Las Malvinas.

The Diabolical Monocle · 31-03-2014 1:00pm

Jawgap wrote: »

Well done on dragging the thread off topic to try and disguise the ridiculousness of your original and opening post.

Now why would I try to disguise such an awesome first post/topic.
Not my fault that I got initial responses from certain menstrual posters.

I'm pretty certain that there will not be any military aggression from Argentina in the foreseeable future for the Malvinas, still with the combination of many factors that suddenly and simultaneously pointed in that direction it had merits for some interesting speculation.
(speculation that certain newspapers and associated websites themselves brought up)

Sudden peak in military spending, establishment of an official bureau on the topic, strong words from the Argentine president, purchase of aircraft with certain capabilities being closely watched by London.
(co-incidentally promotion video for said aircraft contains targeting footage of a strike on a fictional oil rig - a key aspect in the Malvinas issue).

All this nicely combined with GBs temporary delay in upcoming defence systems that are from 2020 likely to lock out the military aspect for some time to come.

Overall makes for an interesting topic of conversation. Especially if knowledgeable opinions on the topic are involved, rather than emotional windbags.

Unfortunately on this particular forum hissy fits were had, by one or two posters.... I suspect because I said I support the Malvinas perspective, something intolerable to certain folk with certain patriotic leanings.

If you feel we've gone off topic feel free to bring up any point.
Personally I don't think the topic has been changed, economics and diplomacy are Argentinas best bet of re-establishing itself on the isles from what I can see.

The falklands, thus far, lacks any real economic offerings to secure a proper 21 century economy/way of life. It has an aging, stagnant if not slowly declining population overall.
With little to offer its neighbors, of what it can trade it trades mostly with Uruguay, whom Argentina naturally encourages not to.
The only other markets for some thousands of kilometers being Argentina itself, and Brazil which has firmly backed Argentina.

Argentina has placed economic pressure on the islands, so the topic of Argentinas economy and the falklands/Malvinas economy which I have been addressing in my last few posts can be seen by anyone with a clue to be highly relevant overall.

(oil of course can hugely affect this - which is why oil was brought up, rockhopper has been lauded as the islands best hope for some time now, and as Ive shown with the share chart it is (hopefully) crashing.

For those of us with less insight into this matter perhaps you'd care to illustrate how your economic 'analysis' and holiday snaps relates to you're original post......

Yes you do have less insight, see above. (the holiday snaps are just there to clear up any possible mistaken opinions that Argentina is in any way some underdeveloped backwater banana republic - rather a republic with nuclear energy, its own satellites and space industry, growing aeronautics manufacturer, and well developed diversified industry and overall economy, its cities put even Europe in second place at times in terms of beauty)

(Maybe you could send it to the people of the Falklands? Perhaps when they read it along with your insights on Arentina's military build up and the overall political situation they'll clamour for a re-run of the vote to determine which country they'd like to be part of and vote to go with the one with the prettiest pictures?)

Nobody recognizes their vote, other than themselves, London and a private paid organization that they themselves paid to come in, that particular organization has a one page website.

The UN certainly didn't comment on their turkeys voting against Christmas "referendum", the US said nothing and repeats as ever the line that Argentina and the UK should come to a bi-lateral agreement.

EU also - nada, zip, zilch words of encouragement.

Getting back on speculative topics - on the military aspect the falklanders policy is to maintain defences, on the islands themselves, which can overcome any hypothetical Argentine attack.
To this effect there is a high ratio of British military to civilians ranging above the 2:1 scale. (i.e two point something civilians to one soldier)

Of course Argentina in its own right, as per any growing and advancing country, has a defence budget that naturally grows with the nation.
(~42 million population, growing at ~1%)

Which leaves the question of what will happen in the coming decades as Argentina's military naturally, consistently and gradually grows with the country.

This leaves two evident options -

Continue along the current course and end up with a more military than civilians, an all round ridiculous scenario, and vulnerable to the M.O.D's budget.

Or

Change policy and exist under constant threat of a successful invasion.

The natural resources situation in both counties is very important in this context.

If the situation comes about that no oil money is secured the defence bill for the islands will eventually cut chunks out of the budget in an economy dependent on fish, wool and tourism.

If Argentine fuel products and Lithium boost the economy this could occur even quicker, same again if the Vale potash project ever re-incarnates.

The Diabolical Monocle · 31-03-2014 1:11pm

One of Argentinas home built satellites, the SAC-D, before being put into orbit with nasa.

The recently developed pampa-2. Locally designed and built, by relatively new domestic aircraft manufacturer.

The previously controversial and postponed condor 2 long range missile.

The dong-feng 21-d satellite guided carrier killer.

Jawgap · 31-03-2014 1:52pm

I don't think there is any need to throw personal insults about, but if that's how you make your point then go ahead.

Incidentally, have you actually looked at what the Argentinians are getting for their "sudden peak in military spending"?

They are buying 30 year old Mirage jets from Spain (that Spain decommissioned last year) to replace the 40 year old airframes they have at the moment.......the British have deployed F1 Typhoons to the Falklands.....

They are upgrading their C130s.......the RAF are ditching the C130 in favour of the Grizzly and already operate 8 C-17s.

They've upgraded their A4s with F-16 comparable avionics (which are still inferior to the Typhoon's).........the British have TLAMs - any one of their 8 attack subs can sit a thousand miles away from Buenos Aires and lob them in their direction and the Argentinians couldn't do a thing about it.

they're still operating Hueys and Hips........each C-17 can carry two Apaches......or significant elements of 16 Air Assault Brigade - currently the Paras are tagged for that role, along with 1RIR - not exactly bottom-of-the barrel formations, now are they?

The Brits have an intelligence capability that absolutely dwarves the Argentinian one (even before you add in the help they'd likely get from the US).......with 24 hours notice they can have more boots on the ground and / or enough kit to fend off any attack.

They're also about to send a Type 45 Destroyer down there......

......and there's the small matter of RAF Mount Pleasant - the shortest runway at RAF Mount Pleasant is 2000ft longer than a fully loaded C-17 needs - meaning carriers aren't need to mount a defence of the islands......as the RUSI analysis says.....

Britain has added world-class technologies, albeit in lower numbers, to its order of battle, the Argentinians have added nothing since 1982.

The government has failed to replace the 1970s Mirage jets that it used in 1982; its rotary wing aircraft fleet is no better off; the highest proportion of its defence budget is spent on the salaries and pensions of military personnel whose numbers are well in excess of Argentina's defence needs (a legacy of the Junta's years).

Argentina's road map for military modernisation takes its forces to 2025 just to reach comparable modern military standards of command and competence.

In effect, Argentina's military inventory is now 30 years older while Britain's is two technical generations further on. In military terms the difference between their relative technologies is probably approaching 80-100 years, and even high numbers of low technologies are largely negated in the sort of 'winner takes all' calculation that Mount Pleasant has created around the Islands. These days, even Argentinian numbers are not very high, except in officer class personnel.

In short Argentina is pursuing the diplomatic option because it has no choice......

As for your ridiculous assertion that the defence of the islands is somehow vulnerable to MoD cuts, the RUSI analysis is fairly clear on that point.....

The argument over whether Britain could still defend The Falklands from an Argentinian invasion, or re-take them if they were lost, has become an emotional touchstone for arguments about the level of defence cuts to British forces. But asking whether Britain can still beat Argentina in a Falklands conflict is a bit like worrying whether defence cuts have made it impossible for Britain to beat Germany at El Alamein. The Falklands dispute between Britain and Argentina cannot be wished away, but in military terms, the thirtieth anniversary of the conflict might just as well be its centenary for the difference there now is in the real security equation.

The Political Commitment

The current political context could hardly be more different........

Having fought a war to re-take the Falklands, Westminster's political commitment to the self-determination of the Islanders is now total. No British government would survive their loss and any Prime Minister for at least another generation will be hyper-sensitive to any indications of a military threat in the South Atlantic.

Plus, the cost of the defence of the islands is estimated to be 'only' £75m per year or 0.0025% of the defence budget.

Feel free to respond with more pretty pictures......

Jawgap · 31-03-2014 2:06pm

Oh dear......I think you need to brush up on your research skills.....

The SAC-D has a primary instrument built by NASA and the sattelite was launched by NASA.....it has several significant bits of kit on board developed by Italy and Canada - it is "One of Argentinas home built satellites" - alright, except for the fact that they didn't build large an important parts of it and couldn't get it off the ground with out NASA's help......

the 'pampa-2'? I'd say the Typhoon drivers are already crapping themselves at the prospect of meeting that in air-to-air combat....

Condonr II has been 'replaced' by Condor III and is still no nearer to being built.....I suppose they could throw the blue prints at something.

have the Argentinians got the Dong Feng - care to post up a link that shows they do (and I mean the missile, not the car).

Incidentally, why didn't you mention the Santa Fe - the nuclear submarine the Argentinians have been building for 30+ years, not the diesel boat the British wrecked at South Georgia.......

ChicagoJoe · 31-03-2014 2:30pm

Jawgap wrote: »

seen as you don't speak Spanglish....

From "The 1982 Falklands-Malvinas Case Study," THE UNITED STATES NAVAL WAR COLLEGE, JOINT MILITARY OPERATIONS DEPARTMENT

Nope buddy, you claimed back on " I think in the end they forced an Argentinian corvette to retreat and brought down a Puma. " No Puma brought down, the so called retreat of the corvette could have been due to anything from the possibilty of been beached to rifle fire from the shore and it's not like it had to back off hundreds of miles away or something. And " in the end " the Brits surrendered after a token skirmish. Not exactly the siege of Leningrad or the Alamo which the Brit media and yourself are trying to make out

Jawgap · 31-03-2014 2:53pm

ChicagoJoe wrote: »

Nope buddy, you claimed back on " I think in the end they forced an Argentinian corvette to retreat and brought down a Puma. " No Puma brought down, the so called retreat of the corvette could have been due to anything from the possibilty of been beached to rifle fire from the shore and it's not like it had to back off hundreds of miles away or something. And " in the end " the Brits surrendered after a token skirmish. Not exactly the siege of Leningrad or the Alamo which the Brit media and yourself are trying to make out

No it wasn't anything like the Alamo, the Siege of Lenningrad or the Alamo......it was an example of a small unit action and how a well motivated, well led and well trained force can have an effect out of all proportion to its size.

The US Army's 'Center for Army Lessons Learned' has written it up as a case study highlighting it as an excellent example of how a small unit in a light rapid deployment should be handled. So they must obviously think it's up to snuff - incidentally, before you ask they laud the leadership of Mills, there's no mention of who the Argentinian commander is / was......

The Battle Atlas of the Falklands War (published by the International Journal of Naval History) mentions the Puma being hit and crashing (at pages 25 and 26) - they gave Lt Mills the DSC for the action and one his sergeants the DSM. I assume that was for something more than taking a few pot shots at the chopper and the frigate. (Some accounts describe the ARA Guerrico as a corvette, some as a frigate).

Incidentally, buddy, there's a review of "The Battle Atlas of the Falklands War" in "Soldados" (the Argentine Army Journal) - according to them that publication is "....very useful and detailed....." - they place it at the head of their list of English language books on the conflict.

You can read the full review in the April 2000 edition of the journal.......

The Diabolical Monocle · 31-03-2014 5:08pm

Jawgap wrote: »

I don't think there is any need to throw personal insults about, but if that's how you make your point then go ahead.

You have to be joking. After telling me I retreat faster than an Argentine ship and calling my arguments ridiculous, easily torpedoed etc, now you decide to get sensitive.

Incidentally, have you actually looked at what the Argentinians are getting for their "sudden peak in military spending"?

Yes...incidentally I have.

They are buying 30 year old Mirage jets from Spain (that Spain decommissioned last year) to replace the 40 year old airframes they have at the moment.......the British have deployed F1 Typhoons to the Falklands.....

Really - I thought they were getting mig-29's.

As Ive shown you throughout this thread my knowledge on the subject of the Malvinas (there are official British govt documents that refer to them as such btw ... another free fact for you) dwarfs your pettiness to the point where you resort to pointing out editing errors in my posts. (After they've been corrected I might add).

You might notice that the whole thread is not based on the concept that Argentina actually can and will launch a successful invasion, its not a comparison of who has the better equipment.

Its about how several factors have quickly come together, what that could mean in theory, and how that has alerted not only the papers but Londons politicians themselves, who take close interest on what upgrades Argentina is buying, and can and do influence what they can/can't buy.

In fact the mirage contract didn't deliver, you're behind again, the current negotiations are with Israel for Kfir block 60's. No eurofighter, but not half bad considering the high tech upgrades included.

the British have TLAMs

Again this was plainly obvious from the get go. I never proposed that Argentina was likely to make an attack or that they have the ability, only that if there ever was a time its now.

But since you mention missiles, if anything lands on Argentina you can be assured that the condors and tronadors (with their ability to easily hit stanley, and their pittance of a price tag will be flying in the hundreds and carrying their own nuclear treats).

In short Argentina is pursuing the diplomatic option because it has no choice......

Indeed, while doing whatever economic damage it can to the 2500 population on the 2nd scarcest populated territory on earth. Land the size of Northern Ireland (of all places)for 2500 people.

As for your ridiculous assertion that the defence of the islands is somehow vulnerable to MoD cuts, the RUSI analysis is fairly clear on that point.....

lol ... so you think the mod wouldn't have something to say about having 1 soldier to 1 civilian. Shipped at their expense .... over 8000 km regularly.

Plus, the cost of the defence of the islands is estimated to be 'only' £75m per year or 0.0025% of the defence budget.

Yes .... that would be of the UK's entire defence budget.
Locally they pay towards their defence out of the govt coffers.
Otherwise you have a UK funded military base with civilians added on rather than a ...what they like to believe.... 'country' with UK protection.

Diplomatically the place is a huge overall fail....if only a necessary one in admittedly certain important terms.
You have not only 42 million Argentinans with bad vibes for any British products or alliances, but the mercosur influence that goes with that.
Several mercosur countries have expressed hostility towards UK and its associated trade because of its presence in the south Atlantic.

In return the voting Briton gets 2500 people on islands, many who live there part time. Oh these people have also said any money coming from any oil is going to them alone. Grateful eh, Britons set up the place and defend it and keep it going, even die for the colonists. Nothing in return.

Feel free to respond with more pretty pictures......

I will.

The Diabolical Monocle · 31-03-2014 5:19pm

Jawgap wrote: »

Oh dear......I think you need to brush up on your research skills.....

The SAC-D has a primary instrument built by NASA and the sattelite was launched by NASA.....it has several significant bits of kit on board developed by Italy and Canada - it is "One of Argentinas home built satellites" - alright, except for the fact that they didn't build large an important parts of it and couldn't get it off the ground with out NASA's help......

the 'pampa-2'? I'd say the Typhoon drivers are already crapping themselves at the prospect of meeting that in air-to-air combat....

Condonr II has been 'replaced' by Condor III and is still no nearer to being built.....I suppose they could throw the blue prints at something.

have the Argentinians got the Dong Feng - care to post up a link that shows they do (and I mean the missile, not the car).

Incidentally, why didn't you mention the Santa Fe - the nuclear submarine the Argentinians have been building for 30+ years, not the diesel boat the British wrecked at South Georgia.......

Oh dear I think you need to brush up on your reading skills.
Go back and see where I clearly said "before being put into orbit with nasa".

Ok so the Sac-D was built in collaboration with nasa ... not the point.
Argentina has other satellites built with collaboration from Brazil and Italy, and plans for various future satallites. The wide point which you seemingly choose to miss repeatedly is that Argentina is a country with a space industry and a young but promising aeronautics industry.

If ambitions are of this category, and ambitions such as these have been fulfilled, then you can bet that the nuclear sub will eventually get built.
If a country has nuclear power and space and aeronautic industries then its going in the direction of higher technology, especially if that country has places like vaca muerta and the lithium plains for lots of future income.
I think projects like the nuclear sub will get built...and more than once. Just like the nuclear power plants or satellites.

Why didn't you mention the hms victoria, or any of the ships those crappy a-4s sunk ??

Please tell me you didn't take the dong feng thing seriously.... I even included a

ffs.

Tronador. Everyone has to start somewhere.

Atucha-1 Nuclear power plant

Jawgap · 31-03-2014 5:56pm

The Diabolical Monocle wrote: »

You have to be joking. After telling me I retreat faster than an Argentine ship and calling my arguments ridiculous, easily torpedoed etc, now you decide to get sensitive.

Yes...incidentally I have.

Yes, I was pointing out how you shift your arguments around - it was addressing your arguments not you. I certainly didn't throw words like 'menstrual' aruond

The Diabolical Monocle wrote: »

Really - I thought they were getting mig-29's.

You should actually read what you post then.....

According to a link you posted (the Buenos Aires Herald one)....

The sum includes the purchase of sixteen 30-year-old “French Mirage fighter jets from Spain” to which the article refers, along with building radars, modernizing Hercules transport aircrafts and the continuation of the construction of the nuclear-propelled Santa Fe submarine, which began in the 1980s and interrupted in the 1990s.

..........Oh dear.

where does it say they are getting MiGs?

The Diabolical Monocle wrote: »

As Ive shown you throughout this thread my knowledge on the subject of the Malvinas (there are official British govt documents that refer to them as such btw ... another free fact for you) dwarfs your pettiness to the point where you resort to pointing out editing errors in my posts. (After they've been corrected I might add).

You might notice that the whole thread is not based on the concept that Argentina actually can and will launch a successful invasion, its not a comparison of who has the better equipment.

Really, because in your entire analysis of the situation you failed to mention RAF Mount Pleasant and assumed any defence or effort to retake the islands would be a naval affair - when it's pretty clear that the RAF have been given the role of reinforcing and defending the islands.

I'd submit that you assumed any future conflict would be like the last one - naval centric, when it's more likely to be air-centric.

The Diabolical Monocle wrote: »

Its about how several factors have quickly come together, what that could mean in theory, and how that has alerted not only the papers but Londons politicians themselves, who take close interest on what upgrades Argentina is buying, and can and do influence what they can/can't buy.

In fact the mirage contract didn't deliver, you're behind again, the current negotiations are with Israel for Kfir block 60's. No eurofighter, but not half bad considering the high tech upgrades included.

Kfirs? The Israeli made knock-off of the Mirage III - it's at least a generation behind the Typhoon and it will be two generations behind the F-35.

Plus their Dassault Mirage IIIs and Vs are scheduled due to retire in December 2015 and the lead in time to delivery, whether its Kfirs or Mirages is 15 months - its quite possible that come January 2016, the country will be reduced to just the Skyhawks.

The Diabolical Monocle wrote: »

Again this was plainly obvious from the get go. I never proposed that Argentina was likely to make an attack or that they have the ability, only that if there ever was a time its now.

But since you mention missiles, if anything lands on Argentina you can be assured that the condors and tronadors (with their ability to easily hit stanley, and their pittance of a price tag will be flying in the hundreds and carrying their own nuclear treats).

seriously........what?!?!?

"The time is now for an attack" - is that what you are suggesting? while also saying "they lack the means to attack"

What kind of logic is that - if the time is now for an attack, what would they attack with.......unless you are talking about launching Operation Certain Death type missions to try and seize RAF Mount Pleasant, this makes no sense at all.

The condor doesn't exist in this world, and the trondor is a launch vehicle not a weapon........and the Argentinians don't have a nuclear weapons programme.....

Anyway, I thought they had the Dong Feng (not the car) - have you posted up the link to back up that assertion???

The Diabolical Monocle wrote: »

Indeed, while doing whatever economic damage it can to the 2500 population on the 2nd scarcest populated territory on earth.

lol ... so you think the mod wouldn't have something to say about having 1 soldier to 1 civilian.

Yes .... that would be of the UK's entire defence budget.
Locally they pay towards their defence out of the govt coffers.
Otherwise you have a UK funded military base with civilians added on rather than a ...what they like to believe.... 'country' with UK protection.

Diplomatically the place is a huge overall fail....if only a necessary one in admittedly certain important terms.
You have not only 42 million Argentinans with bad vibes for any British products or alliances, but the mercosur influence that goes with that.
Several mercosur countries have expressed hostility towards UK and its associated trade because of its presence in the south Atlantic.

In return the voting Briton gets 2500 people on islands, many who live there part time. Oh these people have also said any money coming from any oil is going to them alone. Grateful eh, Britons set up the place and defend it and keep it going, even die for the colonists. Nothing in return.

Argentina has a $1.4 billion trade surplus in their favour with the UK (not to mention the €10 billion in imports the EU takes from them) - I some how doubt that even if they could launch a grab for the islands, and even if there was the remotest possibility they could actually get ashore, stay ashore and repel a counter-attack - they wouldn't.

As you point out - economically it wouldn't be worth it to flush that amount of trade down the toilet to gain 2,500 people, half-a-million ship and one state of the art air base (slightly used, one careful owner).

Jawgap · 31-03-2014 6:35pm

The Diabolical Monocle wrote: »

Oh dear I think you need to brush up on your reading skills.
Go back and see where I clearly said "before being put into orbit with nasa".

Ok so the Sac-D was built in collaboration with nasa ... not the point.
Argentina has other satellites built with collaboration from Brazil and Italy, and plans for various future satallites. The wide point which you seemingly choose to miss repeatedly is that Argentina is a country with a space industry and a young but promising aeronautics industry.

So what? You could say the same about a dozen other countries. That doesn't translate into combat power.

The Diabolical Monocle wrote: »

If ambitions are of this category, and ambitions such as these have been fulfilled, then you can bet that the nuclear sub will eventually get built.
If a country has nuclear power and space and aeronautic industries then its going in the direction of higher technology, especially if that country has places like vaca muerta and the lithium plains for lots of future income.
I think projects like the nuclear sub will get built...and more than once. Just like the nuclear power plants or satellites.

As the Chinese are finding out (the hard way) building a blue water navy and operating a blue water navy are not quite the same thing.

They may well build the sub - they may well operate it - but to what end? They wouldn't seriously be thinking about going after the RN? If they commissioned it tomorrow - they'd be about 50 years behind the RN!

The Diabolical Monocle wrote: »

Why didn't you mention the hms victoria, or any of the ships those crappy a-4s sunk ??

OK you got me - the databases I have access to don't have any info on a HMS Victoria being sunk by a sub or an A4........care to link to it?

The last recorded use of 'HMS Victoria' was in the 19th C - but maybe you have access to special information, the rest of us don't.

As for what the Skyhawks achieved.....
They damaged HMS Glasgow, HMS Argonaut, RFA Sir Galahad, RFA Sir Lancelot and RFA Sir Bedivere, HMS Broadsword, and RFA Sir Tristram

They sunk HMS Ardent, HMS Antelope, HMS Coventry, RFA Sir Galahad and HMS Fearless. And, yes, they would've sunk more if they fused their bombs properly - which goes to show how incompetent they were when still as late as the 8th of June they were still fusing their bombs incorrectly.

.....and the RN were still able to get the ground forces ashore and sustain them there.

But not a single Harrier was lost in air-to-air combat. Six were lost in accidents or to ground fire.

21 A4s were lost in air-to-air combat or to ground fire - that's before you add in the Mirages, the Daggers, the Canberras and even the Hercules that were lost on the Argentinian side.

The Diabolical Monocle wrote: »

Please tell me you didn't take the dong feng thing seriously.... I even included a ffs.

Are you telling me you didn't mix up the missile with the Dong Feng car deal that's been done

The Diabolical Monocle wrote: »

Atucha-1 Nuclear power plant

What's your point about the power plant? That the Argentinians are paying more for their electricity than if that was a gas fired plant?

This is what you need is you want to make a nuclear weapon.....

The Diabolical Monocle · 31-03-2014 6:57pm

Jawgap wrote: »

Yes, I was pointing out how you shift your arguments around - it was addressing your arguments not you. I certainly didn't throw words like 'menstrual' aruond

Oh so your terms of abuse are fine. So long as it sticks to your rules now.
Is snowflake or princess considered a bit too rough for you ??

You should actually read what you post then.....

According to a link you posted (the Buenos Aires Herald one)....

..........Oh dear.

where does it say they are getting MiGs?

Yes that information would have been correct as of ...February.
Sorry if you're a bit behind, again.

It doesn't say they're getting migs. You totally understand sarcasm.

Really, because in your entire analysis of the situation you failed to mention RAF Mount Pleasant and assumed any defence or effort to retake the islands would be a naval affair - when it's pretty clear that the RAF have been given the role of reinforcing and defending the islands.

I'd submit that you assumed any future conflict would be like the last one - naval centric, when it's more likely to be air-centric.

So if I fail to mention something you can deduce that I have made some kind of an assumption. I guess I'd better mention every word in the dictionary just in case.

Oh hang on a minute ..... the whole original post centered on Aircraft acquisition.

Kfirs? The Israeli made knock-off of the Mirage III - it's at least a generation behind the Typhoon and it will be two generations behind the F-35.

Plus their Dassault Mirage IIIs and Vs are scheduled due to retire in December 2015 and the lead in time to delivery, whether its Kfirs or Mirages is 15 months - its quite possible that come January 2016, the country will be reduced to just the Skyhawks.

Again, whatever, you missed the whole point of the thread long ago, well before your ranting began.

Originally Posted by The Diabolical Monocle View Post

Again this was plainly obvious from the get go. I never proposed that Argentina was likely to make an attack or that they have the ability, only that if there ever was a time its now.

How you interpret this ^^

as this :

"The time is now for an attack" - is that what you are suggesting? while also saying "they lack the means to attack"
What kind of logic is that - if the time is now for an attack, what would they attack with.......unless you are talking about launching Operation Certain Death type missions to try and seize RAF Mount Pleasant, this makes no sense at all.

I will never know.

The condor doesn't exist in this world, and the trondor is a launch vehicle not a weapon........and the Argentinians don't have a nuclear weapons programme.....

Well, again getting away from the main point, but you can bet your ass that in your hypothetical situation of the UK nuking Argentina that in the same hypothetical scenario that a high tech country like Argentina can pull out the condor plans and or modify tronadors to carry many a dirty bomb.

Anyway, I thought they had the Dong Feng (not the car) - have you posted up the link to back up that assertion???

Now you better be joking. Seriously. In your case I really cant tell.

Argentina has a $1.4 billion trade surplus in their favour with the UK (not to mention the €10 billion in imports the EU takes from them) - I some how doubt that even if they could launch a grab for the islands, and even if there was the remotest possibility they could actually get ashore, stay ashore and repel a counter-attack - they wouldn't.

Now thats the kind of post you should have come out with long ago.
Thanks for finally contributing.
(although if I recall correctly there was recently some high officer in the British military speculating that if mount pleasant were taken that would be the end of the falklands).

I think throughout this thread you've realised that Argentina is eventually going to own those islands in the long term, and that military intervention isn't always necessary to achieve such a goal.
Perhaps also that its a much stronger country than you might have thought.

Maybe this disappoints someone who thinks that the guy with the most toys wins. But surely someone living in the republic of Ireland knows this isnt always the case.

Jawgap · 31-03-2014 7:09pm

....and the link to HMS Victoria being sunk by A4s....?????

The Diabolical Monocle · 31-03-2014 7:13pm

Jawgap wrote: »

So what? You could say the same about a dozen other countries. That doesn't translate into combat power.

Who mentioned combat power in the context of the satellites ?
I only mention it to indicate that Argentina is a space industry capable nation. A high tech country, that will only get more high tech when its economy clears exits its problems, as many many countries have.

As the Chinese are finding out (the hard way) building a blue water navy and operating a blue water navy are not quite the same thing.

They may well build the sub - they may well operate it - but to what end? They wouldn't seriously be thinking about going after the RN? If they commissioned it tomorrow - they'd be about 50 years behind the RN!

Well, you're the one who brought up the nuclear sub being unfinished, all Ive done is say that its pretty certain that it will be finished.

The Chinese are a good point though, they've really advanced in military technology whereas before when they were really poor they kept it quite basic. Just shows how yesterdays battle isn't todays.

OK you got me - the databases I have access to don't have any info on a HMS Victoria being sunk by a sub or an A4........care to link to it?

Who said Victoria was sunk by a sub or an A4.....again either misreading or simply being dishonest and trying to put words in my mouth.
I really dont get this 'why didn't you mention' .... 'you never mentioned' game of yours.
So I thought I'd ask you about HMS Victoria ... why didn't you mention it, well ??

As for what the Skyhawks achieved.....
They damaged HMS Glasgow, HMS Argonaut, RFA Sir Galahad, RFA Sir Lancelot and RFA Sir Bedivere, HMS Broadsword, and RFA Sir Tristram

They sunk HMS Ardent, HMS Antelope, HMS Coventry, RFA Sir Galahad and HMS Fearless. And, yes, they would've sunk more if they fused their bombs properly - which goes to show how incompetent they were when still as late as the 8th of June they were still fusing their bombs incorrectly.

Ah, interesting one there, competent enough to sink several British warships.... yet they were incompetent.

Are you telling me you didn't mix up the missile with the Dong Feng car deal that's been done

eh....yeah....ok

What's your point about the power plant? That the Argentinians are paying more for their electricity than if that was a gas fired plant?

Nope. That Argentina is a scientifically very advanced country.

This is what you need is you want to make a nuclear weapon.....

And this is what you need to fire a nuclear weapon.

The Diabolical Monocle · 31-03-2014 7:14pm

Jawgap wrote: »

....and the link to HMS Victoria being sunk by A4s....?????

Right below, or above....depending on perspective. ^^^^^^ up there in my last post basically. ^^^^^^^

Jawgap · 31-03-2014 7:22pm

The Diabolical Monocle wrote: »

......

Yes that information would have been correct as of ...February.
Sorry if you're a bit behind, again.

It doesn't say they're getting migs. You totally understand sarcasm.

I think you posted up the link saying they were getting Mirages, then you said MiG-29s, the Kfirs (which are really just Mirages with a cooler name).

The Diabolical Monocle wrote: »

......
So if I fail to mention something you can deduce that I have made some kind of an assumption. I guess I'd better mention every word in the dictionary just in case.

Oh hang on a minute ..... the whole original post centered on Aircraft acquisition.

did it really?

By my reckoning you made four points

1)History of bad blood, from 1833 to 1982...and '82 to present day....and from present day to, well theres enough national sentiment in both countries (moreso Argentina) to keep that one going another century or two.

2)Oil. Say no more.

3)A hypothetical invasion deadline of 2020.

4)A sudden peak in Argentine military spending.

5)Argentinas govt not very happy with companies drilling there, prison terms threatened for company execs, various financial dissuasion to companies for taking part. Argentina not doing so brilliantly financially at the same time as someone, in their eyes, travelling 12,000 km to siphon off lots of oil/money thats (quite possibly) on their continental shelf.

......none of which had much to do with aviation.

You never mentioned Mount Pleasant but mentioned the two new QE class aircraft carriers.

You then concluded

So if ever there was a probable time since 1982 its not far off.

When in fact it's as less likely as it ever was at anytime in the last 32 years.....

The Diabolical Monocle wrote: »

Again, whatever, you missed the whole point of the thread long ago, well before your ranting began.

Did I? Maybe you just wish I did.

The Diabolical Monocle wrote: »

Well, again getting away from the main point, but you can bet your ass that in your hypothetical situation of the UK nuking Argentina that in the same hypothetical scenario that a high tech country like Argentina can pull out the condor plans and or modify tronadors to carry many a dirty bomb.

Sorry, but where did I even remotely hint at the UK nuking Argentina???????

The Diabolical Monocle wrote: »

Now thats the kind of post you should have come out with long ago.
Thanks for finally contributing.
(although if I recall correctly there was recently some high officer in the British military speculating that if mount pleasant were taken that would be the end of the falklands).

Mount Pleasant is the key - that's always been the case. There's no speculation around it. The Brits have always been quite clear that to lose Mount Pleasant is to lose the islands. Any cursory reading of the material relating to the South Atlantic makes it clear.

The Diabolical Monocle wrote: »

I think throughout this thread you've realised that Argentina is eventually going to own those islands in the long term, and that military intervention isn't always necessary to achieve such a goal.
Perhaps also that its a much stronger country than you might have thought.

Maybe this disappoints someone who thinks that the guy with the most toys wins. But surely someone living in the republic of Ireland knows this.

Argentina is ranked 55th in global military power terms (the UK is ranked 5th). There may well come a time when the population votes for it but as of now you are somewhat premature in your assessment......

So if ever there was a probable time since 1982 its not far off.

Give it 40 years are so and if the Brits stop investing in their defence tomorrow then maybe the Argentinians will have caught up sufficient to cross those 300 miles of water......

knucklehead6 · 31-03-2014 7:24pm

giantgag.com-funny-cat-playing-with-mouse-gif-01.gif

is anybody else reminded of this reading these posts? With each poster thinking they're the cat and the other is the mouse....

Jawgap · 31-03-2014 7:27pm

The Diabolical Monocle wrote: »

Right below, or above....depending on perspective. ^^^^^^ up there in my last post basically. ^^^^^^^

Ok I'm obviously blind - but where is the link that shows the truth of this.....

Why didn't you mention the hms victoria, or any of the ships those crappy a-4s sunk ??

I listed all the ships sunk and there's no Victoria among them. Where / When was HMS Victoria sunk by A4s (Argentinian or otherwise?)

The Diabolical Monocle · 31-03-2014 7:37pm

knucklehead6 wrote: »

is anybody else reminded of this reading these posts? With each poster thinking they're the cat and the other is the mouse....

I see it moreso as me, in the place of Michael Caine, teaching Ruprecht not to take the cork off his fork.

Jawgap · 31-03-2014 7:40pm

The Diabolical Monocle wrote: »

.......

The Chinese are a good point though, they've really advanced in military technology whereas before when they were really poor they kept it quite basic. Just shows how yesterdays battle isn't todays.

you do know the Chinese haven't been able to keep a sub at sea for longer than 21 days.........that their fighter pilots are not allowed file flight plans or plan missions......that their missile crews can't stick being on alert for more than 7 days......that there's been critical failures found in their Permissive Action Link systems......and that their supposed stealth fighter, isn't......

They look good and they have big hats, but their advanced tech isn't

The Diabolical Monocle wrote: »

.......
Who said Victoria was sunk by a sub or an A4.....again either misreading or simply being dishonest and trying to put words in my mouth.
I really dont get this 'why didn't you mention' .... 'you never mentioned' game of yours.
So I thought I'd ask you about HMS Victoria ... why didn't you mention it, well ??

I think you are the one who brought HMS Victoria (wherever or whatever she is) into the discussion...

Admit you got it wrong - that no such ship was ever hit, much less sunk by any kind or air action and we'll move on......

The Diabolical Monocle wrote: »

Ah, interesting one there, competent enough to sink several British warships.... yet they were incompetent.

Yes, because of the number of hits they got when bombs failed to detonate. You're saying they were competent because they got nine things out of ten right in the bombing of the invasion fleet - except the obvious one, making the bomb go bang......

Plus, they lost. If they were competent this would never have been sent...

I am pie · 31-03-2014 8:03pm

Someone above made the comment

"In short Argentina is pursuing the diplomatic option because it has no choice......"

This is ignorant (as in, not in possession of any of the pertinant facts) of current Argentine politics.

The current government's was formed as a youth movement fighting against the military / junta dictatorship in the 70s. They are diametrically opposed to anything to dictatorship did, invading the islands would be the quickest political suicide in history. The FpV govt is a house of cards shortly to tumble, they will in all likelihood lose the 2015 election on the basis of a failing economy & soaring inflation (although in the last few months they have stemmed the tide a little by moderating their daft policies, that is a different discussion). Absolutely 0 (and I do mean, zero) % chance of any activity before then.

Their replacement must then seek to have a broad appeal to consolidate their position. Likely the next govt in will be a coalition of non government aligned Peronists (Frente Renavador) or a broad centre left coalition (UNEN-FAP-UCR) , all of whom will have an "anti-dictatorship" core constituency, all would publically denounce any candidate who seeks military intervention. The outside bet would be Mauricio Macri's centre right coalition (his father was an active industrialist in the dictatorship) , they would put even more distance between themselves and military intervention than the left wing to broaded their appeal in centrist middle class families and to get anywhere would need to make some inroads in to the lower income families. He can only hope (and it's a faint hope) to achieve this by offering something new, a new future for the country, again that would involve distancing himself from a military past be that right wing dictatorships or heavy handed left wing paramilitary activity.

You should understand that the previous Malvinas invasion is (after the state murder of their own citizens during the dictatorship) remembered as one of the most shameful events in their history, I'm not sure this would be the case if the lost, but the veterans have been discarded and poorly treated (pensions and recognition) by society as a whole. Any parallel or association with this period in history would sink a political party quicker than any exocet here.

Yes, people are still nationalistic, yes they believe the islands are there, but they know they can never win them militarily and will continue to pursue their claim via international courts and tribunals, their playing a long term PR game.

My own view is that regardless of floating platform for discovery the British will need a local partner on the Atlantic coast if the oil finds are commercially viable, they won't find it in Brasil & or Uruguay. I think we might see some concept of joint sovereignty and profit sharing, some sort of farcical situation where the territory is recognised as Argentine (some tax or dues paid via oil money) but that the local populus retain the right to self government.

If the oil finds were not commercially viable I'm fairly certain economic reality would leave the kelpers adrift and alone in the south atlantic fairly quickly!

Jawgap · 31-03-2014 8:10pm

Thanks @I_am_pie.

I made the comment you referred to and I wasn't suggesting that if Argentina possessed the means to militarily pursue a claim, that the political or popular will existed to engage in such an operation.

I am pie wrote: »

Someone above made the comment

"In short Argentina is pursuing the diplomatic option because it has no choice......"

This is ignorant (as in, not in possession of any of the pertinant facts) of current Argentine politics.

.......

Lemming · 31-03-2014 8:19pm

The Diabolical Monocle wrote: »

The Diabolical Monocle wrote: »

Why didn't you mention the hms victoria, or any of the ships those crappy a-4s sunk ??

Who said Victoria was sunk by a sub or an A4.....again either misreading or simply being dishonest and trying to put words in my mouth.
I really dont get this 'why didn't you mention' .... 'you never mentioned' game of yours.
So I thought I'd ask you about HMS Victoria ... why didn't you mention it, well ??

Alrighty then, so nobody else mentions HMS Victoria on account of it not having been afloat since the end of the 19th century and more succinctly NEVER HAVING FOUGHT IN THE FALKLANDS WAR ... and you decide to mention it, admit it was you that said it, and then deny that it was you that mentioned it feigning indignant outrage when Jawgap pulls you directly on the matter? Jesus, do you even read your own posts back to see if they make sense before you submit them? And it's not the first time you've written complete contradictory sh*te either. You've changed your tune more times than an Irish politician in this thread.

The only person who is being both dishonest and misreading (or rather wilfully spinning lies to suit) is you.

I am pie · 31-03-2014 8:22pm

Jawgap wrote: »

Thanks @I_am_pie.

I made the comment you referred to and I wasn't suggesting that if Argentina possessed the means to militarily pursue a claim, that the political or popular will existed to engage in such an operation.

I misunderstood then, I don't think we will see another conflict before the matter is resolved. The economic viability of the oilfields will shape the island's future. Even with floating platforms it would logistically expensive to service them from 10k miles away. Some sort of local partner will be required to make it commercially viable. That will take clever diplomacy, I don't think the islanders wishes will be paramount in this discussion either.

Jawgap · 31-03-2014 8:24pm

Lemming wrote: »

Alrighty then, so nobody else mentions HMS Victoria on account of it not having been afloat since the end of the 19th century and more succinctly NEVER HAVING FOUGHT IN THE FALKLANDS WAR ... and you decide to mention it, admit it was you that said it, and then deny that it was you that mentioned it feigning indignant outrage when Jawgap pulls you directly on the matter? Jesus, do you even read your own posts back to see if they make sense before you submit them? And it's not the first time you've written complete contradictory sh*te either. You've changed your tune more times than an Irish politician in this thread.

The only person who is being both dishonest and misreading (or rather wilfully spinning lies to suit) is you.

Personally, I would've said he changes direction quicker than a VIFFing Harrier, but the politician comparison has the merit of being local.

The only HMS Victoria I could find (that had been sunk) is the one you referenced (@Lemming) - and the more I thought about it the less chance I thought the RN would name a frigate or a destroyer after a sovereign.......but there was always the possibility he was right.

The Canadians have a sub called HMCS Victoria - but it's only recently been commissioned.

The Diabolical Monocle · 31-03-2014 8:28pm

Jawgap wrote: »

I think you posted up the link saying they were getting Mirages, then you said MiG-29s, the Kfirs (which are really just Mirages with a cooler name).

Genuinely unsure if making some kind of sarcasm meta-joke, trolling, or just ...well...

But just in case. You do know the Mig-29 reference was a little joke.

did it really?

By my reckoning you made four points
......none of which had much to do with aviation.

You never mentioned Mount Pleasant but mentioned the two new QE class aircraft carriers.

Not that I should even be going down this route which developed from solely your own imagination about what I may or may not be thinking.
Anyhoo... perhaps this will ring a bell .... original post

"Random lazy quote:

Buenos Aires will acquire military hardware including fighter aircraft, anti-aircraft weapons and specialised radar, ...
(israeli air defence systems too apparently)."

Add to this 2 (sensationalist articles) links mentioning the following.

"The sum includes the purchase of sixteen 30-year-old “French Mirage fighter jets from Spain".

"In August last year the Sunday Express revealed details of a contract to buy 20 French Mirage fighter jets from Spain, giving Argentina the ability to attack Port Stanley airfield with laser guided bombs."

Along with the fact that throughout the whole thread I give plenty of little details about finer points relating to the islands, such as having a population growth of 1 person between 2006 and 2012....which you can check against the official census of the islands btw, Malvinas being used on official British govt docs, and stock prices for the main hope oil company.

These combined should really tell you that I know that Mt Pleasant exists and that as before theres obviously an air element involved when it comes to the islands....as there was before.

When in fact it's as less likely as it ever was at anytime in the last 32 years.....

Nae...that would be incorrect. When was the last time there was a sudden 26.7% jump in Argentinas defense budget at the same time as diplomatic tensions over oil drilling, to the point where there were threats of imprisonment of oil company executives.

Given that any possible window of opportunity will close for some decades come 2020 it plainly obvious that if there ever was a high probability of attack it would be not far off.

Did I? Maybe you just wish I did.

Yes I think you may have.

Sorry, but where did I even remotely hint at the UK nuking Argentina???????

You mentioned TLAM's - tomahawk missiles.

Mount Pleasant is the key - that's always been the case. There's no speculation around it. The Brits have always been quite clear that to lose Mount Pleasant is to lose the islands. Any cursory reading of the material relating to the South Atlantic makes it clear.

And might you think that someone correcting you on issues regarding the Malvinas several times after starting a thread on the place and posting for maybe 6 pages over the space of a month or so might have done some cursory reading ??

Argentina is ranked 55th in global military power terms (the UK is ranked 5th). There may well come a time when the population votes for it but as of now you are somewhat premature in your assessment......

What assessment is that ?? .... my original assessment that in the very long term by military or diplomacy the islands will go to Argentina.

Give it 40 years are so and if the Brits stop investing in their defence tomorrow then maybe the Argentinians will have caught up sufficient to cross those 300 miles of water......

Thats if there still is a population there, which may well be decided by the presence/lack of oil.

The Diabolical Monocle · 31-03-2014 8:30pm

Lemming wrote: »

Alrighty then, so nobody else mentions HMS Victoria on account of it not having been afloat since the end of the 19th century and more succinctly NEVER HAVING FOUGHT IN THE FALKLANDS WAR ... and you decide to mention it, admit it was you that said it, and then deny that it was you that mentioned it feigning indignant outrage when Jawgap pulls you directly on the matter? Jesus, do you even read your own posts back to see if they make sense before you submit them? And it's not the first time you've written complete contradictory sh*te either. You've changed your tune more times than an Irish politician in this thread.

The only person who is being both dishonest and misreading (or rather wilfully spinning lies to suit) is you.

You misunderstand.

Willfully or not, I really can't tell.

The Diabolical Monocle · 31-03-2014 8:33pm

I am pie wrote: »

I misunderstood then, I don't think we will see another conflict before the matter is resolved. The economic viability of the oilfields will shape the island's future. Even with floating platforms it would logistically expensive to service them from 10k miles away. Some sort of local partner will be required to make it commercially viable. That will take clever diplomacy, I don't think the islanders wishes will be paramount in this discussion either.

Thank you for your post, its one of the few on here that kept to the threads intended direction. Refreshing.

Thank you for mentioning the diplomatic route and understand the overall situation and its associated economics, as well as accounting for the aspect of time.

Jawgap · 31-03-2014 8:38pm

The Diabolical Monocle wrote: »

You mentioned TLAM's - tomahawk missiles.
.

Can I suggest you go read a book - Tomahawk Land Attack Missiles are not nuclear tipped and haven't been for over 25 years (since the INF Treaty came into force.

Anyway, I think @I_am_pie has usefully summed up the situation as it is in the real world, better than my useless postulating......so I'll leave it there......

.....and that @The Diabolical Monocle is my gift to you - my second retirement - no doubt to be met with some hilarious observation on your part in your next post.

For anyone else with sufficient stamina who is still reading this, if you want an electronic copy of the Battle Atlas of the Falklands (incomplete as it is, given it doesn't mention HMS Victoria) or the fairly excellent "Aerial Warfare and Maritime Expeditionary Operations: Naval Aviation Versus Land-Based Air Power in the 1982 Falklands War" (which draws from both British and Argentinian sources)- PM me and I'll send them on.

I'm off to watch The Plantaganets.......

The Diabolical Monocle · 31-03-2014 8:52pm

Jawgap wrote: »

you do know the Chinese haven't been able to keep a sub at sea for longer than 21 days.........that their fighter pilots are not allowed file flight plans or plan missions......that their missile crews can't stick being on alert for more than 7 days......that there's been critical failures found in their Permissive Action Link systems......and that their supposed stealth fighter, isn't......

You do know that bi-planes with cockpit saucers and tealeaf dispensers once flew out of blighty.

They look good and they have big hats, but their advanced tech isn't

Splendid, thank you for that.

I think you are the one who brought HMS Victoria (wherever or whatever she is) into the discussion...

Admit you got it wrong - that no such ship was ever hit, much less sunk by any kind or air action and we'll move on......

Lets suppose for a moment that I made some error regarding HMS Victoria.
Lets ask why that would be of any importance. And why one would return to such a small error.
Does the answer tell you anything.

But no, HMS Victoria was mentioned for two reasons, one being a general inference towards Argentine incompetence in having an unfinished ship sitting in works for decades.
My counter to this being that when it comes to naval incompetence you'd do well to take a look at hms victoria first. Basically the story goes that it was a huge expensive war vessel being showcased with another warship, the captains collided the vessels in a show of stupidity, and victoria sunk.

Second reason. Your bizarre tendancy to ask questions along the line of 'why didn't you mention'.....heres one .... the somme .....why didn't you mention the somme. Really, if I didn't mention something its probably because it didn't occur to me at the time. Funnily enough.

Yes, because of the number of hits they got when bombs failed to detonate. You're saying they were competent because they got nine things out of ten right in the bombing of the invasion fleet - except the obvious one, making the bomb go bang......

Plus, they lost. If they were competent this would never have been sent...

*shows surrender document*

Seriously ... a surrender indicates incompetence.
They can sink RN ships, they can launch an invasion, occupy stanley and fight marines.
But apparently if you get something wrong in the meantime, or surrender you're incompetent.

The Diabolical Monocle · 31-03-2014 9:19pm

Jawgap wrote: »

Can I suggest you go read a book - Tomahawk Land Attack Missiles are not nuclear tipped and haven't been for over 25 years (since the INF Treaty came into force.

Anyway, I think @I_am_pie has usefully summed up the situation as it is in the real world, better than my useless postulating......so I'll leave it there......

.....and that @The Diabolical Monocle is my gift to you - my second retirement - no doubt to be met with some hilarious observation on your part in your next post.

For anyone else with sufficient stamina who is still reading this, if you want an electronic copy of the Battle Atlas of the Falklands (incomplete as it is, given it doesn't mention HMS Victoria) or the fairly excellent "Aerial Warfare and Maritime Expeditionary Operations: Naval Aviation Versus Land-Based Air Power in the 1982 Falklands War" (which draws from both British and Argentinian sources)- PM me and I'll send them on.

I'm off to watch The Plantaganets.......

I'd like to examine Jawgaps final and ultimate post on this thread, well his second final and ultimate post.
I think it tells much about his style of debating matters.

Why might one bring up the references to TLAM's not being nuclear, or the pedantic point about the HMS Victoria in the overall context.
I think his style of debating is summed up by his reference to these points.
They were irrelevant and referred only to side arguments, void of importance related to the purpose of the thread.

I would have to agree with him that I_am_pie kept it real, something Jawgap was incapable of doing during his whole time here. And although Jawgap himself adds, in a joking way, that he was postulating uselessly, I genuinely do find that to be the case in the majority of his posts.

In response to him saying "no doubt you'll have some hilarious observation on your part in your next post - well no I don't, which ironically proves him wrong one last time posthumously. A fail from the grave.

I hope that Jawgap will read this and learn a lesson from his mistakes in defeat, perhaps even develop a style of debate that is more dis-passionate, takes facts into account objectively rather than getting tied up in tribalism, reduce his butthurt and perhaps even become honest in his debating style.

Adios

Las Malvinas.

Comments