Of course this wouldn't have been a problem if the FAA harriers with blue vixen and proper BVR hadn't been scrapped. Rumour I've heard is that they didn't fit into the RAF's concept of what JFH was all about.

I thought the reason the Sea Harriers were withdrawn from service (and 15 transferred to the Indian Navy after radar and missile upgrades in Israel) was that their engines were not sufficiently powerful to recover on board carriers whilst carrying AMRAAMs (BVR missile) in high temperature locations such as the Middle East.

The cost of dumping these missiles at the end of every mission (and risk of some hostile power fishing them out of the sea and stealing the technology) made retaining the SHAR impractical.

And what do you think the first target for the Fuerza Aérea would be? What do you think has been the one mission they've been practicing for over and over again for the past twenty years?

Yep, working out how to hit the runway at MPA… deny the airfield, and we'd be in the shit! Eggs in one basket…

The Argentine airforce is in no shape to conduct military operations of this kind, either now or in the immediate future. About half of their airforce currently is grounded due to lack of funds for spares/ pilot training etc. If they did attack with what they had, they'd be using free-fall bombs against a site with anti-aircraft defences, and RAF Typhoons. If they manage to knock the base out, they would then have to use whatever they've got left that wasn't shot out of the sky to try and hold the islands against any liberation force.

Not going to happen now is it? Which bring us onto your next point:

Two new Aircraft carriers being built? yeah, and when will we see them? 2014 at the earliest, in service date, god only knows – and what are we going to put on them… oops, nope, we've got nothing to park on them till 2017 at least… and then no source code!

We have carriers now, which would be more than sufficient to do the job even with Harrier GR9's. As for the f-35 source code problems, well that's what happens when you deal with people who we supposedly have a "special relationship" with. I'd rather see Rafale on our carriers.

Helo borne AEW – great for defending a fleet, no good for projecting air power at range!

And thats all thats required. We are not dealing with an opponent who can currently match us. As I keep on saying here, the Argentine airforce will be at the limit of their endurance and will look to try and sink any Taskforce, even though they have few excocets, Our new amphibious force is designed to deliver forces from over the horizon away from land masses so we won't get a San Carlos style shootout and thus come under the umbrella of the fleets defences.

As for MPAB, if they tried to get that operational a few tomahawks from our subs will deny them that facility.

thought the reason the Sea Harriers were withdrawn from service (and 15 transferred to the Indian Navy after radar and missile upgrades in Israel) was that their engines were not sufficiently powerful to recover on board carriers whilst carrying AMRAAMs (BVR missile) in high temperature locations such as the Middle East.

The sale didn't happen. The FA.2's were fleet defence fighters, what you are referring to is "Hot and High" conditions like Afghanistan where the GR9's have a more powerful engine. As I said the sea harrier didn't fit the RAF's concept of what JFH was about, that and the cost of maintaining an aircraft which was operating in a hostile environment meant it was ripe for cuts, and so the RN lost it's fleet defence fighter.

With Tornado Gr4's now doing the operations in Afghanistan, the Harriers are back in the UK and were then offered up as sacrificial lambs for any future defence cuts by the RAF. I know the RAF want to preserve their fast jet force, but you kind of get the impression that they really don't want the RN to have any jets at all.

How come know one at least sent one shell through the Clipper? Wierd.

Is it the Ghost Ship?

The Argentine airforce is in no shape to conduct military operations of this kind, either now or in the immediate future… …Not going to happen now is it?

Isn't that the exact type of thinking that led to what happened in '82? 😯

Isn't that the exact type of thinking that led to what happened in '82?

No. Let's not overestimate the situation, its political, not military. If I can go back on what you said here:

Two new Aircraft carriers being built? yeah, and when will we see them? 2014 at the earliest, in service date, god only knows

It was your beloved Tories that had a very large hand in the Invasion via John Knotts defence cuts that would have left us with NO carriers and NO amphibious force, the withdrawal of HMS Endurance and as such no way to re-take the Islands. Bit of a red rag to a bull to a military dictatorship that obviously felt we wouldn't defend the islands, that needed to unite its people and divert attention away from Argentina's problems.

Which is very much what President Kirchner is doing now. Their military force is worse, ours has got better. They would have to do something asymmetric to affect a landing, but that will still mean conventional forces will have to be used at some point and that's where they will fall down.

Having the airbase and a carrier/Amphibious force is more than one egg in one basket.

No. Let's not overestimate the situation, its political, not military

isn't that a direct quote from the foreign office in March 1982?

I wouldn't defend Notts defence cuts for one second – ask yourself why he made them, oh yeah, to try and pay off the Debt run up last time Labour were in power, plus ca change…

Their military force is worse, ours has got better

Better, agreed, but smaller – not just a bit, but a lot, lot, lot smaller – as they used to say "quantity has a quality all of its own!"

Having the airbase and a carrier/Amphibious force is more than one egg in one basket.

All depends how capable that amphibious force is – given the T45's missiles don't work and they're robbing CIWS off other ships, let alone the fact that the data comms are up the spout… So, basically we've got Ocean sitting there playing bomb magnet with no defence pickets, great. Unfortunately not all our potential enemies are still running around with sharpened mangoes.

Where we aremight be in five years time is irrelevant, if we're disbanding and retiring equipment now leaving a capability gap against an obvious threat

Isn't that the exact type of thinking that led to what happened in '82?

I think it was how do we go from being the least popular mid term government in history to getting re-elected………….Oh bollocks…thats the same too isn't it ??? 😯

El-bent

you can't do all weather day/nite air-air ops with gr9 no matter how good your fighter controller is.

You need radar. Typhoon has that but can't launch off a carrier.

You seem unable to assimiliate the above facts to your plan.

Your comments about lesson learning are a bit confusing:

despite being a 'Crab' I fully believe we shouldn't have ditched the SHAR. As mentioned, deny the runway at MPA and we have no air defence gr9 or no gr9. I feel that the powers that be should have learnt from 82. I also believe some (not all) of Sharkeys comments about the performance of the RAF over the conflict.

I'll just add that Mount Pleasant is capable of supporting the E3 Sentry. If it looks like things might heat up I'm sure one can be sent south quickly enough.

As I mentioned before, they don't need to, and I doubt they'd risk such assets so close in. They can provide cover flying out of Ascension – that might seem a bit like Black Buck re-run, but given the relative capabilities of E3D and Tristar/VC10 compared to Vulcan and Victor in terms of range and fuel load, the logistics are far simpler. Providing radar cover at long range and spending hours in the air is after all something they've been designed to do.

Meanwhile, as I also mentioned before, tasking aircraft to engage enemy aircraft without the need for their own radars on is one of the functions of Sentry.

Mikertroid,zulu,el and arecer,this is good,keep it up.Much more informative than any analysis on the various strengths of each side I have found so far in the papers etc.

O.K. a lot of good stuff lads, but seriously this really would be a 'war on two fronts' scenario with British forces, seemingly at full stretch at present.

Early 'tactical' withdrawal from Afghanistan followed by rations of Fray Bentos and a cruise to South Atlantic me thinks….

Do Al Qaeda get down as far as Argentina? Could be a cunning stunt to undermine activity in the "Stan"

News from the 'frontline'

Chavez=git. During the height of the cold war he would not have been tolerated by the US.

http://www.argentosteakhouse.com/

Not a good time to open one? 😆

The Argento Steak House –

No drilling,
No Malvinas
No Gordon Ramsay…… 😆

No customers 😆

Can you imagine the menu?

Port Stanley Surpise
San Carlos Special
Oil(y) side dressing
Goose (Green)

Bluff Cove Rarebit ?
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

I know, I know, I've put it on and I'm going now

…….. that went down like a 40 year old battleship with a tigerfish up its arris! 😯

duckman – Member

Chavez=git. During the height of the cold war he would not have been tolerated by the US.

Thats right – they would have installed a puppet dictator such as Pinochet or Galtieri! Such nicve guys who killed their opponents. At least Chavez is democratically elected and has the backing of the population in a way that most Prime ministers would love to have. 3 or 4 elections and referenda he has won now despite the forces of conservatism and American money being against him.

You guys amaze me. The argies will just bitch about it to their mates for a while and try to force an agreement to split the oil money. That is all its about. Invade, LOL.

The argies will just bitch about it to their mates for a while

Do they have an STW forum too?

I can't be botrhered to read all nine pages but irrespective of right and wrong you just can't be dictated to by foreigners. If they want to invest in the islands, JV of some sort then fine but to just say they're ours, we want them so leave now after 150 years of exclusive Brit occupation is crap. You always have to stand up to that sort of behaviour.

I think we should all back the Argentinian claim to the Falklands because by the same token all of Northern Europe and Ireland and now going to be known as Great Britain and do clearly in fact belong to us (Geographical proximity and previous historical occupancy)

http://uk.finance.yahoo.com/news/argentina-asks-un-head-for-action-in-falklands-row-targetukfocus-f0d0554437c3.html

Yup TJ,that is correct,the US were extemely touchy about who ran the neighbours governments/dictatorships/juntas.Of course the USSR allows it's neighbours free choice in all their affairs,doesn't it?
However socialist brother Chavez is now in the process of making sure that nobody else has the chance to become democratically elected.He is doing this because he is increasingly UNpopular with the poor who have seen his promises of ending poverty come to nothing.Remember his first attempt to gain power? The V' government should have locked him up and thrown away the key then.Does the fact he is a socialist mean you are willing to overlook his alignment with Iran and Cuba? Those two beacons of democracy.Or his threats about witholding resources from anybody who does not have the same ideaology as him? America (or the great Satan if you like)is at least up front and has tried to deal with him.

Better Socialists to try and defend IMO.

Duckman – I suggest you take your blinkers off and check Chavaz record. He is popular at home and has won numerous votes – elections and referenda despite US attempts to overthrow him.

Withohlding resources – you are trying to say he has not got the right to sell the oil to whom he likes for the price he likes? The US does not have a right to cheap oil from Venezuela.

Before I reply and get called a tory by you.I have NO political affiliation at all,and I am not having a pop at you or trying to troll you.
If the US wanted rid,they would.Mr Popular didn't get enough of a majority to legally introduce a "rolling" term of office though did he? Does that idea not go against Socialist principals of free,fair,frequent elections?
And the selling of oil? Trying to use witholding it a weapon IMO. No different to the US in that respect really is he? I see you didn't bother to address any of the other points I made about him.IMO brother Chavez is no different to the "Great Satan" and a shining example of how socialism is just as crap as

the forces of conservatism.

Could you please explain how socialism has improved the lives of anybody in the UK to me please as I seem to be missing out.At least during the Tory years,as a plasterer, I was busy 😉

It seems the seppos now want to help us 'mediate'….

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8544634.stm?lsm

Which I guess means that they wnat a slice of any oil that the Argentinians get the rights to for 'mediating', cynical, me?

cynical, me?

Very! they'd never do a thing like that would they? I mean, they've never invaded countries purely for oil, so why would they help another do it?

Could you please explain how socialism has improved the lives of anybody in the UK

**** me, you must be having a laugh???? (or are you just blind to it??)

In my grandparents and parents generations – work all the hours the master made available, and be thankfull for it and tip your hat. No running hot water, baths in the back yard with the water boiled in a copper. No sick pay. My father started work as a shipwright in Devonport Royal Navy Dockyard in 1946. He retired at 56 years old – Out of a 1946 intake of several hundred apprentices he was the only one he knew of still alive to to take early retirement. And his generation benefitted from the newly introduced NHS and pension provisions… all socialist ideas, which presumably you haven't benefitted from??

My brother in law has emigrated to the US, and I also work with a lot of US clients – and frankly the US attitude to welfare provision, greed and not giving a sh!t about anyone else is just absolutely despicable. Healthcare reforms anyone? No thanks we'll let the poor die young

n my grandparents and parents generations – work all the hours the master made available, and be thankfull for it and tip your hat. No running hot water, baths in the back yard with the water boiled in a copper

Yes, but were they happier than we are today?

Yes, but were they happier than we are today?

They probably were – my parents just can't get their head around the stresses / work life balance issues that we deal with: they think we've got our priorities all wrong.

But then, high property prices dictate the priorities for all those who have to pay for their houses through a mortgage rather than pay cash or inherit them 👿 Ohh, and where did all the affordable rented sector housing go??

My point was, that we all live with the benefits of previous socialist governments' reforms, and don't really see them for what they are – huge benefits, to us as individuals and to society in general

But surely those socialist and tax benefits now only assist the very poor (read unlikely to work / DLA) and the super rich, whilst the rest of us, as you say, struggle with life, mortgages etc paying for the 'super poor' and the 'super rich'

Who are the real idiots in this then?

TS – I entirely agree, but more a case of making the system fit for purpose.

Can we really say that today's system is 'fit for purpose'?

Labour has caused the growth of a massive population of work-shy spongers coupled with the break-up of the Union. Before long any move to protect the Falklands will be met by various parts of the country refusing to participate – how long before Salmond states he will not be committing Scottish troops to English conflict zones? He's already bleating on about oil, water etc what next? Defence?

He's already bleating on about oil, water etc what next? Defence?

In that case, he won't mind if we invade to re-take the oil and water 😉

EDIT: After he's kicked our nuclear subs out of course, just in case….

rkk,I will give you the NHS reforms happening about grampa rkk's time as they were implemented by a Labour Government.Although pensions were introduced by the liberals at the turn of the century.Warm water in houses is not really something that I think any one party can take credit for.
Society was moving away from the attitude of self help that the Victorians had believed in.The NHS was coming,just as it has in the rest of Europe,just as it will eventually in America. Other than the NHS,I fail to see one benefit of socialism for me and my family (both teachers,live in a small town two kids looked after by family,combined income in "middle class" bracket)we are just to be bled to support the sheep in housing estates who vote Labour because they always have.Socialism is a great idea and is shite in practise.

Zokes,I think you will find the water in Scotland kind of belongs to Scotland,so it is not really Britain's to take back.It is interesting how against the background of climate change,the amount of rain up here has become a good thing lately!