Jump to content

Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, JohnT said:

 

I might add that I too am a huge fan of Americans, mostly anyway.  Some of the nicest people I have met in my life.  My sons Godmother is from the US.  That said in the world of international realpolitik @junglierating is pretty much spot on.  It goes back a long way.  One foreign policy concern shown during WW2 and since is that the US were concerned not to support the return of Britain to old colonies after WW2.  Fair enough - there was a fair amount of the UK thinking the same as well.  That trend in US thinking continues to today and the Falklands issue might not get the same support as last time from across the pond.  In 82 the Argentinian junta got it all wrong.  A democratically elected government might have a better chance in future.  US support can't be guaranteed on this particular issue.  I think I can see an increasing trend in the US policy back towards isolationism.  It is something that has never wholly gone away but has been dormant for the decades after WW2.  I think there is a change in the way the wind is blowing and certain other countries have become aware that the US might not be the forward leaning reliable security senior partner that it has been in the second half of the last century.

 

All that rambling done though I'd like to think that the Falklands are not under threat just because the Argentine Air Force acquire some F-16 aircraft which they do need to modernise.  Perhaps if their navy acquired a credible and significant amphibious capability with the same for anti submarine tasking then that would present a more significant threat.

 

I recall reading that a much earlier concern about an Argentine  landing evaporated when the then Prime Minister James Callaghan sent a hunter killer sub to the South Atlantic - possibly more than one?  Or at elast he let it be known that one was there.  Whether that was true?  Who knows?

 

I suspect the main barrier to military intervention is not Typhoons or F-35's but the possibility of 1-2 submarines sending any amphibious force to the bottom of the South Atlantic.  While the sabre rattling is going on I'd have one on permanent station at all time as a reality check.

 

A better solution is that the UK buys up all the annual Argentine wine supply and creates an economic boom there so that renewed hostilities are unthinkable - I am prepared to do my bit drinking it for King and Country.

Put me down for a case of Melbac🤣

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, junglierating said:

I dont think the USA give two hoots about the Falklands or the UK....love Americans and they love the UK if it suits them....standfast the Disney esque historic Britain bit


They gave the UK new sidewinders for the original conflict, they do care.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, Pajarito said:

 

 

The Armed Forces were armed to the teeth. For instance; don't ever forget how the French were desperately asked to embargo over 10 of the newly acquired SuEs and their respective AM-39 missiles before the outbreak of the conflict.


I wouldn’t say they were armed to the teeth with high technology weapons. And the military was not that well trained, especially the conscripts on the Falklands.

 

The war was started for one reason, to distract from the economy.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Scooby said:


They gave the UK new sidewinders for the original conflict, they do care.

AiM 9Ls indeed and a certain amount of intelligence but always in there favour.

Edited by junglierating
Sorry got bit political ...smack hand
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, Scooby said:

I wouldn’t say they were armed to the teeth with high technology weapons. And the military was not that well trained, especially the conscripts on the Falklands.

 

The war was started for one reason, to distract from the economy.

 

Scooby,

I didn't ever say that the weapons were high technology, did I? A-4s and Mirage III/5s were not precisely high technology. Nor were the bombs they carried, of course.

I'm not as nearly informed about the Argentine Army as I am about the Argentine Air Force and the Armada, but the SuEs were high technology in the region by the end of 1981.

Such was the importance of those first 5 aircraft which reached the region that the French technicians arriving in the country to do the aircraft fine-tunning, who in turn were supposed to homologate the Agave radars with the AM-39 missile heads, were hastily ordered by the French government - asked by the British - to leave the country without finishing their task.

The Argentine Armada also had a Type CL42 destroyer; the ARA Hércules (same class as the British flag ship HMS Sheffield) sunk by the SuE/AM-39 combo, by the way.

I don't know whether the Military Junta could have ever expected that the war was going to be won by the Air Force and Armada aircraft, because I agree on your point that they sent conscripts to fight on the land. Also, with the evidence that, after the ARA Belgrano was sunk by the HMS Conqueror, every asset on the waters was immediately withdrawn.

But I did learn for a fact that the Argentine Military pilots (both Air Force and Armada) were HIGHLY trained by then. And it's a proven fact you just can't deny.

Now, had it been that the Military Junta started the war just as means of distraction from an awful economy, I'm quite sure they ought to have started a war the minute they set bottoms on the throne, back on March the 24th, 1976! :rofl: This is were you fail to interpret the signs, as the economy was worse in 1976 than it was in 1982. In fact, this country's economy started to dwindle in 1945, to tell you the truth.

No; as @John T said, the Military Junta were getting all the messages wrong. They knew people no longer wanted them in charge because the war they were asked to stop was over - this is the war between both factions of the Peronese party: the rightitst "Alianza Anticomunista Argentina" vs the leftist Ejército Revolucionario del Pueblo/Montoneros, which is the main reason why civilians put the Military in charge. Isabel Perón's government was a disaster.

The Military Junta had picked up a fight with Chile regarding the sovereignty on the Beagle channel, almost going to war in 1979. There was a referendum to avoid the conflict and the Military were left without their war.

Back to the time before Operación Rosario; the Military Junta thought kelpers were not being supplied by the British government because kelpers needed to cross to Río Gallegos in order to get medical attention (critical surgery) spare parts and supplies. This, according to them, created an anti-colonialist stir on the islands.

The Military Junta thought that the British were not going to cross 13.313 km to support the islands.

The Military Junta was of the idea that, in case the British did cross the 13.313 km from Port Stanley to Southampton, the US were going to be on our side because of the Río Treaty (you know, the Inter-American Treaty of Reciprocal Assistance) :rolleyes: As my father (in the Air Force) used to joke with; "Yeah, son. Brits and Yanks fought together in WWI and WWII, but this war... Oh, this war are certainly going to be on our side."

I mean, Jesus... Argentina is comprised of 23 provinces and an independent territory (a Federal district). Over half of them the Argentine government had trouble maintaining. What do you want to append another one? For the resources? We've had the largest deposit of crude oil and gas in the region, and we've been endlessly argueing on how to extract them and how to distribute the dividens. For sovereignty? You'd be surprised what my thoughts are about that, but out of respect for those who died fighting, I might speak to you about that on private. But if it were for sovereignty; for instance, why is your Barrick Gold taking our natural resources for free like they're doing? Come on, why are all those Chinese Fishermen crossing over the 200-mile limit day and night in order to steal our natural resources? Isn't that about sovereignty too? Why are the drug dealers from Bolivia and Paraguay crossing under the radar in order to export their stuff through our ports in Santa Fé? Or is that not about sovereignty either? Why don't you go take care of those problems first?

Governments/Politicians want to stir the "nationalism" on the useless ones, and the best cue word they ever come up with is Malvinas. Then, nothing else matters, and if you don't play along the line, you're a turncoat. At least, I'm not that fool. But my point is, you can only fathom Argentines if you are Argentine. You can't even repeat something someone said or tell you about that war, Scooby, because it's just a shame.  

Hope this long rant serves a very good purpose.

Cheers,

 

Igna       

Edited by Pajarito
John T mention, not junglierating; sorry
  • Like 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, wellsprop said:

Bringing this back on topic, before the thread gets locked (or someone gets put on the naughty step), when are the aircraft supposed to be delivered?

Quite.  This thread will be locked if those that have drifted into politics can't control themselves.  That's the only warning you'll get, I'm afraid.

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I apologise to you, @Mike, and everyone who might have felt I drifted into a subject other than that of the OP. It's just that the new generation of Argies are sort of sick and tired already of having always to bear the burden of a war we didn't even experience. How long? We are given a handful of stones, a bow and an arrow, and somebody somewhere will always raise the ugly subject of an invasion? Fourty two years have already gone by since then. Leave it in the past now. Please.

 

9 hours ago, wellsprop said:

when are the aircraft supposed to be delivered?

 

Hi Ben,

Our preznit, Mr Javier Gerardo Milei, is to travel in Denmark next week for an acceptance flight.

Cheers,

 

Igna

 

 

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, Roland Pulfrew said:

Might be the hangar lighting, but that does seem to be quite a dark grey, so maybe a little different from the standard F-16 grays? 🤷🏻‍♂️

Looks like one of the Have Glass   "stealth" paint variants . Used on F-16 lately. Also the RDAF has some jets painted that way.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, exdraken said:

Looks like one of the Have Glass   "stealth" paint variants . Used on F-16 lately. Also the RDAF has some jets painted that way.

So it’s actually the pre- sale Danish scheme with Argentine markings?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Fin said:

So it’s actually the pre- sale Danish scheme with Argentine markings?

I have no idea if this jet was repainted or not for Argentina

 

this A model has the same scheme:

https://www.scramble.nl/military-news/rdaf-extends-service-life-of-f-16s

https://theaviationist.com/2021/04/28/rdaf-f-16s-have-glass/

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I suspect that includes a large spares, support and training package. 

 

The way these contracts work means, if only buying a few aircraft, the unit cost seems extremely high - that's a reflection of the majority of the cost not being the actual airframes themselves. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

Rather looking forward to seeing more photos of these in Argentine markings and perhaps a paint scheme too. They appear rather well equipped re pods and guided ordnance, something of a big jump in capability which by the sounds of things is somewhat overdue.
I've had a bit of a Google but not seen much more than is posted here, has anyone got any updates?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, RMP2 said:


I've had a bit of a Google but not seen much more than is posted here, has anyone got any updates?

I'd assume payments are due next!

That will be the crucial part I guess  and training! (In Denmark? The US?)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Will this code work on here, do you think?

 

<iframe src="https://www.facebook.com/plugins/video.php?height=316&href=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.facebook.com%2Fminuto24%2Fvideos%2F1132413137878186%2F&show_text=false&width=560&t=0" width="560" height="316" style="border:none;overflow:hidden" scrolling="no" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen="true" allow="autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; picture-in-picture; web-share" allowFullScreen="true"></iframe>

 

Nope... :hmmm:

Edited by Pajarito
Yeh, it doesn't work! Why...???!!!
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...