Argentine senator: 'Falklands will be ours'

HAVE YOUR SAY

30 March 2012

Dear Senator Filmus.

Please rearrange the following "On Dream".

Adios !
Graham - High Wycombe

30 March 2012

Yawn........

If we are taking distances into account we might as well ask for France back, we used to own parts of it.

Perhaps Italy will want Europe back after the Goths and Huns over ran it.

Argentina has never owned the Falklands.

Go away you pathetic little man!
Daniele Mandelli - Guildford

30 March 2012

Dream on. Why not spend your energies investigating "the disappeared"?
AlMiles - Bristol, UK

30 March 2012

Proximity does not equal sovereignty. History defines territory and circumstance.

Using Senator Filmus' syllogism, he should perhaps be spending more time trying to annex Chile.
Michael - Hertfordshire

30 March 2012

700kms. Says it all really. It does go to show though that the threat against the islands will never go away and any UK PM had better take heed.
This Senator and his followers want to take the natural resources and they are willing to do anything to steal them, even, it seems, brainwashing the likes of Desmond Tutu.
As has been pointed out by so many on this site and other forums we need carriers, and we need them now. Placing our defence in the hands of the modern version of Faith, Hope and Charity will not hold them off. If they secure Mount Pleasant its all over as no task force could get close enough. TLAMS will not do the job and although the RAF now have the ability to drop a line of bombs at the proper angle(unlike the Black Buck mission). They no longer have a platform capable of flying that far(unless we buy MOABS from the US and launch them out the arse end of a Herc or C-17. But of course they'd get shot down by antique Skyhawks or Daggers before they got anywhere near the launch range, so not going to happen).
We need a real deterrent and we need it now.
The stark reality is that the RAF can not do it. They have never been able to, which is why no RAF aircraft has been involved in aerial combat since Suez (when they lost a Canberra to the Syrians, though that may have been AAA?).
We need the QE2 and PoW in service with EMALS and a proper FAA airgroup and we need them asap before someone in Argentina decides that the risk is worth the reward.
Alistair - London

30 March 2012

Alistair - London

Lets get some of your anti-RAF bias corrected shall we:

The four Typhoons at MPA are perfectly capable of deterring any aggression.

Black Buck was a success the bomb which hit the runway was enough to persuade the Argentines to give up any hope of basing fast jets at Stanley and also diverted the entire fleet of Mirage 111EA interceptors north to guard BA and hence out of the war. As such it was a success.

RAF pilots seconded to the FAA were responsible for half the Argentine aircraft shot down. Oh and RAF GR3's flew nearly 150 combat missions and dropped the first laser guided bomb used by Britain scoring a direct hit on a 155mm howitzer.

A single A330 MRTT can take 4 Typhoons/Tornado GR4 all the way to the Falklands from Ascension. Therefore using several A330 MRTT and if we want stand off missiles like Storm Shadow we could attack anywhere on the islands today (Or Argentina).

The RAF could get C-17's into MPA within 18 hours of an alert. How long would it take to get a ship down south ...six weeks ! So the RAF are perfectly capable of deterring any Argentine aggression.

Gulf War 1
Kosovo
Gulf War 2
Afghanistan
and recently Libya (1450 individual weapon releases with almost 100% success)

The RAF have fought successful campaigns in each of the above (oh I can your moaning but but they didn't do this or that right but fact is with the technology they had they used it to best effect).

Suggest you read RUSI for a better appreciation of the situation:

http://www.rusi.org/analysis/commentary/ref:C4F6324444BE2E/

We both want the carriers in service but such a bias against the RAF weakens not strengthens your argument.
Graham - High Wycombe

30 March 2012

Alistair,

Faith, Hope and Charity - I like it.

Both carriers with EMALS and a decent air group will not happen - especially as the Falklands will be given away at some time (they have tried before- the Argies just got ahead of themselves). There are no men of principle or patriots in Whitehall just politicians and careerists on the EU/UN/AGW gravy train - in this assistance aided by the Trenchardistes of the dinosaur RAF.
Chris - London

30 March 2012

Argentina has been ratcheting up the stakes for some while now as a result of the significant 30th anniversary of the Falklands War. If there was no oil or fish or anything else they wouldn't be bothered. I must he honest, I wont relax until HMS Queen Elizabeth and Prince of Wales are operational.
Peter Hall - Worksop, UK

31 March 2012

Argentina cannot even affod to win another war with Britain. They would lose their airforce in a single day and their navy would be just so many targets for our subs.

Not sure of the 'Regain' remark. You cannot regain what you did not have, unless he's referring to a couple of months in 1982. The world has moved on leaving Argentina to stew in it's own juice. Will we still be having this conversation in another 30 years ?

We still need out carriers though, if only to stop the moaning of failed Argentinian politicos.
Ian R - Durham

01 April 2012

Remember; the Argies have the same air force as in 1982; so even if they took over MPA they would probably loose those fighter / bombers in TLAM attacks. I would also target civilian infrastructure in the mainland, predominantly airfields, power, communication and the big one oil refineries (and the ships carrying them). In that I would keep pummelling them until they relinquish any further claim full stop.

On the more realistic side (the Argies don't want a fight at the end of the day); perhaps The UK should return the current economic favour and ban Merco countries from Falklands waters, especially fishing and any commerce cutting through to east coast...make them run the longer route around! Of course to police this one needs maritime forces in theatre; something which successive UK governments have seen fit to erode down to unfit for purpose levels. I would send some GR4's down as well until the Lightenings are available.
Shaun - Ex_RNZN

02 April 2012

"... Dinosaur RAF..."

Sorry Chris, I respect your opinion, but that is cobblers.

What paved the way for and even argueably won numerous conflicts in the last twenty years? Airpower.

Grahams post listed them nicely.

Be it RAF or FAA or the AAC. I support all, and desperately want the carriers with F35C in service.

Airpower is the primary power projection weapon and it should be expanded throughout ALL three services.

Both the Royal Navy AND the RAF need priority in funding for expeditionary operations.

How does the army get out there? Walk?

The RAF takes it there, then supports the troops on the ground.

An aircraft carrier and the FAA adds even further flexibility, in addition to RAF assets.

And considering the buzz word throughout MoD now is JOINTRY, ALL the services contributing, then your ideas of the RAF being " Dinosaur" seem to me the only out of date idea around.
Daniele Mandelli - Guildford

02 April 2012

Daniele Mandelli - Guildford

Talking of JOINTRY:

Joint Forces Command begins operations today.

http://bfbs.com/news/worldwide/joint-forces-command-place-april-2-56052.html
Graham - High Wycombe

02 April 2012

Graham - High Wycombe.

Thanks, I was already aware and have FOIA'd the MoD for a listing of JFC's components.

As for Chris opinions on our politicians in Whitehall I could not agree more.


Daniele Mandelli - Guildford

03 April 2012

"Black Buck was a success the bomb which hit the runway was enough to persuade the Argentines to give up any hope of basing fast jets at Stanley and also diverted the entire fleet of Mirage 111EA interceptors north to guard BA and hence out of the war. As such it was a success."

False.

Graham. This is what I was talking about in another post; i.e. RAF spin. I have typically read lines to this affect from RAF sources many times but history does not support this. The Argentines did not consider basing their Mirage interceptors at Stanley Airfield - Fact. At the time The Mirage jets were the high-end fighters of the Argentine Air Force and as such were not considered strike platforms. Even their interceptor capabilities were called into question on day one of the air war when I believe two were destroyed. As a result of this engagement; the Argentines used the Mirages in cat and mouse scenarios to draw the Sea Harriers away from strike raids of Daggers & Skyhawks. Afterwards (the same day I believe) Sea Harriers lofted more bombs on the actual runway than the multiple 'Black Buck' raids did in the whole war. Argentine use of the runway for resupply and casevac flights was not hindered by the RAF raids. The fact remains the Argentine forces created fake craters to give the illusion the air field was not I use.

The biggest physical support the RAF gave the forces in the South Atlantic was flying in spares etc to support the warships.

Shaun - Ex-RNZN

03 April 2012

Shaun - Ex-RNZN

Fact: the Argentines had moved metal strips into Stanley to extend the runway. It was these that we used to extend the runway and base F4 Phantoms at Stanley after the war (so courtesy of the Argentines). So tell me why did the Argentines move them to Stanley in the first place. ANSWER because they were considering basing fast jets in Stanley most likely A4's or Super Entendard.

Yes a Mirage 111EA was shot down on 1st May by an RAF pilot flying a SHAR and a second damaged which made it to Stanley only to be shot down trying to land. However it was not these aircraft that would have been based at Stanley. However they WERE withdrawn to BA for the duration. YES they then were used along with Lear Jets to spoof the Task Force and draw away CAP but they never engaged the task force. HOWEVER the reason they were moved north was because of the threat of Vulcan raids on Argentina this is FACT that is acknowledged by the Argentines themselves.

NOT ONE BOMB from any task force jet penetrated the runway surface. The only bomb that did that was from the successful Vulcan raid.
Further BB raids used SHRIKE and although not taking out the main Westinghouse radar we were after did score a direct hit on a secondary radar.

"The biggest physical support the RAF gave the forces in the South Atlantic was flying in spares etc to support the warships."

OMG Shaun you really have got a problem haven't you.

Right where shall I start.

1. Half the SHAR pilots RAF.

2. Ten GR3 which flew ALL the photo recce missions which was invaluable to the success of the advance on Stanley. They were also responsible for numerous close support combat missions with three lost to ground fire. On the last day of the war an Argie 155mm howitzer had killed 6 British troops and halted the advance on Stanley: Enter one Harrier GR3 with Paveway 1 and a direct hit.

The GR3's flew from San Carlos using metal strips which are still there to this day.

3. The Puma and Chinook that flew so many missions in support and supply including the special forces raid on Pebble Island.

So really Shaun the RAF played a credible role in the Falklands war. Of course the RN and the Paras/Royal Marines take the lions share of the credit but the attempt by such total navy centric's as yourself to try and write the RAF out of the war and dismiss them just makes you look rather sad. The spin is all on your part Shaun.
Graham - High Wycombe

03 April 2012

On many points I have to agree with Graham.

All this anti RAF rubbish on this site over many months is P****ng me off!

All the services have their role to play, all need support. THE ENEMY IS OUR OWN BLASTED GOVERNMENT, mainly the treasury, not the RAF!!

That through an accident of geography due to lack on nearby airfields the RAF played less of a part in the Falklands War is harly the RAF's fault.

Apart from the USAF's old SAC show me one other nations airforce that could do more, given the distances involved?

This only strengthens our need for carriers AND the RAF Fast Jet Fleet.
Daniele Mandelli - Guildford

03 April 2012

Daniele Mandelli - Guildford

The problem with the likes of Shaun is that they only see the RAF as a threat to the RN. Although they will dismiss it the RAF are developing a very good expeditionary capability with C-17, A400M, A330 MRTT, E-3D, RC135 Rivet Joint, Sentinel, Typhoon and eventually JSF combined with long range stand off missiles. Think how quickly they can get troops into position and an expeditionary air wing and then support them.

That is what frightens the 'usual suspects' as they see this as a threat to the Navy. Whereas in fact it is and always will be a case of 'horses for courses' as they say and both services have to be able to support expeditionary engagements.

You only have to read some of the comments from the 'usual suspects' about the Falklands today and the RAF not being up to the job and what really matters is "T45 and an SSN with TLAM" dismissing the Typhoons out of hand whereas in reality the Typhoons can cover a far greater distance than a T45 protects while super cruising (dry thrust) at Mach 1.2 which protects a vast area. But a T45 would protect a fleet that sailed with it 24/7 so they are trying to compare apples and pairs.

Look at Shaun's absurd statement that the only thing the RAF did worthwhile in 1982 was support the fleet with spares! Ignoring at a stroke ten Harrier GR3 that flew 150 photo Recce/close support missions or that BB1 Vulcan raid did convince the Argentines that a threat existed to northern Argentina and withdrew their entire fleet of Mirage 111EA north (yes it did not do well in its one engagement with Shars but that alone was not enough to convince the Argentines to withdraw them at the start of the war). And what about all the Puma's and lone Chinook survivor supporting the land campaign, Shaun just forgets they even took part as they are RAF assets!

The simple fact is that the navy centric's are so anti-RAF that they will come up with any argument, twist any fact in order to dismiss the RAF and promote the RN. All they do is make themselves weaker as they expose their bias.

Hopefully the true professionals will fight against the real enemy which is the treasury who are the REAL SCEPTICS about defence and will never get the need for properly funding the armed forces (mind you MoD cock ups don't help!).
Graham - High Wycombe

03 April 2012

Graham-High Wycombe and anyone else who cares,
The RAF's brass have been wasting money hand over fist and are very happy to do that at the expense of the other two services in order to retain their share of the UK's pathetic defence budget. What is going on now is simply a repeat of their behaviour in the 1960's, just updated to suit the modern environment.
With no detriment to the bravery of the crews involved the bottom line is that Trenchard's principals still ring true in the RAF and each one of the deployments you have sighted has exhibited them.
RAF fast jet pilots are nowadays pretty much restricted from doing just about anything without permission from above. At the moment there are no more then a couple of Typhoon pilots current on guns (just in case they needed them) and that machine's air to ground capability is a classic in RAF double speak. Last year they wanted another £25B to make the Typhoon independently able to attack ground targets. By all accounts the Typhoon did not over Libya despite several announcements to the contrary including one from the PM.
The mobile global RAF does not work. What the UK needs is a tactical airforce with aircraft that can leap frog from a carrier (one of ours or one of the many used by our allies) like the our Harriers could and like the USMC can with their Harriers, Hornets, EA-6's etc...
The USAF (until very recently the same number of senior officers as the RAF) is going through this now as it struggles to justify its B3. It costs them $190,000 an hour to fly a B1B (that still works out a lot cheaper then the RAF managed for UK to Libya though and with nowhere near the payload of a B1) and some $2M an hour for a B2.
The RAF has strategic intel and tanker transport assets that are great bits of kit but their tactical airforce is inflexible, takes a long time to deploy small numbers of units and costs gigantic sums of money to run.
Storm Shadow is only as good as the intel that feeds it and it costs a fortune. It is also a hell of a lot further to the Falklands and South Georgia from Ascension then it is from the UK to Libya and one Tornado would be able to hit just two targets per mission. Unless you propose Brimstone (that would probably entail somewhere between 6-10 maybe more, in-flight top ups for the round trip)?
Your theory on reinforcement seems to rely on the Argentine forces having not thought about that beforehand. If they've worked out how to take the islands I imagine it'll be all over in and around Mount Pleasant before anywhere else on the islands. They will know that we'll need to reinforce by air, so logic dictates MPA goes first. You've also- so you're in good company- failed to consider a hostile or mercenary third party nation providing the Argentine forces with intel. or worse, as indeed happened the first time round.
The bottom line is if they want to have a go they will, we will all see what happens then.
If there was a proper deterrent that threat would not exist.
Alistair - London

04 April 2012

Graham and chums,
It's an extra £2.5B not 25 apologies for typo. Also no one has ever said a jot about the pilots it's got to do with the machines and how they are operated now. You can all try as much as you want to distract from the point. The RAF had a deployable force in GR9. They gave that up. As a result there could be no liberation task force without the risk of far greater losses then in 82 and we have lost the deterrent, not just against Argentina.
Alistair - London

04 April 2012

Alistair - London

Your comments are purely subjective and so have almost no truth in them.

Like 'wasting' 2.5 bn making Typhoon air to ground capable! and yes Typhoon dropped dozens of enhanced Paveway 2 over Libya accurately and eventually this aircraft will be fully air to ground capable with further improvements (Paveway IV by 2013).
Storm Shadow performed perfectly well and your comments regarding intel are true of any service and in any case it is the RAF that has the best Intel gathering capabilities so I think they are aware of this point ! (Sentinel, E-3D, RAPTOR pod and in the near future AirSeeker - RC135 rivet joit). So as they have the best ISTAR I think they are well equipped to locate targets which was demonstrated over Libya.

Fact is the RAF are essential to our capabilities and their reach is getting much better. Your comments regarding reinforcements are laughable, they can get C-17's and in the future A400M's and Voyager's (A330 MRTT) thousands of miles away in a matter of hours as opposed to the weeks a ship would take to cover that distance.

Your dismissal of anything RAF is just proof of my previous comments being correct.
Graham - High Wycombe

05 April 2012

It sounds like I hit a nerve :D

First of all I would like to say I am not anti RAF, and I wont lower myself to cheap insults; or using MSN style writing (caps for shouting for example).

What I find pathetic is misleading posts historically flawed generally from a few (ex light blue ironically) talking like the centre of the universe started one April Fools Day...

Yes a few pilots in the FAA were RAF in '82. What Graham fails to mention is that they weren't just run of the mill plebes; the RN cherry picked the boys with the right stuff for operations from carriers. Operations from a carrier require specialist skill sets; which obviously not every pilot has; just like anyone can shoot a rifle, and it doesn't make them a marksman.

The metal strips were not just for extending the runway; these were for dispersal areas as well. The Super Étendard would never have been based at Stanley since they would have been vulnerable to attack if British intelligence ever found out. In Argentina the airbases (such as Rio Grande) where the main strike aircraft were based had I believe 3 battalions for security as it was feared (correctly) a raid by the British special forces was a possibility.

The Mirages according to other sources were not moved north to the capital - this was a claim which was made early on, but later discounted since the UK made it clear no mainland aircraft raids would be carried out. The fact remains the FAA (Argie light blue) realised on day one of the air war they were outclassed by the Sea Harrier and the FAA (yes with RAF) pilots flying them - They apparently were given orders to avoid the 'Black Death'; which the Brits used to their advantage once they knew as much (with radio taunts).

I believe (I am on holiday so cannot confirm the source) the RN strikes on Stanley were targeted at dispersal and supporting areas; and these were far more successful in military terms than the single thousand pounders the Vulcan managed to get on the runway. This is not to say the Vulcan crew did not do a great job with what was the longest operational bombing mission. (Noting of course the Vulcan was a strategic nuclear bomber in its day and its career was in its twilight in '82).

The GR3's were deployed because they had dedicated strike capabilities which meant the FR1's could be spared from strike missions which were secondary to their primary air defence mission; it was considered a waste of a Sea Harrier in the former (if it was shot down - as the GR3 was not a fighter in any sense of the word).

The Pebble Island Raid was carried out by HC4 Commando Sea Kings not Puma's as Graham stated incorrectly; from 846 I believe.

Yes Bravo November was there as well and did its part with the other helicopters from by FAA, RAF and army pilots.

Arguments over the range from The Falklands and British airbases been too far away to have a meaningful affect are stupid in pointing out the obvious. Obviously given the geography ( surrounded by water and thousands of miles away) meant the best form of air support for any conflict of this type was sea borne. Talk of any other is complete stupidity by those saying it.

A good website or two which puts a few facts and figures out there is Sharky Wards' blog or the Phoenix Think Tank.
Shaun - Ex_RNZN

05 April 2012

Shaun,

Suggest you read Dave Morgan's book he had never flown a Shar or off a carrier before 5th April and as for cherry picking I think you will find it was the RAF that lent the pilots not the RN that got to choose them.

The Argentines didn't need to base fast jets like SUE or A4 at Stanley just refuel them and take off again after some period when their Westinghouse radar detected naval presence (The two KC130 were too vulnerable to allow further than the coast of West Falkland). And the strips could be used to extend the runway as that is what we used them for to with the F-4 so you don't assume they are for dispersal as they are dual use. The Vulcan raid made any landing impossible for fast jets due to the big hole they put in the runway. C130/Pucara was a different matter. Of course the bombing and naval bombardment was also very effective don't deny that.

You have utterly and deliberately missed the fact that the Vulcan represented a threat to northern Argentine cities and the Argentines did move their Mirage 111EA fleet north for the following reasons.

1. To defend northern cities against the threat of Vulcan attacks.

2. They were no match for the Shar/AIM-9L as proved in their initial contact .

3. They carried less fuel than the Mirage 5/Dagger and so could not be effective.

It is your failure to recognise point 1. that is ridiculous and the Argentines have admitted as much. The Argentines did move Mirage 111EA north that is a fact.

You are correct it was HC4 during pebble island raid. However a number of Puma and Bravo November were operational inland for the duration of the land campaign so again were valuable.

And I see you now admit the GR3 was operational and freed up Shar which is also valuable in its own right. But most valuable of all were the photo recce they provided and close air support.

Essentially yes you did get a response to your 'all the RAF were good for were supplying spares to ships' although that was ANOTHER of their achievements under difficult circumstances!

Oh and one last point Shaun. Shouting is when the entire sentence is capitalised not an individual word or a few words, that is used for emphasis as we are unable to use bold font in a post. So please learn the difference.
Graham - High Wycombe

05 April 2012

Shaun-ex RNZN,
Without appearing to teach you to suck eggs he's arrogant and with a skewed understanding of what a debate is about. Clearly by a quick browse across previous posts he regularly doesn't even read what was written in the first place and when presented with facts simply resorts to insults or claims you're making it all up because he hasn't read it, or ignored it.
By the way Graham (can't think why by I bothered to read your comments but I found myself drawn by how far you'd be willing to go to try and patronise) I think you'll find more then one or two of those RAF pilots will be annoyed to have been 'lent' to the RN. They all volunteered and were selected based on experience and were quite rightly proud to continue to wear their own uniforms in such a crisis, in what was considered to be a one way trip by many. (Also interesting here is that after that 'conflict' was over it seems not very many of the RAF chaps wanted to serve on a carrier in peace time on a regular basis or for a full deployment. Good argument there for retaining an independent FAA with naval -don't forget the occasional RM-officers).
In the more recent world: the JFH was an abortion that ran down on carrier deck time as a direct result of RAF operating schedules, they were still officially RAF controlled machines to point when they rarely wore RN titles of any sort. No Machiavellian schemes (unless you subscribe to the 'Tornado is great' thesis from the likes of Jock Stirrup, its slipped my memory what he was doing for a living at the time of the SDSR?) but sadly it seems simple rather painful defence budget cuts and total institutional incompetence. For the wider audience I sure lots of us remember complaints from the troops at the front line that our Harriers weren't up to the job when first deployed and yank's seemed more reliable, why was that? Maybe the same reason it took years to deploy a flight of Merlins or the Tornado. Also why was it that the perfectively capable Jaguars were never sent? Lots of them had only recently been expensively upgraded.
Graham and chums, before you start getting upset its not anti RAF its anti the incompetence that is allowed to exist and is actively encouraged at the detriment of the other services. Yes they've got loads of great kit, and people. But were they able to deploy a sustained manned strike force over Libya? No. Would a carrier with Harriers? Yes.
In the event that some unforeseen action results in the Falklands, or Belize, or Pitcairn (or anywhere else where we have interests) being invaded could the RAF, in its current state, protect a relief force from airstrikes 24/7?
If you want to read the Typhoon related stuff I suggest to start with reading Air Forces Monthly back issues since just before SDSR.
There are lots of very interesting posts by lots of people with lots of different ideas on this site. I heartily recommend any of you that have given up or are put off by the likes of 'Graham-high Wycombe' to reconsider and add your opinions and understanding to the debates.
Alistair - London

05 April 2012

I don't repeat in one article posts; I have made my point; so others can repeat themselves until they are -light- blue in the face.
Shaun - Ex_RNZN

10 April 2012

Alistair - London

Joint Force is a success you just don't like it because it involves the RAF and you can't stomach that.
As for RAF not wanting to serve on carriers, utter cobblers they have done so in the past and can do so again.
The RAF DID sustain a force over Libya that is fact. the fact that you fail to recognise that is ridiculous on your part.

As for which service is best placed to sustain expeditionary warfare it is 'horses for courses' there are different scenarios that would make one service more suitable than the other which is why I have always been in favour of a maritime strike capability.

I would suggest the drivel from the anti-RAF brigade like you is far more off putting than any rebalancing I have made.
Graham - High Wycombe

10 April 2012

Shaun - Ex_RNZN

Good I'd rather you don't keep repeating such half truths based on such bias as you have!
Graham - High Wycombe