More Argie Bargie

[IanMorewood]

A pet judge has decided that they are not valid so Christina is free to go on with whatever she does normally.

[Andy Zarse]

IanMorewood said:

...so Christina is free to go on with whatever she does normally.

Killing prosecutors!

[rohrl]

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/05/world/americas/a...

Argentina’s President Mocks Chinese Accents During Visit to China - NYTimes

Christina Kirchner has gone to China to ask them for money and she thinks it's clever to take the piss out of them on Twitter. Is she mental or just a moron?

[2013BRM]

M

JMGS4 said:

davepoth said:

Let's not forget that the only reason our carriers were so vital in the war was that we didn't have any planes on Falkland in the first place. We've corrected that now - there's no chance of the Argentinians managing a surprise attack again, and they don't have the capability to gain air superiority at such long range, even with the limited number of planes we have.

Corrected that, BUT we've now built a hige airport big enough to take any aircraft so a quick sneak attack by paratroopers could take it and open the air bridge for the args to land a pile more troops. Then we'd be royally fooked as the labour scum scrapped our carriers and we couldn't fly down anything now.
We should have kept small independant strips and a much larger force of Harriers flown by the RNAS... but the Brylcreem boys wanted their part of the Falklands action as they did feck all during the conflict (apart from one or two excellent pilots who were posted to the RN during the strife..) not even mentioning a vastly expensive and totally ineffective Vulcan strike (x2) which didn't even hit the target... probably scared a few penguins though!

If I didn't know better.....

[Murph7355]

JMGS4 said:

....and totally ineffective Vulcan strike (x2) which didn't even hit the target... probably scared a few penguins though!

Wasn't part of the impact of that operation letting the Argentines know that their mainland was far from safe...?

[2013BRM]

I'd rise to the bait

[Axionknight]

Murph7355 said:

Wasn't part of the impact of that operation letting the Argentines know that their mainland was far from safe...?

They should have bombed mainland Argentina anyway IMO.

1. dailymail

[handpaper]

Murph7355 said:

JMGS4 said:

....and totally ineffective Vulcan strike (x2) which didn't even hit the target... probably scared a few penguins though!

Wasn't part of the impact of that operation letting the Argentines know that their mainland was far from safe...?

Could have shown a few newly repainted in white, just to drive the point home...

[jmorgan]

rohrl said:

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/05/world/americas/a...

Argentina’s President Mocks Chinese Accents During Visit to China - NYTimes

Christina Kirchner has gone to China to ask them for money and she thinks it's clever to take the piss out of them on Twitter. Is she mental or just a moron?

China wants resources, don't think they will boycot Argentina for that. Might drive the price down though.

[Dog Star]

As an aside - best headline ever?

[FourWheelDrift]

Murph7355 said:

JMGS4 said:

....and totally ineffective Vulcan strike (x2) which didn't even hit the target... probably scared a few penguins though!

Wasn't part of the impact of that operation letting the Argentines know that their mainland was far from safe...?

If we still had a proper aircraft carrier like Ark Royal in 1982 it's Buccaneer's could have hit Stanley Airport at will, many times over as well as every other defensive position the Argentinian's held before our ground forces moved in. No need for a political statement of intent. In fact if we did still have it in 1982 I doubt Argentina would have made a move, I think Argentina began planning the invasion when it was decommissioned in 1979 and when the MOD offered HMS Invincible to Australia and HMS Endurnace pensioned off it was greenlit.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1981_Defence_White_Pa...

[Asterix]

Andy Zarse said:

IanMorewood said:

...so Christina is free to go on with whatever she does normally.

Killing prosecutors!

What always surprises me about these idiots is they think we're too stupid to understand.

[Murph7355]

FourWheelDrift said:

If we still had a proper aircraft carrier like Ark Royal in 1982 it's Buccaneer's could have hit Stanley Airport at will, many times over as well as every other defensive position the Argentinian's held before our ground forces moved in. No need for a political statement of intent. In fact if we did still have it in 1982 I doubt Argentina would have made a move, I think Argentina began planning the invasion when it was decommissioned in 1979 and when the MOD offered HMS Invincible to Australia and HMS Endurnace pensioned off it was greenlit.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1981_Defence_White_Pa...

Hindsight's a wonderful thing...

I would think there are a lot of circumstances that have to coincide with each other to make many of these things happen.

I suspect the govt thinking at the time was that our days of being a military superpower were over, and that therefore the money saved was worthwhile. In the round, without the benefit of hindsight it's hard to argue against that. Similar to today really...

[hidetheelephants]

FourWheelDrift said:

If we still had a proper aircraft carrier like Ark Royal in 1982 it's Buccaneer's could have hit Stanley Airport at will, many times over as well as every other defensive position the Argentinian's held before our ground forces moved in. No need for a political statement of intent. In fact if we did still have it in 1982 I doubt Argentina would have made a move, I think Argentina began planning the invasion when it was decommissioned in 1979 and when the MOD offered HMS Invincible to Australia and HMS Endurnace pensioned off it was greenlit.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1981_Defence_White_Pa...

The difference would have been one of improved CAP capability rather than offensive strike; neither the Phantoms nor the Buccaneers had a precision bombing capability, so iron bombs dropped like Biggles used to do and not much more accurate than Vulcan achieved. The other significant difference would have been the Buccaneers naval strike capability; any Argentine naval units spotted within range of the carrier would have been visited by a Martel or Sea Eagle fairly soon afterward.

[Dr Jekyll]

hidetheelephants said:

The difference would have been one of improved CAP capability rather than offensive strike; neither the Phantoms nor the Buccaneers had a precision bombing capability, so iron bombs dropped like Biggles used to do and not much more accurate than Vulcan achieved. The other significant difference would have been the Buccaneers naval strike capability; any Argentine naval units spotted within range of the carrier would have been visited by a Martel or Sea Eagle fairly soon afterward.

Does 'improved CAP capability' include AWACS?

[Ginetta G15 Girl]

Dog Star said:

As an aside - best headline ever?

I always thought the best headline was Private Eye's skit on the Sun.


"Kill an Argie, win a Metro!"

[NNH]

Dr Jekyll said:

hidetheelephants said:

The difference would have been one of improved CAP capability rather than offensive strike; neither the Phantoms nor the Buccaneers had a precision bombing capability, so iron bombs dropped like Biggles used to do and not much more accurate than Vulcan achieved. The other significant difference would have been the Buccaneers naval strike capability; any Argentine naval units spotted within range of the carrier would have been visited by a Martel or Sea Eagle fairly soon afterward.

Does 'improved CAP capability' include AWACS?

Yes, but although the Fairey Gannet had useful endurance, the radar was WW2-vintage (and was in fact later installed on Shackletons for RAF use).

[IanMorewood]

Did the Argentinians not think we had sea eagle missiles already following one of the first sea harriers they downed being a prototype sea eagle armed one?

XZ450 - The raid's leading aircraft, piloted by Lt Cdr Gordie Batt, was locked up by the Skyguard system while flying from the east at very low altitude. Batt became aware of this from his onboard systems and deployed Chaff whilst breaking right so the Skyguard lost lock. However, behind the lead was Sea Harrier nº. XZ450 piloted by Lt Nick Taylor, this particular aircraft lacked a Radar Warning Receiver (RWR) as it had been removed before the war to fit instrumentation for a new missile, Sea Eagle, that was undergoing trials. Unaware of the threat ahead, Taylor was hit by a second salvo from the 35 mm cannons.

Edited by IanMorewood on Saturday 7th February 14:42

[hidetheelephants]

NNH said:

Dr Jekyll said:

hidetheelephants said:

The difference would have been one of improved CAP capability rather than offensive strike; neither the Phantoms nor the Buccaneers had a precision bombing capability, so iron bombs dropped like Biggles used to do and not much more accurate than Vulcan achieved. The other significant difference would have been the Buccaneers naval strike capability; any Argentine naval units spotted within range of the carrier would have been visited by a Martel or Sea Eagle fairly soon afterward.

Does 'improved CAP capability' include AWACS?

Yes, but although the Fairey Gannet had useful endurance, the radar was WW2-vintage (and was in fact later installed on Shackletons for RAF use).

What he said; it was WW2 vintage, but I was surprised to read that despite being that old it was(on paper at least) capable of relaying the radar picture back to the carrier, allowing an analogue but still useful C3I facility. There's also the prospect that had the fleet carriers survived through the 1970s and into the 1980s it's likely that Searchwater would have found its way onto the Gannets, offering a quantum leap in capability.

[hidetheelephants]

fkwits in more fkwittery non-shocker; Argentine monopoly money now with added whiny propaganda.