role during the South Atlantic conflict when they clashed with the British Task Force sent to recover the invaded and occupied Falkland Islands in 1982. Read full article

Comments

Disclaimer & comment rules
  • zathras

    'Argentina farewells its Mirages, but Glory is forever'

    The illegal invasion of the the Falklands by Argentina was anything but Glorious.

    Dec 01st, 2015 - 08:57 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Da_pict

    “ They were supported by a pass-by from other aircraft such as the IA-63 Pampa; IS-58 Pucará; Hercules C130; Fokker F-27; DHC-6 Twin Otter; Grob 120 and Embraer-312 Tucano plus helicopters Mi-171; Bell 212 and Hughes 500”

    So everything they could get in the air safely was put up to say farewall, that doesn't say much for their airforce.

    “we have managed to keep them operation for 43 years”

    How can a museum piece be classed as operational, they were nearing their sell by date in 1982

    Dec 01st, 2015 - 09:54 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • gordo1

    “OUTSTOOD” ? Is this an invention porteño? I am a rather elderly native English speaker and have never heard this word!

    And why do they need new planes? With whom do they plan to go to war? Why don't they follow the example of Costa Rica? No armed forces!

    Dec 01st, 2015 - 09:56 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Pete Bog

    Are the Argentine Navy's Super Etendards still operational? I believe there's about 5 but perhaps someone can enlighten.

    Why no Fightinghawks in the flypast?

    “However apparently the choice is for the Israel's IAI Kfir an advanced version of the Mirage V”

    Go for it Argentina, you know the Kfir makes sense.

    Dec 01st, 2015 - 10:39 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Da_pict

    @4

    Guessing the Etendards and Fightinghawks weren't serviceable that day

    Dec 01st, 2015 - 11:04 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Clyde15

    There is an article about this in the current issue of Air Forces Monthly.
    They don't mention that they were stuffed by the Sea Harriers.

    It is interesting to note that the French based the Mirage family design on British delta wing research.
    We lost our lead in fighter aircraft development when Tory Duncan Sands decide missiles would take the place of manned fighter aircraft. He effectively handed future development over to the USA and France.

    Dec 01st, 2015 - 11:32 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • MK8 Torpedo

    The Fairy Delta 2!
    First aircraft in the world to fly at over 1000mph.Back in 1956!
    Bettered the previous record by largest margin ever.

    Dec 01st, 2015 - 12:21 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • SebaSvtz

    Good bye, Mirage Family

    you were pushed to senseless limits. You were asked to stand even though your time was gone decades ago. You were sent to fight with no proper equipment, ordnance nor tactics. You gave your best in a war environment you were not designed for.

    You were overused to cover the 8th largest country in the world with just a handful of you, barely armed, with no serviceable radars and no electronic warfare suits at all.

    You were requested to protect our skies, but were given nothing to accomplish that.

    Several of our finest pilots found their end on board. Either in combat or in accidents.

    Now you are gone, and all they could bring to say good bye were a bunch of planes as old as your, planes that soon should be gone too.

    No replacements ahead. Not even an air force anymore.

    What a sad farewell. You don´t deserve that at all.

    Dec 01st, 2015 - 12:42 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Vestige

    4 - yep it probably will be the kfirs soon.
    Then some jf17s next spend.

    Dec 01st, 2015 - 01:29 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Marti Llazo

    @6 “They don't mention that they were stuffed by the Sea Harriers. ”

    Yes, the Harriers were competitive in large measure due to the hundred or so AIM-9L Sidewinder air-to-air missiles supplied by the US. I think that the Harrier/Sidewinder combination took down 19 Argentine aircraft during the 1982 Falklands war.

    If the public had been allowed to visit the parking-places for the FAA aircraft that participated in that fly-by, they would have noticed puddles of hydraulic fluid under several of them.

    Dec 01st, 2015 - 02:19 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Clyde15

    #10
    Actually it was by a superior aircraft and superior aircrew not just the sidewinders.
    But Argentine mythology has to have an excuse other than they were bested by a more skilled adversary.
    As far as I can remember, the “kills” were made by a 6'o clock tail chase and the all aspect ability of the missiles was not used. However it must be over 20 years since I last read the account of the air war so I could be mistaken.

    #7
    I can remember making the Airfix model of the FD2 and wondering what colour puce was when they painted it this shade.
    My brother was in the RAF at Thorney Island and sent me a picture of the record attempt. It was a picture of a thin contrail which to me, was highly exciting.

    Dec 01st, 2015 - 04:47 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • chronic

    In Harlingen, TX we have the Confederate Air Force. Privately owned museum pieces. Between them and the EAA birds - if supplied with enough ordinace - there exists more than adequate craft to defeat the rottingroadkillian air services. lol.
    Of course the same could be said of much of latam. Pitiful.

    Dec 01st, 2015 - 06:04 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • ChrisR

    Raygun Ronnie Reagan would have been pleased with this approach to Argentina having some pride 'left' when he conned The Blessed Margaret into stopping short of bombing the shit out of mainland Argentina.

    We can all see for ourselves where this got Argentina: they really do think they 'won the war' but the Brits robbed them of the victory.

    Macri has a lot to do to stop this nonsense; if he wants to.

    Dec 01st, 2015 - 06:37 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Marti Llazo

    @11 That is the reason I described the winning solution as the “Harrier/Sidewinder combination.” It was one of those winning teaming arrangements.

    Sandy Woodward was unequivocal in reminding us that the contribution of the AIM-9L was one of the decisive advantages of the British forces, and he made it clear that in his opinion the war would likely have been lost without those missiles. Interviews after the 1982 war with FAA pilots revealed that they ultimately refrained from attacking the Harriers because they were very much aware of the all-aspect feature and other capabilities of the AIM-9L and concluded that any attempt to take on a Sidewinder-equipped Harrier would be fruitless and suicidal. There is good reason for them to have believed that since the Harrier/Sidewinder combination achieved an unheard-of Pk of nearly 75 percent (in kills per missile fired). Splash... splash.... splash.....

    Please understand that the mention of technological advantages in no way denigrates the contributions of those who skillfully and effectively drove the aeroplanes. And I happen to have a great deal of respect and admiration for Sharkey Ward. Read his assessment of the AIM-9L contributions.

    Dec 01st, 2015 - 06:42 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Evil Colonialist Pirate

    The only glory those hunks of scrap brought was to the RAF.

    Dec 01st, 2015 - 06:55 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Briton

    Well the time has come to say goodbye,
    it happens to all planes at some time,

    you had your fun, now you have you last run,
    until the next plane type gets retired, we say===

    Farewell to Argentina's Mirages, goodbye farewell
    Tugaloo have a nice trip, RIP , see you at the next old planes air show,

    let the tears flow, bye bye,

    poor argies, still
    when ya gotta go, ya goota go.
    chuckle chuckle..

    Dec 01st, 2015 - 07:59 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • traveller

    @12 the confederate Airforce - No less famous for providing the dogfights et al in the Battle of Britain Movie of late 60's fame!

    Dec 01st, 2015 - 09:37 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Marti Llazo

    ”but glory is forever”

    It is interesting to understand the meaning of “glory” in the Argento dialect. Far from the predictable translation, it actually signifies “a massive cockup in which we failed in so spectacular a manner as to create an infamous event worthy of being remembered as an example of what not to do.”

    See also “ boludez” and “condorazo.”

    And now you know.

    Dec 01st, 2015 - 09:41 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • MK8 Torpedo

    @11
    I made an FD-2 kit back in the 70,s IIR it was a much inferior Frog brand.
    Shame the aircraft was not develop into a light fighter,with the RR Avon engine it would of outperformed the Mirage.
    Always believed it was a French copy.

    Dec 01st, 2015 - 11:38 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Self-Determination

    'Argentina farewells its Mirages, but Glory is forever'

    ? what glory ? Argentina lost an illegal war - and many of these mirages to the harrier....

    .....Glory my ass! Argentinian mirages won shit and were defeated!

    Dec 02nd, 2015 - 12:03 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Marti Llazo

    I was just thinking of how well the terms “Argentina” and “mirage” seem to go together.

    Dec 02nd, 2015 - 12:25 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • brasherboot

    Argentina had around 200 aircraft against the UKs 20 (22?) harriers.

    Its hardly 'glorious' that Argentina couldn't control or win the airspace in the Falklands conflict with that ratio.

    Dec 02nd, 2015 - 12:52 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • ilsen

    @8 SebaSvtz
    Thank You for your words.

    Although I could never condone the actions of the Junta, I do respect the bravery, and sacrifice, of those Argentine Pilots, who were simply doing what their Country asked of them.
    My Father was in the RAF, I do understand.

    Dec 02nd, 2015 - 01:46 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Marti Llazo

    @22 UK forces started with just 20 Harriers, and got 8 more into action before things wrapped up. Six were lost from accidents or ground fire. Not a single Harrier was downed by the FAA.

    Dec 02nd, 2015 - 03:17 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • gordo1

    @18 and 21 Marti Llazo

    Nice! Appropriate comments!

    Dec 02nd, 2015 - 07:16 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Clyde15

    Well ,we said goodbye to the Vulcan recently. An aircraft so far ahead of it's time that nothing could catch it. It was years before the Soviets had a missile which could intercept it. Their fighters could not get to anywhere near the cruising altitude of the Vulcan for years after it's service introduction. Actually, the Victor was a more advanced aircraft which was relegated to none-the-less valuable tanker duties.
    The French had the Mirage, we had the Lightning...an apt name.
    Nothing could beat it in a climb from the deck however it burned fuel at a prodigious rate. With afterburners on it could fly for 7 minutes.
    At full power on take off, it had to be put into an almost vertical climb or it would go supersonic. A real man's aircraft and very unforgiving.

    Dec 02nd, 2015 - 11:02 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • ChrisR

    @ 18 Marti Llazo
    ”It is interesting to understand the meaning of “glory” in the Argento dialect. Far from the predictable translation, it actually signifies “a massive cockup in which we failed in so spectacular a manner as to create an infamous event worthy of being remembered as an example of what not to do.”

    As someone struggling to come to terms with the language(s) in Uruguay I take it that the above definition was 'tongue in cheek'?

    It seems the guy covered in scrambled egg should have been using 'gloriarse de', as he was boasting, or have I misunderstood that?

    I just love your comments.

    Dec 02nd, 2015 - 11:14 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Marti Llazo

    @27 ChrisR, the Argento dialect and its development are intriguing. One of the most important factors is Lunfardo, which started out as a sort of underworld argot in part of the greater Buenos Aires metro area but as the whole of the country became increasingly criminalised, it has significantly influenced the speech of the entire country here to some degree. Its linguistic impact reveals a great deal about the culture here. For example, in Argentine/Lunfardo there are 226 terms that mean “theft” but not a single word for “honesty.”

    Dec 02nd, 2015 - 12:47 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Briton

    According to the discovery channel,
    Hitler escaped to Argentina after all,
    was protected and looked after by the argy government at the time,
    probably dead now.
    so they say.

    Dec 02nd, 2015 - 01:33 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • SebaSvtz

    @ 23

    Thank you, Ilsen.

    Dec 02nd, 2015 - 02:14 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Vero's_guy

    What cannot be disputed is that the FAA pilots were both highly skilled, trained and motivated. There is a lot of nonsense being posted here about how they basically got their backsides kicked, nothing could be further from the truth and anyone who knows anything at all about the conflict will also be aware of the fact that had the Task Force not had some good fortune-the skill of the RAF and RN forces goes without saying-the outcome could easily have been very, very different.

    Dec 05th, 2015 - 05:27 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Marti Llazo

    @31 Yes, we can always speculate about alternative outcomes. Like, what if the site of the former Pink House were still glowing and where Rosario used to be reduced to being a glassy parking-lot for the next 1500 years?

    Dec 06th, 2015 - 12:58 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Clyde15

    #31
    Yes the Argentinian pilots were skilled fliers and brave men BUT they were not tactically trained to a high enough degree.
    I have quoted this USAF General who said, just before the hostilities commenced that it would be like hawks among chickens when the Argentinian
    air force met the British fliers and it proved so in aerial combat.
    Argentina's main luck was that Britain did not cut loose and go ape.

    We were asked by the US. not to humiliate ARGENTINA and we probably paid a price for leniency.

    IF, IF IF...This could have been said by the British side. If the forces from Sir Galahad had disembarked...if the BBC had not broadcast that the Paras. were going to attack Goose Green...if the Rapier batteries had worked properly.
    If we only had sent some phantoms and buccaneers before the invasion by Argentina they could have attacked the Argentine air force bases.

    Wars are won often by some lucky breaks, I would suggest that ARGENTINA had more than their fair share.

    Discussing appointments of Generals, Napoleon was quoted as saying , “Yes, I know he is good, but more important than that, is he lucky”

    Dec 06th, 2015 - 10:54 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Vero's_guy

    #33
    You are probably more knowledgeable than me about the air aspect, I served on a destroyer, so what I recall about the campaign is pretty much based on what the officers and senior ratings later told me.
    What I do know is that far from what some people are suggesting on this thread the Argentinian air campaign did a lot of damage to the Task Force, and the outcome was nowhere as assured as some seem to think.
    Your comment about the RAF having a proper presence on the Islands prior to the invasion seems somewhat of a moot point, you will recall that one of the reasons that gave the green light to Galtieri was the withdrawal of the Endurance, this along with the inter-governmental “discussions” that had already been underway for some time seemed to suggest (and I would say with good reason) that any British interest in the islands was starting to wane.
    And of course we couldn't have attacked Argentina because, as Thatcher frequently said, we weren't at war, we were in a state of conflict....

    Dec 06th, 2015 - 02:12 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Marti Llazo

    @34 There was never any “green light” for the Argentine military government to invade the islands. The existence of preliminary talks does not give one the right to an illegal armed invasion of a peaceful neighbour. The Galtieri reason for the invasion of the Falklands was as usual, things were falling apart at home -- the junta was being correctly perceived as responsible for not only massive human rights violations but a badly foundering domestic economy -- and it needed something to distract the populacho.

    In discussions with Argentine military officers we note a wisp of reason today: the opinion that one of the stupidest things you can do is enter into a conventional war with a NATO power.

    Were FAA pilots that good? Courageous, mostly yes, though there was no shortage of courage on both sides in the air. Trained for the nature of the conflict? Somewhat yes and somewhat no. Their survival in air-to-air engagements with Harriers was abysmal, though proper training here could have helped them considerably. The Harrier pilots out-flew, out-maneuvered, out-foxed, and ultimately out-gunned (or rather, out-missiled) the FAA.

    Dec 06th, 2015 - 04:42 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Clyde15

    #34
    At the start of hostilities, the Cabinet were told that we would certainly lose some ships. The frigates and destroyers were put in harm's way to protect the carriers and troop transports. They were deemed expendable and true to the traditions of the service they put themselves in danger “for the greater good”

    The vulnerability of surface ships was well known to the Admiralty.....Crete and the Repulse/ Prince of Wales were examples.

    Being stuck in a narrow channel our ships were sitting ducks to the FAA, however, their fear of the RN's anti-aircraft missiles meant that they had to come in at low level. The result being that their delayed action bombs had no time to arm and failed to detonate in most cases.
    Was this luck OR the result of the Argentinians tactical decisions I don't know.
    What I do know is that they made a huge tactical blunder by not going for the Canberra and the QE2 . If they had been destroyed it would have been GAME OVER .

    We hear a lot lot from the Argentinians that it was the AIML Sidewinders that “won the air battle” for the UK and that the FAA were at a huge disadvantage due to the distances they had to fly.
    Let's see. Yes, they came from their territory and overflew the Falklands where they could have made emergency landings in friendly territory. We are always being told that the Black Buck raid was a failure as the runway was in use shortly after.
    The pilots that made it back were able to rest safely in proper quarters without fear of attack.

    The Fleet Air Arm pilots had to endure the S.Atlantic weather, take what rest they could, endure being on readiness in their aircraft to launch at a moments notice, fight and then hope they could find the carrier on return.
    To my way of thinking, they had the harder job which they performed magnificently .

    As to not attacking Argentina, plans were made to attack the Rio Gallegos and Rio Grande airbases. These are certainly in Argentina.

    The Arg. navy were where ?

    Dec 06th, 2015 - 06:08 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Marti Llazo

    @36 (1) We hear a lot lot from the Argentinians that it was the AIML Sidewinders that “won the air battle” for the UK ...
    (2) Let's see. Yes, they came from their territory and overflew the Falklands where they could have made emergency landings in friendly territory. ...
    (3) ....the Black Buck raid was a failure as the runway was in use shortly after. ...

    (1) As noted earlier, it was the combination of the exceptional flying skills of the Harrier pilots, coupled with the AIM-9L missile, that provided a lethal mix in the right hands. But that missile is only as good as the fellow with the pickle-switch, as we used to say. The FAA had access to air-to-air missiles with some capability but they were not sufficiently skilled in their use. This reflects a training and tactics shortcoming. And a less aggressive air-superiority posture, but likely it was a matter of restricting the use of their limited resources to anti-ship missions, which makes tactical sense.
    (2) There was no “friendly territory” for FAA aircraft after overflying the Falklands. The FAA fast-movers had no air-air refueling capability so they could not loiter long and if they did overstay their fuel range there was nowhere to go but water.
    (3) Regarding the Vulcan missions there was very little impact (bad pun) on FAA operations. Good for UK morale however. And scared the bejezzus out of some of the argento brass since they understood that those Vulcans could just as “easily” (nothing easy about it) have dropped ordnance on the Pink House or the officer's mess in Río Gallegos. The FAA had the opportunity early on to extend the Falklands runway to allow its use by the fast-movers. They failed to do this and lost a significant and possibly decisive opportunity, even though they did bring a lot of the necessary runway extension material to the islands.

    Por lo que valga.

    Dec 06th, 2015 - 06:48 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Clyde15

    #38
    With a little foresight, some C-130's could have been converted to tankers and fly in a race track pattern midway between Argentina and the Falklands.
    This would have enabled refueling on outward and return flights also allowing supersonic flight when required.
    The RAF have been doing this for decades intercepting Russian aircraft over the Atlantic.
    Refueling probes could have been designed and fitted for the Daggers...the Pakistan Air force had plans to do this in the mid 80's and later versions had this probe fitted to the right of the cockpit..
    Argentina had 4 weeks to design and fit this but did not get their finger.
    Lucky for us.

    The RAF designed and fitted refueling equipment on the Vulcans in 4 days
    I had a photographic visit to RAF Waddington about that time and we were told we could photograph the Vulcans on the ramp but not the 3 outside the hangars. I learned later that these were the ones being modified.

    The Nimrods were retro-fitted with probes for refueling, within 4 weeks and fitted with sidewinders making them the world's largest fighters !

    By friendly territory I meant landing in the Falklands at that stage of the campaign.
    Again the Sea Harriers had nowhere to go but to the carrier. Bad weather, storms or radio failure could have been curtains for them.

    I checked on Argentine aircraft losses and I did not see any mention of any aircraft not making it back to its base after leaving the combat area.

    We are probably biased to our own interpretations of the air war.

    The thing we can both agree on was that it took guts from both sides to carry out missions over a hostile sea in winter.

    The result of the “war” being that it deeply soured relations between our countries and still does.

    For what it's worth

    Dec 06th, 2015 - 11:45 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Marti Llazo

    #38 ... some C-130's could have been converted to tankers and fly in a race track pattern midway between Argentina and the Falklands.....“

    =========> The available C-130s were already over-tasked. There were two KC-130 already serving as tankers for the Skyhawks. La puta ”Industria Argentina“ and the FAA didn't have the time or expertise to convert the fast-movers for air-air refueling and even if they had, they had no time to train -- and air-air refueling a Dagger/Mirage is not a skill you acquire whilst thumbing magazines in the ready-room. Anyway there were lots of reasons why not. And then Sharkey took down another C130, leaving I think just one operational for the FAA night flights to/from the islands.

    ” The Nimrods were ... fitted with sidewinders making them the world's largest fighters !“

    ==> There are large cargo craft fitted with self-defence AIM-9 missiles. That doesn't make them ”fighters“ obviously. You were surely laughing up that one.

    ” By friendly territory I meant landing in the Falklands at that stage of the campaign.“

    ====> Fast-movers could not use the short runway at Stanley without overshooting and instantly turning to junk.

    ” I checked on Argentine aircraft losses and I did not see any mention of any aircraft not making it back to its base after leaving the combat area.“

    ===> Look again. Closely. Insert ”Mirage“ + ”Stanley“+ ”dead pilot.“

    ” The thing we can both agree on was that it took guts from both sides to carry out missions over a hostile sea in winter.“

    ==> It wasn't winter yet. Down here, you know when it's winter. And the war was not fought in our winter.

    ” The result of the “war” being that it deeply soured relations between our countries and still does.“

    ===== It showed the world the true colours of Argentina. And still does. And a lot of other good came of that war, though no such good comes cheaply.

    ” For what it's worth”

    ===== Que sí che, por lo que valga.

    Dec 07th, 2015 - 12:51 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Clyde15

    #39
    The sidewinders were to take out your 707's if encountered. Read this !
    pprune.org/military-aviation/456928-raf-nimrod-argentine-b707-encounter-falklands-war.html

    No one is saying that the Nimrod was a fighter but if you have seen them in maneuvers pulling G in tight wing over turns you would see that they were tough aircraft. A 707 would have lost it's wings trying these tight banking turns. However the sidewinders were never needed.
    The Nimrod crews had to learn air-to-air refueling double quick. So, surely your people could have done so

    “ By friendly territory I meant landing in the Falklands at that stage of the campaign.“
    I presumed that stop nets could be deployed to stop the aircraft as in carrier over runs.

    I have seen stop nets deployed at RAF Binbrook to stop Lightnings whose braking parachutes failed to deploy Surely something like this could have been used at Stanley in an emergency

    ”I checked on Argentine aircraft losses and I did not see any mention of any aircraft not making it back to its base after leaving the combat area.“
    I should have added “and running out of fuel”

    My impression was that the weather was filthy out at sea and it was the onset of winter. I bow to your knowledge. I just added 6 months to the dates and extrapolated what the weather would be like compared with here. I forgot that your weather is milder than where I live as I live approx 10° nearer the N pole
    than the Falklands are to the S.Pole.

    “It showed the world the true colours of Argentina. And still does”

    This is a rather ambiguous statement. In respect of your air force they came out with honour. For your navy, a definite no. The army ?
    The way Stanley was trashed was anything but honourable.
    Your politicians and government showed their true colours to the world and it was anything but honourable so I am sorry but I don't buy that one.
    No one in the UK would agree with you there.

    Dec 07th, 2015 - 07:55 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Troy Tempest

    As a military and a country, they should be ashamed of a miltary sneak attack and occupation of a peaceful civilian community, and then abusing the families and their homes.

    Excuses are shallow. Far better to hear an official apology and a pledge not to do it again, but they will not even concede to that.

    What a disgrace.

    Dec 07th, 2015 - 08:38 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Marti Llazo

    @40 - minor point: please don't say “your” and imply that I am argento. I am a mere observer and [ insert current occupation here ] in this country. But the proximity and the previous military career in forces in an arguably more civilised nation elsewhere , as well as contact with both islanders and local military, allows some useful insights.

    Other:

    (1. ) “ By friendly territory I meant landing in the Falklands at that stage of the campaign.“ I presumed that stop nets could be deployed to stop the aircraft as in carrier over runs.

    ===. There was an attempt by the FAA to use arresting cable gear at the Stanley runway, likely for the Skyhawks. I don't believe it could have been used for the fast-movers, though the Mirages did use the Río Grande base runway even though it was 500 meters too short for proper Mirage operation and had no arresting gear. But apparently the Stanley runway was too short and otherwise ill suitedto allow safe takeoff or landing even if they could have made arresting gear work there.

    (2) Regarding the oft-repeated notion of courageous FAA pilots and bla bla bla: one of the reasons that the FAA failed to shoot down any Harriers was that they used their air-air missiles incorrectly, or rather, much less than courageously. Basically, instead of staying in the fight and guiding the missiles as was required, they turned tail and fled. This served two purposes: it made their air-air missile attacks useless against the Harriers, and it allowed those same Harriers to pickle their own Sidewinders and splash the Mirages (I refer to the Harrier-Mirage engagement of 1 May here).

    (3) This is a rather ambiguous statement....

    ====> Sorry - was trying to be subtle. It perhaps should have read ”The Falklands war showed the true filth, lawlessness, incompetence, corruption, and arrogance [and those are the positive qualities] that underlie nearly every Argentine undertaking.

    That should remove some of the ambiguity.

    Dec 07th, 2015 - 10:33 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Clyde15

    #42
    As to ambiguity....
    It wasn't winter yet. Down here, you know when it's winter. And the war was not fought in our winter.

    Using a Spanish sounding name and saying down here and our winter gave a distinct impression that you were Argentinian.

    I'm afraid that I am likely to take a posting for it's content if it is well written...and fail to spot the irony if I know nothing about the person's background.
    Going back to the initial posts in the forum, I realise now that I had morphed yourself and Veros-guy into one.

    Dec 08th, 2015 - 09:53 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Marti Llazo

    @43 As others have observed, the nick Marti Llazo is a play on words. Look up the meaning of martillazo.

    There are lots of Brits (and Kiwis and Ozzies and Canucks and all manner of odd sorts) living and working down here. Bilingual or multilingual bastards, many of them. In fact a great deal of Argentina's original development of the southernmost provinces depended in large measure on British activity. And then there are people whose given name is Martí and were in Catalunya before coming to Argentina. You just never know. Except when someone is talking sense and reason and truth, in which case you can be fairly confident in the exceptionally low probability of such a contributor being Argentine.

    Dec 08th, 2015 - 12:47 pm - Link - Report abuse 0

Commenting for this story is now closed.
If you have a Facebook account, become a fan and comment on our Facebook Page!