Rowland White - Harrier 809

[Steve vRS]

His new book is out in April 2020. I’ve enjoyed all his others so am looking forward to this one.

https://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/1787631583/ref...

[Eric Mc]

Yep - he's a great writer.

[Simpo Two]

Sobering to reflect on what might happen today if Argentina tried it again.

[hammo19]

Love his books....looking forward to this one

[heisthegaffer]

Simpo Two said:

Sobering to reflect on what might happen today if Argentina tried it again.

They are in a really poor state I understand so wouldn't attempt it. If they're going to do it, they should before QE is fully operational.

[Simpo Two]

heisthegaffer said:

Simpo Two said:

Sobering to reflect on what might happen today if Argentina tried it again.

They are in a really poor state I understand so wouldn't attempt it. If they're going to do it, they should before QE is fully operational.

Well what I meant was that if they invaded (successfully), (1) would we have any means to do anything about it? (2) would any attempt to send troops be blocked by banner-waving activist halfwits crying 'wacist' and moaning that fighters emit too many carbons? That seems to happen with most things these days.

[williamp]

heisthegaffer said:

Simpo Two said:

Sobering to reflect on what might happen today if Argentina tried it again.

They are in a really poor state I understand so wouldn't attempt it. If they're going to do it, they should before QE is fully operational.

As our most countries. Our air force is amaller then it was, but not smaller then others

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/...

Its q few years old, but illustrates the pojng. Any way, back to the book. Agreed: it'll be a good read

[pjfry]

Simpo Two said:

heisthegaffer said:

Simpo Two said:

Sobering to reflect on what might happen today if Argentina tried it again.

They are in a really poor state I understand so wouldn't attempt it. If they're going to do it, they should before QE is fully operational.

Well what I meant was that if they invaded (successfully), (1) would we have any means to do anything about it? (2) would any attempt to send troops be blocked by banner-waving activist halfwits crying 'wacist' and moaning that fighters emit too many carbons? That seems to happen with most things these days.

I think you've been reading the Daily Mail too much. The message I got from the last major anti-war protests was about not wanting to unnecessarily kill and maim lots of people. Protests never seem to "block" anything anyway, so I'm not sure what your point is?

[heisthegaffer]

Simpo Two said:

Well what I meant was that if they invaded (successfully), (1) would we have any means to do anything about it? (2) would any attempt to send troops be blocked by banner-waving activist halfwits crying 'wacist' and moaning that fighters emit too many carbons? That seems to happen with most things these days.

I think it would be different until QE fully F35'd up.

They are QRA typhoons stationed at Falklands although I suppose if the Argies wanted to, perhaps they could send some special forces in to disable them. I would hope our airfield is well protected of course.

How far can Typhoons fly inc air to air refuelling, perhaps we could send a few down there if it kicked off again? I read an article last year that suggested the Typhoon is in the top 3 combat aircraft at the moment all things considered (reliability and current weapon capability).

Hopefully it won't happen of course.

[Steve vRS]

No idea how far a Typhoon could fly with sufficient air to air fuelling but I seem to remember that in 1982, the Tornados couldn’t be used against Stanley. Although they could be fuelled there and back from Ascension Island, they had a finite amount of lubrication oil which limited their range. Hence the use of Vulcans. Are the Typhoons similarly limited?

[Simpo Two]

pjfry said:

I think you've been reading the Daily Mail too much. The message I got from the last major anti-war protests was about not wanting to unnecessarily kill and maim lots of people. Protests never seem to "block" anything anyway, so I'm not sure what your point is?

I don't read the Daily Mail, I reach my own conclusion based mainly on broadcast media. My point was that most things of any significance seem to be met by banner-waving activist halfwits.

[cardigankid]

pjfry said:

I think you've been reading the Daily Mail too much. The message I got from the last major anti-war protests was about not wanting to unnecessarily kill and maim lots of people. Protests never seem to "block" anything anyway, so I'm not sure what your point is?

This. The point about the Falklands war is that it should never have happened, which is why Lord Carrington resigned. Yes its a great adventure, San Carlos, Goose Green, Mt Longdon, Mt Tumbledown. But glorifying war is a dangerous route to go down, because the next group of tossers in power will use it as a justification for killing and maiming innocent civilians, and in the fog of war, the scum of the earth who happen to be in the vicinity will use it as an excuse for loot, pillage, murder and rape. It always happens.

[heisthegaffer]

Steve vRS said:

No idea how far a Typhoon could fly with sufficient air to air fuelling but I seem to remember that in 1982, the Tornados couldn’t be used against Stanley. Although they could be fuelled there and back from Ascension Island, they had a finite amount of lubrication oil which limited their range. Hence the use of Vulcans. Are the Typhoons similarly limited?

That's what I was wondering.

Fascinating to imagine what would be different if we could have got tornadoes down there.

I read phoenix squadron a while ago (brilliant book by the same author) and there was a note about Sandy Woodward saying that if we hadn't got rid of the previous, larger Ark Royal stuffed full of Buccaneers and Phantoms, he doubts there would have been a Falklands war.

[Simpo Two]

cardigankid said:

This. The point about the Falklands war is that it should never have happened

It happened because (1) we cut our defences (2) Galtieri needed a publicity stunt and took the opportunity.

I think officially it was a conflict not a war, though not sure what the difference is.

So the current position seems to be that both countries are militarily skint so the last winner gets to keep them. For now.

And so we go back to 1939 and Britain declares on war on Germany, resulting in 6 years of death and destruction. Maybe Parliament should have voted to make Chamberlain's declaration void. What about a referendum?

[cardigankid]

Simpo Two said:

cardigankid said:

This. The point about the Falklands war is that it should never have happened

It happened because (1) we cut our defences (2) Galtieri needed a publicity stunt and took the opportunity.

I think officially it was a conflict not a war, though not sure what the difference is.

So the current position seems to be that both countries are militarily skint so the last winner gets to keep them. For now.

And so we go back to 1939 and Britain declares on war on Germany, resulting in 6 years of death and destruction. Maybe Parliament should have voted to make Chamberlain's declaration void. What about a referendum?

I don't support referenda because it isn't democracy, and you end up with two forms of government, referendum and parliament in conflict, QED. Yes once Galtieri had invaded, the military option, imho, had to be taken. The point was, and that is why Carrington resigned, is that Galtieri had been given the impression that Britain wouldn't fight. Had that been made clear to him, it is unlikely that he would have launched the invasion. Then again, we wouldn't have had all the derring do and the victory, and maybe Margaret Thatcher wouldn't have won the following election so convincingly.

As far as declaring war is concerned, history has hopefully taught us that the decision should be put to Parliament and Parliament should agree. I do not know if Chamberlain needed the approval of Parliament.

[StevieT735]

Steve vRS said:

No idea how far a Typhoon could fly with sufficient air to air fuelling but I seem to remember that in 1982, the Tornados couldn’t be used against Stanley. Although they could be fuelled there and back from Ascension Island, they had a finite amount of lubrication oil which limited their range. Hence the use of Vulcans. Are the Typhoons similarly limited?

Yes but an EJ200 has lower oil consumption than an RB199 from what I can remember. Plus there are already 4 Typhoon in theatre, along with a fully manned base at MPA so the likelihood of anyone getting on to the Falklands is slim to none.
I think I read somewhere that in capability terms, the military aviation presence on the Falklands is the most powerful in South America.
Anything trying to drop paratroopers off would be detected and dealt with by the Typhoons, anyone trying to get close enough to covertly land an SF team by boat would be detected and dealt with by the RN who keep a permanent presence there.

The Falklands are properly defended nowadays, the argies wouldn’t have a cat in hells chance of taking them.
All IMO (and based on what I’ve seen/been involved with), of course.

[Ayahuasca]

It would be relatively easy to land a SF team on the islands. In fact they have already done it several times since 1982. All they would need to do is target the pilots. Pop, pop, pop, pop.

[Steve vRS]

Who has landed special forces on the Falklands since 1982?

[Ayahuasca]

Argies.

[Steve vRS]

Really?

I had no idea. Do you have a link to any stories?