http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-17267714
Actually that subject line would probably piss them off - they consider them to be the Malvina's don't they - but then again, I got the story off the BBB so screw em !
I totally get that the Argentinians would be inclined to see the Falklands as their territory via the island's proximity to Argentina. But it appears as if the British flag has flown over those islands far longer than an Argentinian flag.
The people of the Falklands speak English, not Spanish. Ethnically the people are mostly descended from the British. According to Wiki, most of small number of "South Americans" who actually live on the Falklands are actually Chilean immigrants!
The Argentinians need to move on and find something new to agonize over.
It's an excellent "chest-beater" concern for both sides, when their economies are failing and they need to distract their associated general public's attention with something else.
We fought for sovereignty in 1982, and I think we'd do it again if we have to. Although I'm not sure this time we're capable of mounting anything approaching a proper Task Force including Carriers and Airstrike capability. We'd have to rely on our subs.
I suspects your subs and surface fleet would wipe the floor with any Argentine invasion/blockade attempt. Aging A-4's and Mirages aren't going to stand up to EF 2000's or modern missile systems.
Quote from: MIGMaster on March 06, 2012, 10:47:32 AM
I suspects your subs and surface fleet would wipe the floor with any Argentine invasion/blockade attempt. Aging A-4's and Mirages aren't going to stand up to EF 2000's or modern missile systems.
It's an interesting question, isn't it? An outdated force capable of projection versus an insufficient but modern force.
I suspect if push came to shove the US would likely loan a CV, but we'd have to send an entire carrier group with all the fixings just to ensure it was safe, meaning effectively we'd be fighting the fight, too.
The simplest thing is for the UK to keep its carriers if they intend to hold on to any overseas possessions.
Quote from: LongBlade on March 06, 2012, 10:59:39 AM
I suspect if push came to shove the US would likely loan a CV, but we'd have to send an entire carrier group with all the fixings just to ensure it was safe, meaning effectively we'd be fighting the fight, too.
I suspect they'd be very welcome, compared with the alternative of having to convince the French to share a CV with us, and agree to support us in the defence of the Falklands, bearing in mind their Exocet contracts with Argentina in the last wrangle.
Quote from: LongBlade on March 06, 2012, 10:59:39 AM
The simplest thing is for the UK to keep its carriers if they intend to hold on to any overseas possessions.
Could you mention this to our ad hoc Prime Minister? ;)
It seems the foolish man has left us without a surface fleet or any aircraft to strike with, short of fuelling up the RAF boys for the long distance trip from Ascension.
If there were indications of potential hostilitiles it would pay for the UK to nail the surface fleet to the coast of the mainland with warnings of sub attacks. Everyone remembers the Belgrano and in the air, the EF2000's would be absolutely dominant. They wouldn't ba able to get to the Islands, let alone invade.
Not having carriers (have I mentioned that before?) is a bugger - but subs would pose a substantial threat, and I think that there is a lot more potent stuff based out there now.
lets hope that common sense prevails.
Yeah, no more lives need be lost!
It's highly questionable whether the Argentines could successfully invade again. They're forces are not what they were 30 years ago either.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-17157373 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-17157373)
Thanks for the link, mirth.
Sounds like the British might have a harder time recapturing the islands if lost. On the flip side, however, it'd be a lot harder for Argentina to take them in the first place.
Quote from: Martok on March 06, 2012, 04:56:51 PM
Thanks for the link, mirth.
Sounds like the British might have a harder time recapturing the islands if lost. On the flip side, however, it'd be a lot harder for Argentina to take them in the first place.
That sums it up pretty well, Martok. Before reading that article, I didn't realize that the British garrison was that substantial. It seems like that it would be tough for the Argentinians to overcome that.
Yeah thanks for that link, I normally follow as much news as I can find on the Falklands, but I must have missed that one. I didn't know we had aircraft stationed there full time.
It seems to suggest we'd be able to defend the area, but if they ever get in, we'd have a hell of a time getting it back. Then they proceed to give them ideas about diverting an Civilian Airliner full of Argentinian Special Forces to Mount Pleasant Airbase! ::)
If they flew Air Canada they'd never get there on time. ;)
Nah, its a double bluff. They want to make sure that they DO pick up on the idea of sending thier best forces in on a civil airliner.
Think about it. A couple of hundred guys with limited equipment on a plane which is not exactly gonna be hard to spot settting up for a landing. So, the defenders have time to set up a nice killing field.
Now, there are a pretty limited number of exits from an airliner, so these guys are not going to be able to deploy very fast, in which time they make nice jucy targets.
A runway tends to have lots of open space around it, so there is not going to be much cover for the ones that do make it out of the aircraft unscathed.
Result - the 'enemies' best troops are knocked out of the picture; sounds good to me!
Man, what happened to the Royal Navy that the outcome is even in question? I mean no disrespect, but how can a nation like the UK, with such a history with and dependence on a superior Navy allow that tradition to disappear....
Because politicians hold the purse-strings, as ever >:(
I still can't believe the UK got rid of their whole Harrier force - just blows my mind. Every time I pick up a copy of Combat Aircraft it seems there is a story about some horrendous cuts to the UK military. I 'm scared to read the next issue at this rate.
Quote from: bob48 on March 07, 2012, 02:25:44 PM
Because politicians hold the purse-strings, as ever >:(
I'm afraid I don't know much about British politics, but if I had to speculate could it be because of blooming social programs?
I blame the Olympics! ;)
Quote from: mikeck on March 07, 2012, 02:13:02 PM
Man, what happened to the Royal Navy that the outcome is even in question? I mean no disrespect, but how can a nation like the UK, with such a history with and dependence on a superior Navy allow that tradition to disappear....
They very nearly couldn't do it in 1982. I believe they were a few months away from selling Invincible and decommissioning Hermes.
Quote from: mikeck on March 07, 2012, 02:13:02 PM
Man, what happened to the Royal Navy that the outcome is even in question? I mean no disrespect, but how can a nation like the UK, with such a history with and dependence on a superior Navy allow that tradition to disappear....
Navy ships don't vote.....
Quote from: MIGMaster on March 07, 2012, 02:58:55 PM
I still can't believe the UK got rid of their whole Harrier force - just blows my mind. Every time I pick up a copy of Combat Aircraft it seems there is a story about some horrendous cuts to the UK military. I 'm scared to read the next issue at this rate.
Cutting the Harriers was a huge mistake. It isn't just the planes, it's the loss of experience in carrier flight operations. Even though the Queen Elizabeth is supposed to enter service in 2020, they're talking about her not being fully operational until 2030 because of the time to rebuild the Fleet Air Arm.
That does not sound encouraging.
Once you lose a time honored expertise, getting it back won't be easy. Too bad really. I quite liked the Harriers - I wonder if the carrier will get the axe down the road ?
Quote from: MIGMaster on March 07, 2012, 08:16:56 PM
Once you lose a time honored expertise, getting it back won't be easy. Too bad really. I quite liked the Harriers - I wonder of the carrier will get the axe down the road ?
I've read stuff along those lines. It's possible Prince of Wales will be mothballed as soon as it's built or possibly sold off to India.
Pax Indiana??!! :o
Here's an interesting list re: aircraft carriers:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_aircraft_carriers_by_country
Brazil has the old Clemenceau. They could kick Britain's ass. :o
Is the Foch still around ?
Looks like Foch is the one the Brazilians bought. Clemenceau was scrapped which seems like a pity.
Quote from: mirth on March 08, 2012, 08:42:08 AM
Brazil has the old Clemenceau. They could kick Britain's ass. :o
sub-bait.....
Quote from: Windigo on March 08, 2012, 10:51:18 AM
Quote from: mirth on March 08, 2012, 08:42:08 AM
Brazil has the old Clemenceau. They could kick Britain's ass. :o
sub-bait.....
Lol, true enough! The Astute or even one of the Trafalgars could probably sink her from the time she left port. However, the Brazilian Navy is surprisingly modern (on paper at least). I wonder how good their training is.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ships_of_the_Brazilian_Navy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ships_of_the_Brazilian_Navy)
They're regarded as an up and coming South American power....... Probably much to the chagrin of Argentina.
I imagine they must have some skill to operate a fleet of that size. There's some good ship types on that list. The Sao Paulo (ex Foch) went through an extensive refit a couple years ago too.
I read some pieces on Brazil and how they are trying to shoot for the role of a South American power house. IIRC they are also very serious about developing a thriving aircraft industry.
I think they've succeeded in that regard. Embraer is pretty well regraded as an aircraft manufacturer isn't it?
Quote from: mirth on March 08, 2012, 02:27:01 PM
I think they've succeeded in that regard. Embraer is pretty well regraded as an aircraft manufacturer isn't it?
I read something about Brazil competing for a new Air Force training plane. It's a virtual guarantee that the USAF wouldn't be inviting junk companies to build for them, so I suspect you're right.
Quote from: LongBlade on March 08, 2012, 02:43:37 PM
Quote from: mirth on March 08, 2012, 02:27:01 PM
I think they've succeeded in that regard. Embraer is pretty well regraded as an aircraft manufacturer isn't it?
I read something about Brazil competing for a new Air Force training plane. It's a virtual guarantee that the USAF wouldn't be inviting junk companies to build for them, so I suspect you're right.
Yeah - they are really putting up stiff competition in the medium tactical lift field and AEW systems:
http://www.embraerdefensesystems.com/english/content/cargo/three_view.asp
They are certainly scaring the hell outta Bombadier !
The US Navy and USAF were both contemplating buying some of these for counter-insurgency support-
(https://www.grogheads.com/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fcommons%2Fthumb%2Fe%2Fee%2FA-29_SuperTucano.JPG%2F800px-A-29_SuperTucano.JPG&hash=6ac956a5105c06ecd21066a85ca97cf0c58ada8d)
Looks like a nasty little light attack bird.
It almost looks like a two-seater P-51. Funny how what comes around goes around.
They'll always be a need for rugged, prop driven attack aircraft. Mostly our own Air Force keeps forgetting that and relearning it every 20 years or so.
Quote from: LongBlade on March 08, 2012, 03:05:54 PM
It almost looks like a two-seater P-51. Funny how what comes around goes around.
a ripoff of the De Havilland Canada DHC-1B-2-S3 Chipmunk with an upgrade on the engine
Quote from: Windigo on March 08, 2012, 03:48:02 PM
Quote from: LongBlade on March 08, 2012, 03:05:54 PM
It almost looks like a two-seater P-51. Funny how what comes around goes around.
a ripoff of the De Havilland Canada DHC-1B-2-S3 Chipmunk with an upgrade on the engine
If ever an airplane deserved the name "Chipmunk"...
(https://www.grogheads.com/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.warbirdalley.com%2Fimages%2Fchipmunk-03.jpg&hash=4bd6d1e9fbacd69d59625f5a3d0e28b7c571d10c)
Quote from: mirth on March 08, 2012, 02:27:01 PM
I think they've succeeded in that regard. Embraer is pretty well regraded as an aircraft manufacturer isn't it?
Yep.
Quote from: MIGMaster on March 08, 2012, 07:39:30 AM
Here's an interesting list re: aircraft carriers:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_aircraft_carriers_by_country
WOW, in 2015, the Nimitz will be 40yrs old.