Argentinians were extremly brave pilots, one even tried to attack carrier with Pucara.
A-4s could do much serious damege if they hade Maverick missiles or even older Bullpup missiles.
With 20-30 Exocets Etendars could sink carriers. and if based on Falklands Brits wouldnt even get near falklands.
The reason the Brits won in the Falklands was because when push comes to shove, Tommy can fight.
The British soldier can be one of the most stubborn stalwarts when the chips are down.
The UK politicos and civie heathen may be weak and feckless, but Tommy can fight.
You almost get the impression that the Argentinians had no military plans beyond taking the islands.
You really need to do some research.
No Pucara got anywhere near a carrier. You do know how far east from the Falklands that the carriers were operating?
Would you care to name this Argentine Pucara pilot who is alleged to have attacked the carrier?
The Argentines would have had to have popped up to use such weapons as optical weapons against naval vessels. The last thing that a pilot would have wanted. The ships defences kept the Argentines down low. So low that their bombs didn't fuze correctly. No Argentine pilot would have used a Maverick in such circumstances. He would have been a sitting duck.
The Argentines gave up on the idea of extending the runway due to the fact that it had been cratered at a mid-way point. This one crater from the 1,000 pounder did enough damage to render it incapable of supporting high speed jets. They also gave up on putting runway arrestor gear and any further as basing such assets would have resulted in their destruction.
No high performance jets could have operated from Stanley airfield for any lengh of period. The constant bombardment of the airfield would have hampered any such operation of high performance aircraft. The Sea Harrier patrols would have simply sat off from the airfield and engaged any fighter aircraft that took off.