• This topic has 14 replies, 10 voices, and was last updated 14 years ago by Kuco.
Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 15 total)
  • Remember 1982, should they send the Vulcans to Argentina this time?
  • JoeBones
    Free Member

    How long before this kicks off again?

    z1ppy
    Full Member
    jumping_flea
    Free Member

    Well there is only one Vulcan left flying and no Victors to re-fuel them.
    My Uncle was part of the re-fueling team during the build up to, and during the war. The effort that went into getting them over there was massive.
    Just done as a PR stunt, and a "look what we can do" to the argies.

    (Until one landed in Rio with an American weapon attached to one of the external pods – then they just looked slightly embarrassed)

    Lets just park one of our subs off the coast – that will scare them! 😉

    JoeBones
    Free Member

    I have just finished readying the book on Black Buck, truly amazing

    JoeBones
    Free Member

    Sorry I missed that one but I have only returned from a two week ban 😉

    aracer
    Free Member

    no Victors to re-fuel them.

    You think a Vulcan (if there was one capable of making the trip and doing AAR) couldn't refuel from one of the Tristar or VC-10 tankers which replaced the Victors? Those are so much more capable (greater range and fuel capacity) that there wouldn't be quite the same logistical problems to do the same mission.

    Everybody keeps saying it was just a publicity stunt with no military significance – I don't think that was properly rebutted over on the other thread either. Whilst the runway was repaired following attacks and the Argentinians could still fly C130s in, these raids did effectively stop them basing fast jets there as they were planning – something which made a significant difference to the outcome and the number of casualties.

    CaptainBudget
    Free Member

    ^spot on.

    It meant that the Argentinians had to rely on mainland bases, and by the time the fighters got to the Falklands they had only a short time before they had to turn back. It was also a massive morale booster for back home, and showed them that we meant business.

    JoeBones
    Free Member

    Nuke em!

    LOL @ Shane and the Orish navy!

    br
    Free Member

    Only ever combat mission for the Vulcan, I believe.

    bassspine
    Free Member

    take off and nuke them from orbit, it's the only way

    Zedsdead
    Free Member

    we alrady have a sub sitting there.

    Kuco
    Full Member

    Send out the Type 45.

    JoeBones
    Free Member

    To get Exocetted?

    PJM1974
    Free Member

    It took the RAF's entire tanker fleet, relearning air to air refuelling from scratch in a bomber with it's refuelling probes filled with concrete, plus fee fuel supplies from the US to enable one bomber to get through to Port Stanley.

    It's why thirty years on we're on the cusp of getting two new aircraft carriers capable of projecting power to the other side of the world. Because of the costs involved, neither carrier is nuclear powered, nor will they be equipped with CATOBAR launch and retrieval systems.

    In truth, the British government has known about oil being underneath the Falklands for years, which is why we never let them go. In the decades to come, that oil will become more valuable still.

    Kuco
    Full Member

    Weapons technology has come along way in the past 28 years just for starters ships have Radar operated CIWS.

Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 15 total)

The topic ‘Remember 1982, should they send the Vulcans to Argentina this time?’ is closed to new replies.