Canada converts Australian F-18s

During the Gulf War, BVR air-to-air missile shot down more aircraft than close-range air-to-air missile, and air combat wins in several local warfare instances later were mostly attributed to BVR air-to-air missile.

 

The British were not unaware of the value of AEW; they simply didn't have any suitable platform. They did develop an AEW Sea King by the end of 1982, so they probably could have had it sooner if the need had been anticipated.

There was little ACM in the Falklands war; the Harriers were mainly intercepting Argentine aircraft on bombing missions, directed by ships' radar. The newest model Sidewinder missiles, AIM-9L IIRC, were very effective.

Side note, I've often wondered why the Argentines didn't send a few of their best pilots in Mirages armed for air-to-air combat and try to knock down a few Harriers. Besides reducing the Harrier force, it might have forced the British to operate more cautiously.

The Argentines' most effective weapons were Exocets launched BVR; five launched, two hits, two kills. If they'd had more, the British would have been in real trouble.

 

Argentine airbases: Distances to Port Stanley Airport: Trelew: 580 nautical miles (1,070 km), Comodoro Rivadavia: 480 nautical miles (890 km), San Julián: 425 nautical miles (787 km), Rio Gallegos: 435 nautical miles (806 km) and Rio Grande: 380 nautical miles (700 km).
Due to the distance required to fly to the islands, two minutes was the average time Argentine attack aircraft had available in the target area.

Air superiority fighters would've been similarly restricted.
17 Mirage IIIEA combat range ca 1200 km.
30 IAI Dagger; ca 1300 km
Both types equipped with short range AAM.

And they were still worried about UK strikes on mainland bases.

The distances involved mean there is no time for anything remotely like an Argentine CAP over the Falkland Islands, nor forcing the Harriers into a fight. There is no extra time.

 

Well looking at:
Dassault Mirage III - Wikipedia

I would also guess that the flight profile for the above would make them somewhat vulnerable to SAMs as well as Harriers.

 

IIRC, they looked at using some of their Avro Shackleton AEW2s for the Falklands, but decided against it. They did keep their Nimrods very busy on maritime surveillance, but it was an the original Searchwater - incapable of low altitude air search.

Correct, the all-aspect AIM-9L made the difference in the Falklands air war.

They tried a few times with their Mirages/Daggers early on, but always came off a poor second. Their older rear-aspect Mystra Magic & Israeli Shafrir IR AAMs were simply not up to the task. The Argentinian pilots tended to shoot beyond the missile range and bug out before the Harriers could close to within range of their Sidewinders. As to guns, the Harriers did not take bait and go to higher altitudes, but remained low, where they were superior in maneuverability. Their best pilots were pulled back to guard the mainland airfields after Black Buck 1. Protecting those fields was far more important than downing a Harrier or two.

And how...

 

Don't forget that because of the Exocet threat the British carriers mostly stayed far away from the Falklands, and that the Harriers tended to stay on station about 10 minutes or so, because they were at the limit of their range. More than a few Harriers had to break off pursuit when they hit Bingo Fuel. Thus, the British were forced to cycle through more aircraft on CAP, so only a few were actually on station at any one time.

 

So...Your saying the President Trump will attack New Zealand because of his abysmal popularity rating?

Yeah, that I would believe.

Argentina attacked the Falklands because they had a disputed claim on them. Who is disputing claim of New Zealand? The Falklands were also within range, though barely, of Argentinian land-based attack aircraft...New Zealand is not within range of any land-based attack aircraft.

Is any of this sinking in?

Anything is possible if you are willing to accept the losses...The RN is a major navy, of which there are very few, and was able to sustain those losses. Further, had the Argentinians had better bomb fuzes, the RNs losses would have been quite unacceptable, since most of their bombs dropped failed to explode. Finally, such losses would have crippled any third rate navy that New Zealand would defend against. Also, none of the prospective enemy navies have the ability to project air power over New Zealand, hence their P-3s/P-8s/helicopters will have free reign with their SSMs against any such enemy navy.

The Sea Harriers had AIM-9L all-aspect missiles. Had the Argentinians been equipped with similar all-aspect missiles, the results would not have been so lopsided.

Regretfully, you are ill-informed, it is not a reference to knights of old, but a reference to an air-to-air fight where the opponents start in neutral positions. The Americans almost always defeated the North Vietnamese when both started from neutral positions.

Not where it mattered, at low & medium altitudes over North Vietnam...They had no radar command & control ability. US ground-based radar was limited to high altitudes only.

As to aircraft the fighters did not get a look down - shoot down radar until 1968 with the introduction of the F-4J and it's AN/AWG-10, and it was not until 1972 that the system had matured enough to be trusted.

F-22, F-35, or Sopwith Camel...You still have not given us a threat against which it is to defend.

 

Ever heard of this thing called IFF...It has been around since World War II.

PS I also forgot about this nifty gadget the USAF introduced during the tailend of Vietnam called "Combat Tree", to the best of my knowledge, it's updated brethren are used today.

Now, what were you saying about BVR combat...

 

The running joke in Beijing is that the New Zealand armed forces could not shoot down a flock of birds, which have total air superiority over the islands. Your rant has no effect on them, or me.

Australia’s military spending per capita is almost three times that of New Zealand, so the folks in Canberra have a good case that New Zealand is not pulling its weight as a defence partner.

This is exactly what China wants New Zealanders to believe. The Chinese have already landed in New Zealand. They are pleased to help the Kiwis lull themselves into a false sense of security by working the media, banks, other business interests, cyber crime, and all manner of subversion.

Nobody said the Chinese air forces or some other aggressor would drop bombs on New Zealand today, or any time soon. Military action is usually the last step, not the first.

Jacinda Ardern to China: New Zealand and China meet at critical point - CNN

Australia And New Zealand Are Ground Zero For Chinese Influence

 

Well for one thing, IFF systems have often failed to work as advertised.

Besides defects with the equipment, radios do not eliminate human error. Sometimes there is confusion from multiple signals. Sometimes there are misunderstandings with pilots and radar operators.

Hundreds of aircraft were attacked by their own side during WWII, despite widespread use of IFF.

In April 1994 the presence of IFF, AWACS, and clear weather, did not prevent two UH-60 Blackhawk helicopters from being shot down by USAF F-15s. One helicopter was was destroyed by AIM-120 missile and the other by AIM-9. Twenty-six people were killed.

Sometimes the IFF transmitter was turned off because it caused interference with other equipment. This is what happened to a British Army helicopter in June 1982. Gazelle XX377 was shot down in error by a Sea Dart missile from HMS Cardiff. Four men were killed.

Too bad that you’ve missed the point. Governments don’t always take action based on common sense. Said dispute was over a useless pile of rocks, economically and otherwise. But they started a stupid war there anyway that led to £ Billions spent to defend a few thousand people. Hope that helps.

In your previous reply, you implied that a country can avoid being threatened by trying to appear weak and non-threatening. That’s a new one for me. I thought that predators tend to attack the weakest animal from a group.

You also suggested that no one wishes to attack New Zealand because they have nothing to offer. Why is China investing people, time and effort inside New Zealand if this country is of no consequence to their future plans?

The overall kill ratio shows that North Vietnamese MiGs were competitive with USAF fighters. Your excuse-filled attempt to explain this away is what looks ill-informed.

 

Because you are now entering the realms of fantasy.

Somehow, when NZ possesses a fighter jet, this supposedly going to prevent Chinese businessmen from investing in New Zealand...

They invest money there, because they expect a RoI. For example, they buy property there, because it allows them to send their children to school there, where they do not have to worry about the vagaries of a communist party justice system. Amongst many other reasons

BTW, Those few thousands of Falkland Islanders are sitting on several billions... 200 nautical mile exclusion zone

https://www.cia.gov/library/readingroom/docs/CIA-RDP08C01297R000800090003-4.pdf

Rockhopper’s Falklands oil reserves double in ‘billion barrel basin’

 

I wonder why you are mentioning this? This was not a BVR engagement...The targets were visually identified as two Hind helicopters from a rough distance of 1,500 feet.

Yes, I am familiar with the incident...No one had told the RN that Army helicopters were not using their IFF...A failure of communication.

You can continue to cherrypick incidents, however, that does not hide the fact that with the increase in technological reliability, BVR missiles are claiming a larger percentage of kills than any others.

Too bad you did not make a point for me to miss. In the main, governments do behave rationally. The Argentinians thought that The Falklands were too far away from Britain to be defended effectively, and the British believed in the superior technology and skill. Both were wrong.

Not that this has anything to do with New Zealand...Unless Australia is planning an invasion I do not know about.

Show me one predator...one predator... that will travel over 2000 kilometers, passing up any and all other chances to attack other targets, just to attack a defenseless target.

Really? Your grasping a that straw?

China has invested more money in Equatorial Guinea than they have in New Zealand...

To see how far down China's list New Zealand is check out the interactive map here:
Chinese investment dataset - China Global Investment Tracker
New Zealand is really really low on China's list.


To conclude today's entertainment, we close with this.

Actually, my friend, you are the one that is ill-informed. Have you closely examined those kill ratios, or did you just gloss over them?

Would you be surprised to know that in the first half of 1967, USAF fighters achieved a kill-ration of 14.5:1...Boy, that does not look very competitive. However, it was at this point that the battered VPAF decided to change their tactics.

Again, I suggest to you that you read the Red Baron/CHECO reports.

 

Most interesting site, that Chinese investment tracker.