Air Supremacy in the Falklands
I am massively off topic but then so is everyone else.
>I believe the answer is 6 in stock, 6 on order (Indonesian Su-27's)
>Remind me how many sub-sonic Harriers were required by the UK to destroy
>the Argentine airforce and hence assert Air Supremacy to cover the
>amphibious landings on the Falklands?
Presumably you've read the six Harriers _lost_ and assumed that there was only six?
There were about 38 available, 6 were lost to the 20 ancient Argentine Skyhawks shot down. (Although I think the Harriers were all lost to ground fire)
Air supremacy was never achieved indeed the landings at San Carlos quite clearly demonstrated that.
The Harrier isn't even a fighter aircraft, being best in the ground support role it was designed for. Even ye olde Phantoms from the recently scrapped Ark Royal would have massively changed the situation had they been available.
The argentine air force had been suffering under US sanctions for a long period and the Skyhawks were really quite shagged, the Mirage III was the real threat, but the Argentines were more worried about losing them than the war - understandable given the price of an aircraft versus a rock with a few sheep.
British submarines kept the Argentine carrier battle group safely packed away and so the AAF had to operate at a massively extended range, only allowing them a very brief period in the combat zone.
Ultimately the missiles they carry can make the biggest difference, and I think I'd rather have an american missile than a Russian one. The shiny new AIM-9L that represented the US "assistance" in the Falklands made a big impact and of course the majority of the British casualties in that war came courtesy of the equally shiny and new Exocet of French origin packed by the Mirages.
I doubt that Indonesia even have any hostility towards Australia, or that they have a massive barrage of EMP techno bombs waiting.