Falklands War The Second?

Maoltuile

Buffman wrote: »

Sounds like she is making it up as she goes along!

You mean she's a politician? cheers

Raging_Ninja

Maoltuile wrote: »

Oh, please. The Falklands 'government' wouldn't amount to the smallest County Council in this country.

whats that got to do with anything?

thecommietommy

Cardinal Richelieu wrote: »

Or Italy, Germany, Asia, Middle East, Croatia, England, Wales, Ireland, Czech Republic, Bulgaria, Russia and Scandanavia. Argentina has a varied population.

A bit off topic but there's actually a part of Argentina that speaks Welsh - serious !!!!! The area is called Y Wladfa http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Y_Wladfa

Maoltuile

Raging_Ninja wrote: »

whats that got to do with anything?

Read what I'm replying to?

Lemming

Raging_Ninja wrote: »

whats that got to do with anything?

Maoltuile wrote: »

Read what I'm replying to?

This?

Maoltuile wrote: »

getz wrote: »

... and asked the UK if they would let her airliners have direct flights between buenos airs and the falklands,yet she cannot understand that it is not down to the UK to make that decision,its down to the falklands goverment,she would be better off fighting the high corruption in her own country, just remembered she is on a corruption charge herself,

Oh, please. The Falklands 'government' wouldn't amount to the smallest County Council in this country.

And I'll reitterate what Raging_Ninja said by asking four important questions as regards your comments on the FI government being smaller than a co.council in ireland; yeah? and? so? what?

I'll apologise to the mods since the following is deviating into politics, but it must be asked of Maoltuile; since when does the size of a sovereign democratically elected government matter? Since when can you simply ignore it because you think it's not "big enough".

Maoltuile

Lemming wrote: »

This?


And I'll reitterate what Raging_Ninja said by asking four important questions as regards your comments on the FI government being smaller than a co.council in ireland; yeah? and? so? what?

*eyeroll*

So, to spell it out in small words so that you'll understand, the glorified CoCo on the Falklands has bugger all to do with what planes can and cannot land there if the BritGov (which pays for this farce) crooks a finger otherwise. Clear enough?

Lemming

Maoltuile wrote: »

*eyeroll*

So, to spell it out in small words so that you'll understand, the glorified CoCo on the Falklands has bugger all to do with what planes can and cannot land there if the BritGov (which pays for this farce) crooks a finger otherwise. Clear enough?

Wind your neck in Maoltuile. As with everything politics, it's never a simplistic explanation. I would also imagine that both the British government & the F.I. government have well and truly stitched up the legal side of matters should anyone go enquiring to stir the pot.

Something like the following; the F.I. has effectively written an open cheque (that can still technically be pulled to make a point should the need arise) to the British government wishing to land personnel & equipment that would aid in the defense of the islands. Not to mention it boosts their economy by having people around to spend money.

It would be foolish political school-boy error to make noise about rights to self determination, and then say "no, we run the place", undermining any credibility of self-determination or sovereign independence.

Maoltuile

Lemming wrote: »

It would be foolish political school-boy error to make noise about rights to self determination, and then say "no, we run the place", undermining any credibility of self-determination or sovereign independence.

It's Getz you need to tell this to, not me.

Fratton Fred

Maoltuile wrote: »

Oh, please. The Falklands 'government' wouldn't amount to the smallest County Council in this country.

And Enda Kenny commands a smaller budget and a smaller population than the mayor of London.

What's your point?

Maoltuile

Fratton Fred wrote: »

And Enda Kenny commands a smaller budget and a smaller population than the mayor of London.

What's your point?

Planes. Direct routes. Do catch up, please.

Sunnyisland

Jawgap wrote: »

If you are going to quote wikipedia at least use inverted commas.....

Why would that make the point any less or more relevant ?

goldie fish

realies wrote: »

Why would that make the point any less or more relevant ?

Cos wiki is full of lies.

westdub

Looks like the UK's future carrier's are causing more problems...

UK aircraft carrier plans in confusion as ministers revisit square one

Decision expected by Easter on which US joint strike fighter Britain will buy: ministers now want to revert to original choice

Britain's troubled and increasingly expensive plan to equip the navy with new aircraft carriers has been plunged into fresh turmoil as ministers consider reversing their earlier decision to change the type of plane that should fly from them, it has emerged.

The government announced in last autumn's strategic defence review that it had decided to buy the "cats and flaps" (catapults and arrester gear) version of the US joint strike fighter. This would have a "longer range and greater payload ... the critical requirement for precision-strike operations in the future", the government stated.

Moreover, the government added, it will be cheaper. It would also enable French planes to land on British carriers, and vice versa, inkeeping with the new UK-French defence spirit of co-operation.

Now, in an extraordinary volte-face, the Ministry of Defence says the "cats and flaps" planes may well be cheaper but it would be too expensive to redesign a carrier – more than £1bn – to accommodate them. The ministry is thus faced with the prospect of renegotiating a deal with the US, reverting to its original plan – namely buying the short take-off and vertical landing version of the aircraft, even though it is acknowledged to be less effective and more expensive .

The latest chapter in the troubled saga of Britain's future aircraft carriers – whose own estimated costs have soared – was raised on Thursday in a letter to the defence secretary, Philip Hammond, from Jim Murphy, his Labour opposite number.

The two carriers, originally priced at £3.5bn, are now estimated to cost £6.2bn. According to the Commons public accounts committee, the cost is likely to icrease to as much as £12bn.

The government, which originally said it wanted more than 100 joint strike fighters, says that it will have just six operational ones by 2020. The unit cost of the joint strike fighter, made by Lockheed Martin, has soared because of production problems and delays caused by US defence budget cuts. Britain's BAE Systems and Rolls-Royce have big stakes in a future deal adapting the joint strike fighter for British forces.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/mar/01/uk-aircraft-carrier-us-strike-fighter

Give it a few more years and the carriers/fighters will have cost more than any oil reserves found down south...

Fratton Fred

I thought the carriers were always going to be fitted for, but not equipped with cats and arrestors anyway.

goldie fish

Given that the STOL F35 aircraft are in huge doubt, if they play this one wrong there could be no aircraft capable of operating from either carrier.
CATOBAR is a much safer option. Allows you use a much wider range of aircraft, instead of just helis, harriers(but not british ones-all scrapped) or the mythical F35B, which has yet to get past test stage.

Sunnyisland

realies wrote: »

While both the United States and the United Kingdom maintain close relationships with many other nations around the world, the level of cooperation in military planning, execution of military operations, nuclear weapons technology, and intelligence sharing with each other has been described as "unparalleled" among major powers throughout the 20th and early 21st century.Argentina wont Invade the falklands/malvinas they wouldn't have a chance especially now after telling everyone what they might do,Its all a propaganda war from the argentinian president.A morale boosting exercise for her country.

goldie fish wrote: »

Cos wiki is full of lies.

So you disagree with the above ?

cyrusdvirus

realies wrote: »

So you disagree with the above ?

Let's call it as it is

IF you had made that point by yourself, then people would have regarded your points as 'more valid'.

Instead you plagerised wiki, didn't acknowledge it, and now are getting huffy cos someone called you on it.

OS119

goldie fish wrote: »

Given that the STOL F35 aircraft are in huge doubt, if they play this one wrong there could be no aircraft capable of operating from either carrier.
CATOBAR is a much safer option. Allows you use a much wider range of aircraft, instead of just helis, harriers(but not british ones-all scrapped) or the mythical F35B, which has yet to get past test stage.

informed opinion seems to be with you GF - what i've heard is that ministers are being told that both F-35 options are now looking risky (on cost alone, long before we look at the technical issues both aircraft have), going ahead with CATOBAR would allow other options such as F/A-18F or Rafale - or even selling it, reverting to STOVL means nailing your colours to the F-35B. if it fails we're fcuked, and no one will buy it off us.

FFred, the 'for but not with' capacity is the subject of hot debate within the CVF programme - BAES say that 'fbnw' was to be decided long before we got to this stage, or was always going to be a massive mid-life re-build, MOD say it was supposed to be a 'plug-and-play' option.

i'd happily shoot 't Bungling Baron for the crap service we get from him at exorbitant prices, but given the woeful history of MOD procurement, i'd have to bet that yet agin its an MOD fcuk up.

i wonder if you can build an aircraft carrier by tying together the executed bodies of everyone involved in the CVF programe since about 1985....

goldie fish

realies wrote: »

So you disagree with the above ?

Yes.

Jawgap

realies wrote: »

Why would that make the point any less or more relevant ?

Abso-friggin-lutely.......

The guy who wrote the piece you quote is James Kenneth Wither, Professor of National Security Studies at the George C. Marshall European Center for Security Studies.

The Marshall Center is funded by the US and German governments and specifically the US DoD, the US Defence Security Co-Operation Agency, the German Federal Ministry of Defence, and EUCOM (US European Command).

Which certainly calls into question the objectivity of the statement you quoted.

It doesn't mean it's wrong per se, but it's not much better than propaganda.

Sunnyisland

Jawgap wrote: »

Abso-friggin-lutely.......

The guy who wrote the piece you quote is James Kenneth Wither, Professor of National Security Studies at the George C. Marshall European Center for Security Studies.

The Marshall Center is funded by the US and German governments and specifically the US DoD, the US Defence Security Co-Operation Agency, the German Federal Ministry of Defence, and EUCOM (US European Command).

Which certainly calls into question the objectivity of the statement you quoted.

It doesn't mean it's wrong per se, but it's not much better than propaganda.

Ok that shut me up Fair enough,Thanks for the info.

Maoltuile

OS119 wrote: »

FFred, the 'for but not with' capacity is the subject of hot debate within the CVF programme - BAES say that 'fbnw' was to be decided long before we got to this stage, or was always going to be a massive mid-life re-build, MOD say it was supposed to be a 'plug-and-play' option.

I'd think it safe to say that this is BAE just trying one of the oldest contractor tricks in the book to bump up their profit. They should be told to go take a running jump and f**k themselves.

thecommietommy

" Major General Julian Thompson, who commanded the brigade of Royal Marines during the conflict, said the islands have been left vulnerable by defence cuts, and it would be 'end of story' if Argentine forces took the British base on East Falkland.
He explained it has been left vulnerable because cost-cutting meant the Royal Navy did not have an aircraft carrier to defend the region.
He told The Times: 'The Argentines have a marine brigade. They've got a parachute brigade and some good special forces. "

'All they've got to do is get those guys on to the islands for long enough to destroy the (RAF) Typhoon jets and that's the end of it. "

More: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2110338/Falkland-Islands-lost-Argentina-invaded-warns-commander.html#ixzz1oEueLPud

johngalway

Would the Falklands not have air defence systems, sams and such? Also land based anti ship missiles?

To me it would make sense to have these in protected sites. At least more enemy casualties could be inflicted if the Typhoons were lost. It might make the Argentinians think twice after losing a few ships and planes.

After all, they still DO have to GET there.

There is also the submarine issue. Argentinian air fields would make nice targets for cruise missiles. That said, does Argentina have any submarines? With a view to landing special forces.

cyrusdvirus

johngalway wrote: »

Would the Falklands not have air defence systems, sams and such? Also land based anti ship missiles?

To me it would make sense to have these in protected sites. At least more enemy casualties could be inflicted if the Typhoons were lost. It might make the Argentinians think twice after losing a few ships and planes.

After all, they still DO have to GET there.

As someone else suggested here, have a civilian airliner declare an emergency, request an immediate landing, pretend to be damaged and just barely 'manage' to line up with Mount Pleasant, not Stanley, land, then unload all 200 passengers. Who are gun toting marines/ SF guys. You can have all the SAM's you want, with land based SSM's, and they aren't going to matter an iota.

johngalway

gatecrash wrote: »

As someone else suggested here, have a civilian airliner declare an emergency, request an immediate landing, pretend to be damaged and just barely 'manage' to line up with Mount Pleasant, not Stanley, land, then unload all 200 passengers. Who are gun toting marines/ SF guys. You can have all the SAM's you want, with land based SSM's, and they aren't going to matter an iota.

That's true if the soldiers on the island are asleep (figure of speech not literal). It takes time to get 200 people off an aircraft, I'd be fairly confident that issue would be planned for. I didn't think it such a good idea TBH. No one will shoot down a civilian airliner without watertight cause, but there ain't a lot of cover on the tarmac.

johngalway

One thing I'd like to know about the airliner issue. How many Typhoon capable airfields are on the Falkland islands? And where would a distressed civilian airliner be sent to land? If there is only one typhoon capable airfield on the island and the airliner is sent to that, I'd be thinking get Argentinian forces ready in conventional terms - using military craft loaded on Argentinian runways - have a skeleton volunteer crew on the airliner. When they disembark safely have the airliner rigged to blow up. Deny the runway to the Typhoons, then launch the invasion force conventionally, perhaps with the go/no go signal from another small Arg SF observation force.

But if there's more than one Typhoon capable runway, or the airliner wouldn't be diverted there in the first place then forget that.

cyrusdvirus

Taking your first mail, an emergency evacuation of a 737 is supposed to take X minutes. This is with an indisciplined panicked load of civilian passengers.

Do you not think that a trained team of SF troops could evacuate the a/c a lot quicker? If all the Tiffies are based at Mount Pleasant and you have a 737 sitting in the middle of the runway they are not going to be able to take off.

Even do as you suggested, destroy the a/c on the ground, deny the runway to the RAF. That's what the Black Buck One raid was about, denying Stanley to the Argentine Air Force

As for where the airliner will be diverted to? That'd down to the captain of the 'crippled' plane. If a captain says he wants to land his damaged, crippled plane at your Air Force base cos he won't make the civilian Airport, then you are gonna clear the decks and get him down, safe as you can.

BostonB

johngalway wrote: »

One thing I'd like to know about the airliner issue. How many Typhoon capable airfields are on the Falkland islands? And where would a distressed civilian airliner be sent to land? If there is only one typhoon capable airfield on the island and the airliner is sent to that, I'd be thinking get Argentinian forces ready in conventional terms - using military craft loaded on Argentinian runways - have a skeleton volunteer crew on the airliner. When they disembark safely have the airliner rigged to blow up. Deny the runway to the Typhoons, then launch the invasion force conventionally, perhaps with the go/no go signal from another small Arg SF observation force.

But if there's more than one Typhoon capable runway, or the airliner wouldn't be diverted there in the first place then forget that.

Typhoon needs, 700 m. Both are long enough.
Stanley 918m
Mount Pleasant 2,590m

Stanley is too short for commercial airliners though.

Jawgap

This may be of interest:-

The strategic utility of the Queen Elizabeth-class aircraft carriers

.....and this about the French role in the original conflict

How France helped both sides in the Falklands War