If necessary - we COULD alway BUY more Harriers....after all we sold them and development rights to the Americans many years ago, their AV-7 variant in use by the USMC is quite as capable (if not more so) than the Harrier GR variants But as a design it's old - and it's an expensive aircraft to train on and simply use, it's frighteningly thirsty when used "properly", in its VTOL mode. Likewise - it was a "niche" aircraft - designed for one specific set of circumstances...a ground attack aircraft operating from non-hardened and makeshift landing grounds in Central Europe - that we've managed to make do a variety of other jobs... But the VAST majority of those "other jobs" have been in areas where the enemy's air capability A/ stays on the ground or B/ is non-existent, or C/ is more ancient than even the Harrier! If we're drawing our horns in, and perhaps in the future won't be doing too much posturing abroad...our "enemies" will be ones not combatable by Harrier - like rucksack-wearing terrorists.....or other First World nations quite capable of knocking the relatively-slow moving Harrier out of the air!
as a P.S..... When they've been talking about the Nimrod on the telly, they've been calling it the "Nimrod spyplane". I've taken from this that they mean the long-delayed ELINT Nimrod rather than the maritime patrol variant....?
Exactly Owen..if argies put up flights of 3 4hours a day it wont be long till RAF are grounded...alternately..attack in flights and RAF even though giving a good account would be overwhelmed by sheer numbers...force is still only a trip wire..reinforcing has always been the aim...no air cover and no airbridge is coming...
Do you really think we wouldn't know about it before it happened? 14 Sigs EW will be doing a more than capable job down there with the help of Tri Service linguists. The UK has a RRF for quite a few years now and can deploy anywhere in the world rather quickly. There will never be another Falklands War like in 82.
and do you really think we didnt know what they were up to in the 80s? means nothing unless your prepared to commit. The 4 typhoons would be history by day 2. They were being monitored no less then than now .Composite sigs was watching then as was int cell Baor. But back yto today...do you think the Argie air force is not capable of taking the islands typhoons on. The forces on islands are no less expendable than they ever were. The plan is to create a line that should not be crossed. If that tripwire is trodden on then the reinforcement plan is actioned..no typhoons no air bridge without aircover. The air cover has just sank without trace. The argies are as capable as anyone to enact a standing start war..take the initial casualties...and what do we do then...launch Trident?
They were being monitored no less then than now Wanna bet Composite sigs was watching then as was int cell Baor. Sigs don't watch, they listen. The BOAR is Germany and wouldn't have any significant involvement in what was happening down in the Falklands - Think about it, how many troops deployed from Germany to fight the war? They were too busy keeping an eye on someone else to worry about other parts of the world. They would have been monitored through GHQ in the UK and listerning posts on Cyprus (for SF) and Gibraltor, possibly a det down on Ascension Islands too. The thing you have to understand about EW (Electronic Warfare) is that it is a world away from what it was like in 82-It's like comparing a Robin Reliant to a Buggati Veron-The capabilies are un comparable. The Typhoons would only need to hold the Argentians at bay for a few days - It wouldn't take that long to fly fighters down to the Falklands - Thats why a RAF base with an extended runway for fighters was built. I'd be surprised if the Argentians had the capability to wage a air to air war with the RAF anyway. Most of their Air Force weapons were bombs back in 82 and I doubt much has changed in the way of their capabilities-I'd even question if their current pilots are as brave (And they were brave) as they were in 1982.
Oh, they've been spending SOME money, if not a lot.... Lockheed Martin A-4AR Fightinghawk - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia ....but I don't see any reference to anything more modern yet than gravity ordnance...and Sidewinders, the sort of A2A ordnance the Typhoon should be able to deal with. Looking at that article on the A-4AR however....the Argentinians certainly seem to have made up their losses in number terms...
May I ask you not to discount the possibility of Mr. Chavez deciding to thumb his nose at the Gringos (yourselves) and lend a Su-30 detachment (24 on hand + 35 on order) ?
....and turn a war into a War??? Chavez is depending on the UN to settle disputes with Colombia AND Guyana. I can't see him being stupid enough to get involved in a war of aggression...
Y'all just need to pass the hat around a couple of times for a new carrier, simple as that. If you have interests in the far reaches of distant hemispheres, you need to be able to project air power to protect the convoys and the boots on the ground. Haven't your government people read about the style of warfare in the PTO before?
This week at Legasee we will be bringing you an interview with Graeme Golightly who fought in the Falklands war as a member of the Royal marines, to hear his in depth full story please register with Legasee and log in tomorrow morning!
i served in the RAF 1983 - 1996. i had two stints in the falklands, one in 1993 and the first in 1985. in 85 it was still very much a "war zone" everything about it still stank of war. my first day in Stanley was spent very briefly looking around the town itself. this included a brief, very brief, look around the few shops they had. i walked into one store, there were two people in the shop, both locals. as i walked in they were happily speaking in English together, but on seeing me walk in in uniform they instantly started talking in Spanish and through me a filthy look! Now, quite frankly, i had better things to do with my time. as a family man, 8000 miles from home, on the 24th december i didnt realy need to be there. These two "locals" couldnt have hit me harder if they'd slapped me in the face with a 12 bore! It was a very clear, very obvious snub to me, but importantly, it was a snub to the brits whod lost their lives in that god forsaken part of the world! My response to them was a clear one liner - "shove your spanish and shove your islands up your arse"! Never was that conflict about protecting the freedoms of 1800 islanders, it was only ever about bailing Thatcher out of a difficult domestic political situation, it was only ever about potential oil reserves and mineral reserves in the Antarctic! The Locals had been trading with Argentina for donkeys years, they didnt need the UK and from my experiences, covering nearly a year over two seperate tours, they were quite happy to have the Argentinians there. Dont get me wrong ... i know alot of the locals didnt want them there! But many did! the sad thing is 2 or 3 hundred brits and even more Argentinians lost their lives, all in the name of "Political Face saving". There are 2 types of wars. The Just and the Unjust. WW2 was "just"! The second Iraqui war and Afghanistan were and are "unjust". The Falklands was 100% purely political! Dont get me wrong. although i may not agree with the reasons for going to war, i will, and do, always support our soldiers, sailors and airmen. sometimes though its just hard to support the reasons fro the war.
Im argentine, in 1982 I was 12 years old and remember the Radio when my country forces disembark in MALVINAS... Now i still hear stories from ex soldiers in this War. Wait I will be post histories you never hear, directly from ex soldiers. Look photo i take from a A4, this fgiht in MALVINAS AND SUNK SOME BRITISH Hmmmm ... why highlight the word MALVINAS and why capitalise "MALVINAS AND SUNK SOME BRITISH"? It seems a little contentious and or aggressive to me. If im wrong in my interpretations of your sentiments then i appologise in advance, but, this is a friendly place! we'd love to hear your stories but please keep the tone friendly.
Hi Paul, look at his post again. Your new found 'friend' appears to have got himself banned in February last year
Hi Paul, look at his post again. Your new found 'friend' appears to have got himself banned in February last year lol, have i missed something? ... again!! was i a little late in my reply lol
Just read this in The Telgraph online: Britain could not reclaim the Falklands if Argentina invades, warns General Sir Michael Jackson - Telegraph
I think the key word there is 'If' mate. There's a bit more down there now than 100 odd Marines. I have no doubt if we were in the scenario today of 1982 and they had just been occupied it would be a different kettle of fish to what actually happened nearly 30 years ago. The problem is I doubt the Argentinians have the capability to take the islands unopposed let alone defended. I do tend to dislike like these comments from retired Generals, Admirals and Air Marshalls and the like. It always comes across to me that they have some agenda.
I doubt if we could retake the Falklands now. I doubt if we have been capable of doing so since 2006, when the air defence variant of the Sea Harrier was taken out of service. The Harriers retired last year were ground attack aircraft. They could carry Sidewinder AAMs, but would not have been effective interceptors because they lacked a suitable radar. As Drew says, most of the claims that we can't retake the Falklands as we did in 1982 ignore that the Argentinians probably can't take them in the first place. The Sunday Times had an article recently which pointed out that the Argentinian Air Force is obsolete, being equipped with largely the aircraft that survived the 1982 war. Argentinia recently cancelled plans to buy 2 landing ships from France. The Sunday Times, having pointed out the weaknesses in the Argentinian military, proceeded to postulate a scenario in which an airliner full of Argentinian commandoes seized Port Stanley airport. It claimed that this would succeed because only 130 of the 1300 British troops in the Falklands are infantry, and they would probably be elsewhere. The other might be aircraft mechanics, radar operators etc and the Argentinians special forces but I'm sure that the British would win, given that the odds would be 10/20 to 1 in our favour. 'No Real Threat to Falklands; Argentinian President Sabre-Rattling to Divert from Domestic Problems' doesn't sell newspapers or persuade people to click on web links. No link to Sunday Times story due to paywall.
The 1982 Argentinian plan was predicated on the idea that there should be virtually no fighting, so that what had happened would be interpreted by the international community not as a military 'invasion' but as a bloodless 'occupation' of territory (Argentina had occupied the unpopulated island of Southern Thule in 1976 without incident). The fact that there had been very few casualties (at least on the British side) resulting from the initial attack was the Argentinians' strongest card in the UN in spring 1982, though of course as events turned out it did them no good. Clearly, whether or not an invasion today could militarily succeed, it would be a major operation involving a great deal of bloodshed on both sides. In other words, from a diplomatic standpoint, the Argentinians would have lost before they had even begun. Which makes all this speculating by the Telegraph a little idle. Best, Alan
