More Argie Bargie
Discussion
Eric Mc said:
MX7 said:
I doubt that a NATO member would actively supply a country in conflict with another NATO member.
The US supplies Greece and Turkey. They are always playing chicken with each other's F-16s.If France did supply Argentina, they would violate the Treaty.
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.
Caulkhead said:
It's the blatant hypocrisy that gets me. The Argentinians keep trying to portray themselves as the 'natives' and the British as colonisers. Yes, Cristina Fernández de Kirchner, that's a right typical South Amerindian name isn't it? It's not like you're all actually european colonisers as well is it?
But their in the right because they murdered millions and shipped all the gold back to Spain. 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!
They must be fking bored in Argentina to make such a big deal about some crappy little islands. I think they only reason they want them is because they can’t have them. If we actually gave them back, they’d probably go “actually, we changed our minds, we’re going to play with some Lego instead”.
Neil H said:
They must be fking bored in Argentina to make such a big deal about some crappy little islands. I think they only reason they want them is because they can’t have them. If we actually gave them back, they’d probably go “actually, we changed our minds, we’re going to play with some Lego instead”.
They want them to deflect attention from internal problems - same as 30 years ago. The nationalist card is always popular!JMGS4 said:
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!
That would be my main concern. The runway being captured and held which would prevent our aircraft taking off/landing.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 you were the Argies how would you go about taking the Islands?
Could we stop them now?
Ozzie Osmond said:
All I know is the PH UKIP militants would be well hacked off if the Isle of Man was part of Argentina!!
Isle of Man approx 40 miles from UK - Falklands approx 250 miles from Argentina. Faroe Isles approx 223 miles from UK, but is part of Denmark. Perhaps we should bomb those Danish bds for stealing our land?psgcarey said:
The Type 45 I was shown around in September was certainly very operational, and by now is either already at the Falklands or will be there soon, it was their next assignment.
Are these the type 45's that can turn up anywhere in the world and defend themselves but have very little in the way of offensive armament?Although the chap who told me that did have dolphins as his service badge, so may have been biased
bp1 said:
psgcarey said:
The Type 45 I was shown around in September was certainly very operational, and by now is either already at the Falklands or will be there soon, it was their next assignment.
Are these the type 45's that can turn up anywhere in the world and defend themselves but have very little in the way of offensive armament?Although the chap who told me that did have dolphins as his service badge, so may have been biased
Still, they've got a 4.5in gun, and can launch Tommahawk missiles, so hardly toothless.
Puggit said:
Neil H said:
They must be fking bored in Argentina to make such a big deal about some crappy little islands. I think they only reason they want them is because they can’t have them. If we actually gave them back, they’d probably go “actually, we changed our minds, we’re going to play with some Lego instead”.
They want them to deflect attention from internal problems - same as 30 years ago. The nationalist card is always popular!Mr_B said:
Look back at the Falklands war and something that keeps coming up is the claim that had they lost a carrier, it was game over. If you do beleive that to be true, then they were one lucky missle strike away from victory, and a very different Britain.
I see we have solved this problem by just not having any carriers to Exocet now. Out of interest, do they still have Exocet or a similar weapon that could take out a carrier ?
I'm not sure how this is supposed to read, is it - I see we have solved this problem by just not having any carriers to Exocet now. Out of interest, do they still have Exocet or a similar weapon that could take out a carrier ?
A) If we lost a carrier?
or
B) If they lost a carrier?
TTwiggy said:
bp1 said:
psgcarey said:
The Type 45 I was shown around in September was certainly very operational, and by now is either already at the Falklands or will be there soon, it was their next assignment.
Are these the type 45's that can turn up anywhere in the world and defend themselves but have very little in the way of offensive armament?Although the chap who told me that did have dolphins as his service badge, so may have been biased
Still, they've got a 4.5in gun, and can launch Tommahawk missiles, so hardly toothless.
As was the decision to cut the number ordered from 12 to 6.
bp1 said:
TTwiggy said:
bp1 said:
psgcarey said:
The Type 45 I was shown around in September was certainly very operational, and by now is either already at the Falklands or will be there soon, it was their next assignment.
Are these the type 45's that can turn up anywhere in the world and defend themselves but have very little in the way of offensive armament?Although the chap who told me that did have dolphins as his service badge, so may have been biased
Still, they've got a 4.5in gun, and can launch Tommahawk missiles, so hardly toothless.
As was the decision to cut the number ordered from 12 to 6.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff