More Argie Bargie
Discussion
Timmy40 said:
Uncle John said:
However if it were for offence rather than defence then yes it would need strengthening.
Maybe we should invade Argentina and deport all the Argentinians to the Falkland Islands?Grumfutock said:
Timmy40 said:
Uncle John said:
However if it were for offence rather than defence then yes it would need strengthening.
Maybe we should invade Argentina and deport all the Argentinians to the Falkland Islands?Timmy40 said:
Grumfutock said:
Timmy40 said:
Uncle John said:
However if it were for offence rather than defence then yes it would need strengthening.
Maybe we should invade Argentina and deport all the Argentinians to the Falkland Islands?
Grumfutock said:
Could a combat loaded SU-24 even fly from Argentina to the Falklands and back?
Mind you in a war scenario fly back may be irrelevant for them.
Full combat load possibly not but they could carry more offensive kit out with a chance of the airframe returning than any of the Israeli built Mirages or US Skyhawks. Mind you in a war scenario fly back may be irrelevant for them.
The Super E's still present a threat to shipping if more exocets have been acquired and I'm pretty sure that they will have been.
However none of the Argentine aircraft including su24's would stand a chance in a fight with a Typhoon. Trouble is we only have 4 Tiffs down in the FI's.
Would not something like a patriot system be handy to have? The island is unsinkable so why have all your weapons on a ship, a radar on the top of a mountain, I think the Argentinians had one during the war, missiles could be located around the island in times of heightened tension., if nothing else it would keep the typhoon pilots on there toes.
Seight_Returns said:
I think the arguement is less about whether Argentina can win another shooting war - moreso how much they have to up the threat level before the proportion of finite UK defence resources that need to be sent South to counter it becomes untenable - and HMG is forced to the negotiating table without a shot being fired.
The SU-24 may well be junk and no match for a Typhoon or T45 - but we don't have many Typhoons or T45s and they can't be in 2 places at once. There will be a tippiong point when we'll need to make a tough call whether we want to defend the FI or chase away the Bears (and maybe soon Blackjacks and Backfires) probing UK airspace.
That horrible Kirchner woman and her new friends in Moscow know this only too well.
I see where you're coming from, but I'd ask where we're currently engaged that would limit what we can send?The SU-24 may well be junk and no match for a Typhoon or T45 - but we don't have many Typhoons or T45s and they can't be in 2 places at once. There will be a tippiong point when we'll need to make a tough call whether we want to defend the FI or chase away the Bears (and maybe soon Blackjacks and Backfires) probing UK airspace.
That horrible Kirchner woman and her new friends in Moscow know this only too well.
T45's can't be in two places at once, but where are we currently deployed where we can't spare another one if we need two on station?
With regards UK airspace defence, how limited are we for Typhoons? Are there other platforms, which may not be as capable, but suitable for either tackling obsolete Argentinian kit or fending off Russian bombers?
I don't know the answers, but would think that if anything kicked off, there would have be such a national outcry here that pretty much anything would go in terms of defending/repatriating the FIs. Aren't most of our current commitments in conjunction with allies? In which case either slow down the current plans to free up kit, or get them taking up the slack. Certainly I can't see the American population standing by whilst their leadership tell us to go swivel.
IanMorewood said:
Major worry if I was an Argie soldier sent to assault the FI's would be the fact that a large part of a battle hardened and rather upset 3 Commando Brigade would be rapidly deployed south along with a few special friends who objective was to make sure you had a really bad day.
That's great in theory, but the problem, as always, is the people in 10 Downing Street and Whitehall, who have to make the call to send them.The resources we have on the FI are designed to be a deterrent, or in the worst case, to hold off an enemy for a short time until reinforcements can be flown south. Can you imagine Miliband sat in No 10, dithering, until it's too late.
Vaud said:
I was always curious about article 5 of NATO in this scenario - "It commits each member state to consider an armed attack against one member state to be an armed attack against them all - or was it geographically bound?
I suspect the UK felt it wasn't a good idea to invoke article 5 in case it didn't work, rather as the Turks put up with a certain level of lunacy from their neighbours without demanding NATO assistance.NNH said:
Vaud said:
I was always curious about article 5 of NATO in this scenario - "It commits each member state to consider an armed attack against one member state to be an armed attack against them all - or was it geographically bound?
I suspect the UK felt it wasn't a good idea to invoke article 5 in case it didn't work, rather as the Turks put up with a certain level of lunacy from their neighbours without demanding NATO assistance.The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all ...
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff