Another Falklands conflict?

[[email protected]]

It looks like tensions between Britain and Argentina are on the rise:

http://news.scotsman.com/politics.cfm?id=296232006

Is there any chance Argentina might try taking the Falklands again?

Would they have a good chance of success if they tried?

[Andy Dingley]

We can tell who came off worst in this Falklands conflict
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4756514.stm

[Jeroen Wenting]

"Jim Watt" > wrote in message
...
> On 28 Feb 2006 16:05:30 -0800, wrote:
>
>>It looks like tensions between Britain and Argentina are on the rise:
>>
>>http://news.scotsman.com/politics.cfm?id=296232006
>>
>>Is there any chance Argentina might try taking the Falklands again?
>>
>>Would they have a good chance of success if they tried?
>
> The British learnt a lot from the Falklands conflict, if they invaded
> again it suggests Argentina did not.
>
Argentina has since rearmed, Britain no longer has a third of the capability
to wage war compared to the last time.
And they're already engaged in Iraq, an operation taking up most of their
strategic transport capability.

I'm of the opinion that the Argentinians could very well succeed in taking
the islands and keeping them.

> Failure to react before and after such an event would be an
> ignominious end of Mr Blair's career, he probably knows that.
>
His career is already over...

> Subsequently, Britain bought a spy satellite, and it would only take
> one well placed SSN to sink an invasion. Wonder where HMS
> Tireless is at present ... As HMG has made no attempt to sell out
> the islanders politically, anyone planning on gloriously renaming
> Stanley is likely to join the crew of the Belgrano.
> --

He's more likely to become the next gobernator of the Malvinas.
Argentina has spaceflight capacity (albeit small scale), they could possibly
launch an ASAT with a few months leadtime.

[Jim Watt]

On Wed, 1 Mar 2006 20:31:30 +0100, "Jeroen Wenting" <jwenting at
hornet dot demon dot nl> wrote:

>Argentina has since rearmed, Britain no longer has a third of the capability
>to wage war compared to the last time.
>And they're already engaged in Iraq, an operation taking up most of their
>strategic transport capability.
>
>I'm of the opinion that the Argentinians could very well succeed in taking
>the islands and keeping them.

The RN capability is adequate to prevent that, and it would be
suicidal to try. Politically it would be a disaster for Blair either
way, so he will take steps to prevent anything ever happening.


--
Jim Watt
http://www.gibnet.com

[Alan Dicey]

Jeroen Wenting wrote:
> "Jim Watt" > wrote in message
> ...
>> On 28 Feb 2006 16:05:30 -0800, wrote:
>>
>>> It looks like tensions between Britain and Argentina are on the rise:
>>>
>>> http://news.scotsman.com/politics.cfm?id=296232006
>>>
>>> Is there any chance Argentina might try taking the Falklands again?
>>>
>>> Would they have a good chance of success if they tried?
>> The British learnt a lot from the Falklands conflict, if they invaded
>> again it suggests Argentina did not.
>>
> Argentina has since rearmed, Britain no longer has a third of the capability
> to wage war compared to the last time.
> And they're already engaged in Iraq, an operation taking up most of their
> strategic transport capability.
>
> I'm of the opinion that the Argentinians could very well succeed in taking
> the islands and keeping them.
>

We have Tornado's at Port Stanley. An invasion would be vigorously and
effectively opposed. Last time, there was only a small force of
Marines, too small to turn back a full-scale invasion.

[eatfastnoodle]

George W.Bush has already had his hands full of trouble, I dont think
he want to see two US allies fighting each other while Iraq is still
burning. He will do whatever he can to stop the two sides sliding into
open military conflict if there were really signs indicating war was
likely to happen. And I think he want, he can and he will stop the
invasion in the first place, thus nullifying the need for Britain to
react militarilly.

[TJ]

Alan Dicey wrote:
> Jeroen Wenting wrote:
> > "Jim Watt" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >> On 28 Feb 2006 16:05:30 -0800, wrote:
> >>
> >>> It looks like tensions between Britain and Argentina are on the rise:
> >>>
> >>> http://news.scotsman.com/politics.cfm?id=296232006
> >>>
> >>> Is there any chance Argentina might try taking the Falklands again?
> >>>
> >>> Would they have a good chance of success if they tried?
> >> The British learnt a lot from the Falklands conflict, if they invaded
> >> again it suggests Argentina did not.
> >>
> > Argentina has since rearmed, Britain no longer has a third of the capability
> > to wage war compared to the last time.
> > And they're already engaged in Iraq, an operation taking up most of their
> > strategic transport capability.
> >
> > I'm of the opinion that the Argentinians could very well succeed in taking
> > the islands and keeping them.
> >
>
> We have Tornado's at Port Stanley. An invasion would be vigorously and
> effectively opposed. Last time, there was only a small force of
> Marines, too small to turn back a full-scale invasion.

No F.3s at Port Stanley. These are based at Mount Pleasant.

TJ

[Iain Rae]

Alan Dicey wrote:
> Jeroen Wenting wrote:
>
>> "Jim Watt" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>
>>> On 28 Feb 2006 16:05:30 -0800, wrote:
>>>
>>>> It looks like tensions between Britain and Argentina are on the rise:
>>>>
>>>> http://news.scotsman.com/politics.cfm?id=296232006
>>>>
>>>> Is there any chance Argentina might try taking the Falklands again?
>>>>
>>>> Would they have a good chance of success if they tried?
>>>
>>> The British learnt a lot from the Falklands conflict, if they invaded
>>> again it suggests Argentina did not.
>>>
>> Argentina has since rearmed, Britain no longer has a third of the
>> capability to wage war compared to the last time.
>> And they're already engaged in Iraq, an operation taking up most of
>> their strategic transport capability.
>>
>> I'm of the opinion that the Argentinians could very well succeed in
>> taking the islands and keeping them.
>>
>
> We have Tornado's at Port Stanley.

We have a small flight of tornadoes at Mount Pleasant (4 I think, the
RAF website is down at the moment) I doubt they could do much more than
local area defense of the airfield.

Assuming we had tankers at Ascention can anyone guess how long it would
take to fly down additional F3s?

[Alistair Gunn]

In sci.military.naval Iain Rae twisted the electrons to say:
> Assuming we had tankers at Ascention can anyone guess how long it would
> take to fly down additional F3s?

Actually, assuming there's a big enough fuel store present at Wideawake,
the presence of pre-positioned tankers there probably isn't too much of a
problem (strictly IMHO). Send some tankers down there first, "strictly a
routine training deployment, no it's not provocative, next question" and
then launch some F3s afterwards.

The problem is crew rest, I'd say. The tankers should be able to take
both spare crews (for the Wideawake->Falklands leg) for themselves and
the F3s, however once your extra F3s get to Mount Pleasant there's going
to be a delay before they can start operating. Unless there are more
than 4 Tornado crews down there already or you're going to send the
tankers all the way to Falklands as well ...
--
These opinions might not even be mine ...
Let alone connected with my employer ...

[Brian Sharrock]

"Iain Rae" > wrote in message
k...
> Alan Dicey wrote:
>> Jeroen Wenting wrote:
>>
>>> "Jim Watt" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>
>>>> On 28 Feb 2006 16:05:30 -0800, wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> It looks like tensions between Britain and Argentina are on the rise:
>>>>>
>>>>> http://news.scotsman.com/politics.cfm?id=296232006
>>>>>
>>>>> Is there any chance Argentina might try taking the Falklands again?
>>>>>
>>>>> Would they have a good chance of success if they tried?
>>>>
>>>> The British learnt a lot from the Falklands conflict, if they invaded
>>>> again it suggests Argentina did not.
>>>>
>>> Argentina has since rearmed, Britain no longer has a third of the
>>> capability to wage war compared to the last time.
>>> And they're already engaged in Iraq, an operation taking up most of
>>> their strategic transport capability.
>>>
>>> I'm of the opinion that the Argentinians could very well succeed in
>>> taking the islands and keeping them.
>>>
>>
>> We have Tornado's at Port Stanley.
>
> We have a small flight of tornadoes at Mount Pleasant (4 I think, the
> RAF website is down at the moment) I doubt they could do much more than
> local area defense of the airfield.

FYI; the Tornado aircraft comes in many guises (Modifications) ...
The F3 variant is an _interceptor_ . 'Local area defense(sic)' would occur
hundreds of miles from the airfield.

>
> Assuming we had tankers at Ascention can anyone guess how long it would
> take to fly down additional F3s?

Why restrict a reinforcement to (Tornado)F3's?

--

Brian

[Iain Rae]

Brian Sharrock wrote:
> "Iain Rae" > wrote in message
> k...
>
>>Alan Dicey wrote:
>>
>>>Jeroen Wenting wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>"Jim Watt" > wrote in message
...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>On 28 Feb 2006 16:05:30 -0800, wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>It looks like tensions between Britain and Argentina are on the rise:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>http://news.scotsman.com/politics.cfm?id=296232006
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Is there any chance Argentina might try taking the Falklands again?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Would they have a good chance of success if they tried?
>>>>>
>>>>>The British learnt a lot from the Falklands conflict, if they invaded
>>>>>again it suggests Argentina did not.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Argentina has since rearmed, Britain no longer has a third of the
>>>>capability to wage war compared to the last time.
>>>>And they're already engaged in Iraq, an operation taking up most of
>>>>their strategic transport capability.
>>>>
>>>>I'm of the opinion that the Argentinians could very well succeed in
>>>>taking the islands and keeping them.
>>>>
>>>
>>>We have Tornado's at Port Stanley.
>>
>>We have a small flight of tornadoes at Mount Pleasant (4 I think, the
>>RAF website is down at the moment) I doubt they could do much more than
>>local area defense of the airfield.
>
>
> FYI; the Tornado aircraft comes in many guises (Modifications) ...
yes I know, I've sat in most of them, always with the wheels firmly on
the ground though.

> The F3 variant is an _interceptor_ . 'Local area defense(sic)' would occur
> hundreds of miles from the airfield.

With 4 aircraft versus the FAA you're not going to be able to stop
everything. I'm assuming that they'd be targetted on raids attacking the
airfield, lose the airfield and you lose the islands.


>
>
>>Assuming we had tankers at Ascention can anyone guess how long it would
>>take to fly down additional F3s?
>
>
> Why restrict a reinforcement to (Tornado)F3's?
>

I'm not, but without doing the sums I'm guessing they could get there
quickest and there would already be supplies and technicians there to
service them.

I don't know if they have weapons or spares chached for the GR4 or
Jaguar but I'd have thought they'd have based a flight of them there if
there was.

[DDAY]

----------
In article >, Jim Watt
> wrote:

> Subsequently, Britain bought a spy satellite


Really? Details?




D

[Jim Watt]

On Fri, 03 Mar 2006 03:41:36 GMT, "DDAY" >
wrote:

>----------
>In article >, Jim Watt
> wrote:
>
>> Subsequently, Britain bought a spy satellite
>
>
>Really? Details?

After the failure of the British Zircon project they bought into the
US spy satellite programme and have adequate intelligence
without having to rely on monitoring Russian sats to know where
argie ships are heading.

Try google.
--
Jim Watt
http://www.gibnet.com

[Keith W]

"Iain Rae" > wrote in message
. uk...
> Brian Sharrock wrote:

>>
>> Why restrict a reinforcement to (Tornado)F3's?
>>
>
> I'm not, but without doing the sums I'm guessing they could get there
> quickest and there would already be supplies and technicians there to
> service them.
>
> I don't know if they have weapons or spares chached for the GR4 or
> Jaguar but I'd have thought they'd have based a flight of them there if
> there was.
>

Jaguar is being phased out of service but there is considerable commonality
between Tornado GR4 an F3, I doubt technical problems or spares would
be a problem.

Keith



----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

[Iain Rae]

Keith W wrote:
> "Iain Rae" > wrote in message
> . uk...
>> Brian Sharrock wrote:
>
>>> Why restrict a reinforcement to (Tornado)F3's?
>>>
>> I'm not, but without doing the sums I'm guessing they could get there
>> quickest and there would already be supplies and technicians there to
>> service them.
>>
>> I don't know if they have weapons or spares chached for the GR4 or
>> Jaguar but I'd have thought they'd have based a flight of them there if
>> there was.
>>
>
> Jaguar is being phased out of service but there is considerable commonality
> between Tornado GR4 an F3, I doubt technical problems or spares would
> be a problem.

The avionic suites are considerably different, they use different
versions of the RB199 and the F3's fuselage is about a meter and a half
longer than the GR4's. The only common armament is the mauser cannon(s)
and ALARM. I'd have thought that there's enough of a difference to make
the ground crew's lives interesting at the best of times.

[Brian Sharrock]

"Iain Rae" > wrote in message
...
> Keith W wrote:
>> "Iain Rae" > wrote in message
>> . uk...
>>> Brian Sharrock wrote:
>>
>>>> Why restrict a reinforcement to (Tornado)F3's?
>>>>
>>> I'm not, but without doing the sums I'm guessing they could get there
>>> quickest and there would already be supplies and technicians there to
>>> service them.
>>>
>>> I don't know if they have weapons or spares chached for the GR4 or
>>> Jaguar but I'd have thought they'd have based a flight of them there if
>>> there was.
>>>
>>
>> Jaguar is being phased out of service but there is considerable
>> commonality
>> between Tornado GR4 an F3, I doubt technical problems or spares would
>> be a problem.
>
> The avionic suites are considerably different, they use different versions
> of the RB199* and the F3's fuselage is about a meter and a half longer
> than the GR4's. The only common armament is the mauser cannon(s) and
> ALARM. I'd have thought that there's enough of a difference to make the
> ground crew's lives interesting at the best of times.

Anybody (airframes/engines/instruments/avionics) know what the current
training course(s) content is/are for groundcrew tasked to stations
supporting these aircraft?
Is it a fair 'thought' that the fitters are so narrowly trained that they
can only work on a particular airframe and are confined to discrete Mark(s)?
Is it still the case that a RAF Fitter will be 'concept' trained and
expected to follow the APs and schedules dictated by the F720's? {not to
mention the over-arching F700).
Now, I'm not saying that it wouldn't make store-bashers 'life interesting at
the best of times'.

"they use different versions of the RB199* " . What is the parts
commonality of these different versions? IIRC, a design criteria was to
minimize the number of different parts utilised between different versions?

--

Brian

[Keith W]

"Brian Sharrock" > wrote in message
...
>

>
> Anybody (airframes/engines/instruments/avionics) know what the current
> training course(s) content is/are for groundcrew tasked to stations
> supporting these aircraft?

The training courses are carried in the Tornado Maintenance School
at RAF Marham and cover both GR-4 and F-2/3 variants. Facilities include

The Ground Instructional Aircraft (GIA) is a hybrid Tornado F2/F3 with fully
functional electrical power and hydraulics systems .

A GR4 Avionics Ground Training Rig (AGTR)

The Propulsion Systems Training Rig (PSTR) which
is used for all variants

> Is it a fair 'thought' that the fitters are so narrowly trained that they
> can only work on a particular airframe and are confined to discrete
> Mark(s)?

No

> Is it still the case that a RAF Fitter will be 'concept' trained and
> expected to follow the APs and schedules dictated by the F720's? {not to
> mention the over-arching F700).

Indeed

Keith



----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

[Pooh Bear]

Jim Watt wrote:

> On 2 Mar 2006 01:51:16 -0800, "
> > wrote:
>
> >You can act as now it's 1906 rather than 2006 as you want, but the fact
> >is that in 2006, only one country can militarilly scare the **** out of
> >another country situated thousands miles away, that country is the US,
> >not Russia, not China, certainly not Great Britain. And the history
> >does not make Britain that scary as well, after all, although Britain
> >won the previous war, the victory was not an slam dunk, thing could
> >easily turn out completely different
>
> Tell that to President Chávez and Fidel Castro.
>
> Britain has the resources to prevent an invasion, last time there
> were a handful of marines. If Mr Blair has the political will to stop
> it he simply has to tell the Royal Navy to use their initiative.
>
> Its a long cold deep bit of sea from Argentina to the Falklands.

" Although the Royal Navy is now much smaller, it remains the largest
European navy, the second largest navy in the world in terms of gross
tonnage, and one of the world's most technologically advanced "

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_navy

Graham