New Falklands War Brewing
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Malkin Tower
Posts: 847
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
a bigger risk to China is jeapordising their food IMPORTS. For instance China are the worlds biggest importers of Soy oil, 50% of which comes from Argentina. In 2009 this represented something like $700,000,000 of business. The Chinese alternative is to buy from the USA. The Chinese recently shot themselves in the foot by creating a trade war with Argentina, banning the soy imports: so the Argentines sold it all to India (though at a reduced price), leaving the Chinese with a serious shortfall. When you consider how important Soy oil is to the Chinese, this is a serious issue. Chinese investment in other food production in Argentina is big: major irrigation schemes, railway improvements (to the ports), and purchases of corn, corn oil and other staples.
I'm sure that if the Chinese were given an ultimatum: food for weapons, they'd jump pretty quickly
And don't forget Argentina is well resourced in metals
I'm sure that if the Chinese were given an ultimatum: food for weapons, they'd jump pretty quickly
And don't forget Argentina is well resourced in metals
Last edited by jamesdevice; 19th Jun 2011 at 12:36.
PPRuNe Bashaholic
Moderator
Join Date: Jun 1997
Location: The Peoples Alcoholic Republic of Jockistan
Posts: 1,442
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FODPLod
Absolutely nothing wrong with enjoying your job and I don't see the point of your accident examples in this context. My statement was more aimed at the poster seeming to enjoy the fighting which took place and wishing for it to happen again. Why would anyone in a civilised society want war if other means have not been fully exhausted ? I am not sure that the millions of brave servicemen and women maimed and killed defending our country and our freedoms over the centuries would say that they got enjoyment out of becoming a casualty or suffering the horrors of war. A sense of honour, pride, bravery, righteousness, gratitude .... yes, they could claim all those things, and rightly so with my absolute full support, but enjoyment ? I think not, and anyone who claims so I think is being flippant and disrespectful to those who have made the sacrifices to our people and our nation, even if they were involved themselves. Others have freedom to not agree with me of course, thanks precisely to those who gave their lives.
A close family friend served in the Falklands in command of a Type 42 destroyer, subsequently commanding a Royal Navy mobile airfield and retiring as the crab equivalent of an AVM. When he talks of the conflict, he doesn't talk of enjoyment ... ever. He talks of pride in his crew and our armed forces who faced all sorts of adversity and challenges. He talks of the fear of being potentially attacked 24 hours a day by the enemy in high stress situations with equipment which did not always do what it was supposed to. He talks of the horror of losing colleagues and ships in his fleet and the helplessness he felt at times to prevent those losses. He talks of the deep regret and sadness at his ship downing an AAC Gazelle and killing 4 of our own servicemen in the fog of war, with a visible tear in his eye. He talks modestly of the satisfaction that our forces triumphed and the war was ended as quickly as it could have been with a victory. And he talks more than anything of the relief of coming home to his family and friends, whilst acknowledging that many did not get that chance. He has earned my respect, and he does not find war enjoyable nor glorify it one little bit. His experiences speak volumes for me.
ROG
I'll swing it round if I may. Do you know what Moderator means ?
Some of the meanings are:
1) Presides over a meeting, FORUM, or debate. (we can tick that box)
2) A person who monitors the conversations in an on-line chatroom or Forum for bad language, inappropriate content, etc. (another box ticked)
3) Someone who mediates disputes and attempts to avoid violence. (I'd tick the last part in respect of this debate concerning the call for a war put forward by some posters)
An earlier meaning a few centuries ago was that a moderator was a 'controller' or 'ruler' so I guess that's the day job covered too
As for getting some time in, I think you'll find that it's not a requirement for a Moderator on a site run principally (but not exclusively) for civil professional pilots, to have any military service whatsoever. Most Moderators on this site haven't and I am no exception. Some have of course, and they provide a degree of balance against us civvies and blunties no doubt. They bring different skills, philosophies, and ideas to the table. Note that I didn't say better skills, just different ones which complement those which other Mods provide. Entirely appropriate for a democratic 'society' which is not an autocratic military regime I'd say.
SASless
Maybe what I see as flippancy is a serviceman's defence mechanism of the horrors they went through. Only those that served will know if that is the case for them as individuals, and they have PPRuNe as at least one channel to enlighten everyone else about it and increase our understanding if indeed it is the case. But if I see it coming across as disrespectful, which is my current opinion and of course up for challenge, then I won't simply keep quiet. I'll ask the question and not be scared of the outcome. It's permitted in the civvy world to challenge and be challenged and the sign of a healthy democracy and freedom.
Indeed, my hat is permanently off to our servicemen and women, even in those wars whose political motives and subterfuge I disagree with. It is after all ''Older men who declare war, but it is the youth that must fight and die''.
Never assume. I won't apologise for thinking about the sacrifice made by our young men and women and won't refrain from questioning someone who I interpret or perceive as, in my opinion, making light of war and it's consequences. If they clarify what they really mean and my interpretation is wrong, then I am happy to see their point of view and acknowledge that. We'll accept that we have differing opinions and move on.
Other than my title on the info box left of here, I didn't make any comment as a Moderator, or attempt to provoke anything. I come as a poster who believes that those who gave up their lives should be treated with respect and talk of going to war should be treated with gravitas and careful reflection. I can accept that the Forces have their banter and their sense of humour is black and very different from many of us in the mainstream of society. I just don't find anyone wishing to have a war so they can enjoy themselves very funny, which is how the post reads to me. But each to their own.
Navaleye
I absolutely have pride and belief in our brave servicemen and women that they would indeed do it all over again. Many of them are doing so today in other theatres, a fact of which you will, I am sure, be only too aware. Your losses, and those of your colleagues, are acknowledged by the vast proportion of the population, with immense gratitude and humility. There is a debt there which can never be repaid. At least 6 members of my family lost their lives in the fields of France and Belgium during WW1, doing exactly what you did in the Falklands conflict, and what the current Armed Forces are doing today. Several of them don't have the comfort of a known grave. Many of them probably didn't even get the King's shilling and probably had no idea of the risks, since they were conscripted, but deep down they are made of exactly the same stuff which epitomises our UK Forces. It is in the nation's DNA.
Regards and thanks.
What's wrong with enjoying your job? Last year there were over 1,000 fatalities in aircraft accidents worldwide and over 200,000 deaths and injuries on British roads. Does that mean no one should be allowed to enjoy flying or driving?
A close family friend served in the Falklands in command of a Type 42 destroyer, subsequently commanding a Royal Navy mobile airfield and retiring as the crab equivalent of an AVM. When he talks of the conflict, he doesn't talk of enjoyment ... ever. He talks of pride in his crew and our armed forces who faced all sorts of adversity and challenges. He talks of the fear of being potentially attacked 24 hours a day by the enemy in high stress situations with equipment which did not always do what it was supposed to. He talks of the horror of losing colleagues and ships in his fleet and the helplessness he felt at times to prevent those losses. He talks of the deep regret and sadness at his ship downing an AAC Gazelle and killing 4 of our own servicemen in the fog of war, with a visible tear in his eye. He talks modestly of the satisfaction that our forces triumphed and the war was ended as quickly as it could have been with a victory. And he talks more than anything of the relief of coming home to his family and friends, whilst acknowledging that many did not get that chance. He has earned my respect, and he does not find war enjoyable nor glorify it one little bit. His experiences speak volumes for me.
ROG
10W are you really a "Moderator". Better get some real time in if you are.
Some of the meanings are:
1) Presides over a meeting, FORUM, or debate. (we can tick that box)
2) A person who monitors the conversations in an on-line chatroom or Forum for bad language, inappropriate content, etc. (another box ticked)
3) Someone who mediates disputes and attempts to avoid violence. (I'd tick the last part in respect of this debate concerning the call for a war put forward by some posters)
An earlier meaning a few centuries ago was that a moderator was a 'controller' or 'ruler' so I guess that's the day job covered too
As for getting some time in, I think you'll find that it's not a requirement for a Moderator on a site run principally (but not exclusively) for civil professional pilots, to have any military service whatsoever. Most Moderators on this site haven't and I am no exception. Some have of course, and they provide a degree of balance against us civvies and blunties no doubt. They bring different skills, philosophies, and ideas to the table. Note that I didn't say better skills, just different ones which complement those which other Mods provide. Entirely appropriate for a democratic 'society' which is not an autocratic military regime I'd say.
SASless
Bit snotty to ask such a question of those who have seen the Dragon don't you think 10W?
When folks go to War....some folks die in the process. Those that stay at home safe should take their hat off to those that went and those who were lost protecting other folk's freedom.
I assume you will be offering an apology for the tone of your post seeing as how you are a Moderator and all. Mod's are supposed to stay out of the fuss so I have heard.....not provoke one.
Other than my title on the info box left of here, I didn't make any comment as a Moderator, or attempt to provoke anything. I come as a poster who believes that those who gave up their lives should be treated with respect and talk of going to war should be treated with gravitas and careful reflection. I can accept that the Forces have their banter and their sense of humour is black and very different from many of us in the mainstream of society. I just don't find anyone wishing to have a war so they can enjoy themselves very funny, which is how the post reads to me. But each to their own.
Navaleye
We all took the Queen's shilling and we knew the risks. I lost mates, but we would do it again if we had to.
Regards and thanks.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Scotland
Posts: 367
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Unnecessary verbiage 10W. Clearly an Air Trafficker, and a civvy as well.
If you want to contribute to a purely military forum, it would help if you had some understanding of military life and personnel, and be prepared for some uncompromising and blunt rebuffs. Also don't let your "humorous" comments be misunderstood
It may be taken as offensive and arrogant.
Try not to give lectures
You may find that you offend people.
All of which is why I say "get some time in"
I'll let others support or shoot you down (a mil term) because I don't wish to lecture.
If you want to contribute to a purely military forum, it would help if you had some understanding of military life and personnel, and be prepared for some uncompromising and blunt rebuffs. Also don't let your "humorous" comments be misunderstood
Do you know what Moderator means ?
Try not to give lectures
I think you'll find that it's not a requirement for a Moderator on a site run principally (but not exclusively) for civil professional pilots, to have any military service whatsoever.
All of which is why I say "get some time in"
I'll let others support or shoot you down (a mil term) because I don't wish to lecture.
Other than my title on the info box left of here, I didn't make any comment as a Moderator...
As darn few of us are clairvoyant....how do we differeniate your MOD posts from your Non-MOD posts....seeing that all of them have your MOD Title clearly displayed in that bitty box on the left?
The more you try to rationalize your statement the worse your credibility suffers amongst those of us who have worn a Uniform, served in Harm's Way, and know the real price of service to one's Nation during combat.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Scotland
Posts: 367
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Brian, note the "smiley".
My little boy didn't want to be an RAF nav, nor a civvie pilot (like his old man) so I pushed him into Eurocontrol where he's a rich eurocrat. Nothing more fun than taking the p*ss out of the flying prevention branch, particularly when family's involved.
However I digress....
I would truly hope that we could and would repel Argentinian interference in the Falklands, but I'm not convinced on the latter. Mickey Mouse Dave and his Disney Cabinet do not inspire.
My little boy didn't want to be an RAF nav, nor a civvie pilot (like his old man) so I pushed him into Eurocontrol where he's a rich eurocrat. Nothing more fun than taking the p*ss out of the flying prevention branch,
particularly when family's involved. However I digress....
I would truly hope that we could and would repel Argentinian interference in the Falklands, but I'm not convinced on the latter. Mickey Mouse Dave and his Disney Cabinet do not inspire.
ROG
I seemed to have a SOF failure yesterday - that idiot Clarkson's diatribe against cyclists ( in the ST ) again set me up for the day.
My No2 is at Swanwick and jostles regularly with No1 ex Jag Mate and TP.
When discussing FI and Argentina, No1 reckons 4 Typhoons are enough to deter their air force.
I hope he's right, cheers BW
My No2 is at Swanwick and jostles regularly with No1 ex Jag Mate and TP.
When discussing FI and Argentina, No1 reckons 4 Typhoons are enough to deter their air force.
I hope he's right, cheers BW
Last edited by Brian 48nav; 20th Jun 2011 at 10:27. Reason: Wrong son
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: moraira,spain-Norfolk, UK
Age: 82
Posts: 389
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Did anyone read the article in the Daily Mail last week, by Admiral Sandy Woodward. He claims the Typhoon has poor ability in aerial combat?
I thought that the one thing those who constantly dismiss the Typhoon from the other services, for example Lewis Page, did accept, was its air to air agility and capability.
FB
I thought that the one thing those who constantly dismiss the Typhoon from the other services, for example Lewis Page, did accept, was its air to air agility and capability.
FB
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Aylesbury
Age: 58
Posts: 378
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Page as much as he may be ill informed on specific aspects does raise other points which need to be answered particularly around the procurement processes, where he spends most of his time bashing Typhoon.
Woodward though, is a different case. Although I'm more inclined to give Typhoon the benefit of the doubt in air to air combat, the scenario that Woodward came up with, to my mind, still holds water. And that is, those four Typhoons cannot be everywhere at once. All you have to do is keep the AD assets occupied at a distance where they cannot directly protect MPA. The rest is difficult, particularly logistically, but far from impossible.
But as said before, the best solution to retake the Islands is not to lose them in the first place. Providing there is sufficient quality intel to allow reinforcement in time, additional Typhoons, troops, SSN's/SSGN's, etc, the problem shouldnt arise.
And, in addition to that, as at least one other contributor has mentioned, its Presidential election season in Argentina and this outburst has been purely for domestic political consumption.
If they're going to go for it, they wont do it yet. They'll do it in another 2 or three years when the effects of SDSR are properly felt at the front line. They've waited long enough. Another three years wont be the end of the world.
Woodward though, is a different case. Although I'm more inclined to give Typhoon the benefit of the doubt in air to air combat, the scenario that Woodward came up with, to my mind, still holds water. And that is, those four Typhoons cannot be everywhere at once. All you have to do is keep the AD assets occupied at a distance where they cannot directly protect MPA. The rest is difficult, particularly logistically, but far from impossible.
But as said before, the best solution to retake the Islands is not to lose them in the first place. Providing there is sufficient quality intel to allow reinforcement in time, additional Typhoons, troops, SSN's/SSGN's, etc, the problem shouldnt arise.
And, in addition to that, as at least one other contributor has mentioned, its Presidential election season in Argentina and this outburst has been purely for domestic political consumption.
If they're going to go for it, they wont do it yet. They'll do it in another 2 or three years when the effects of SDSR are properly felt at the front line. They've waited long enough. Another three years wont be the end of the world.
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 336
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Don't forget Lewis Page's exclusive a few weeks ago regarding a Pakistani F16 vs Typhoon exercise where the Typhoon was apparently found lacking. That was pretty swiftly dismissed as propoganda aimed at spoiling the Indian fighter competition, and strikes me as just the sort of thing Adm. Woodward might like to jump on.
A sad day indeed if you are less well informed than Lewis Page
OK sod it, bring tha Harrier back like WEBF says, its the answer to all matters air combat related, obviously!
PS Love the way it goes straight up and down at airshows! A testimony to British engineering and a clear example of an aircraft unbeatable in any other way!!
FB
Sandy Woodward has my respect, but I'm a bit wary of a submariner being cited as an authority of a fighter which he'd never had in his OOB as a battle force commander.
EDIT: that said, I just looked at the numbers again, quantity has a quality all its own, and lack of quantity is ... a problem. At some point, force multipliers don't, when you trim past the fat and cut muscle.
A more poignant question for our British friends is ... what AEW capability do the fighters have? That was one of Admiral Woodward's frustrating shortcomings when he ran the show ... what, nearly 30 years ago?
Man, time flies.
EDIT: that said, I just looked at the numbers again, quantity has a quality all its own, and lack of quantity is ... a problem. At some point, force multipliers don't, when you trim past the fat and cut muscle.
A more poignant question for our British friends is ... what AEW capability do the fighters have? That was one of Admiral Woodward's frustrating shortcomings when he ran the show ... what, nearly 30 years ago?
Man, time flies.
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Racedo blows goats
Posts: 677
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FB
Calm down, I was suggesting that Sandy Woodward was less well informed than Lewis Page. I agree with you about bringing back the Harrier, we might get some bandwidth back. Then we can run some threads about how the RN stitched up the RAF and have "bring back both variants of Tornado, Jaguar and Nimrod campaigns" because the RAF have escaped unscathed up till now.
regards
retard
Calm down, I was suggesting that Sandy Woodward was less well informed than Lewis Page. I agree with you about bringing back the Harrier, we might get some bandwidth back. Then we can run some threads about how the RN stitched up the RAF and have "bring back both variants of Tornado, Jaguar and Nimrod campaigns" because the RAF have escaped unscathed up till now.
regards
retard
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Temporarily missing from the Joe Louis Arena
Posts: 2,131
Received 27 Likes
on
16 Posts
... what AEW capability do the fighters have?
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Aylesbury
Age: 58
Posts: 378
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"...have some quite useful ground-based radar."
On unmanned sites subject to known limitations. And, given how often hardware limitations on the older now superceded platforms in the 80's and 90's used to leave holes, the lack of a permanently assigned Area Air Defence DDG potentially exacerbates the situation.
The Woodward scenario has got nothing to do with how capable Typhoon is as an air superiority asset. You dont have to get into a tangle with one or more, you just have to keep them occupied and out of the way at the edges of the FIPZ for long enough to prosecute the capture of the airfield.
This then, becomes ultimately much less about individual platform capabilities and far more to do with numbers available and multi-layered AD including SHORAD, accounting for as many of the possible threat scenarios. If all your assets are away from the nest providing QRA, what are you protecting the homeplate with? Look how many times in the 80's a relatively low number of Tu95's buzzing about in the North Atlantic had our Q resources stretched. More times than I care to remember.
As it is at the moment, we are, to my mind, relying too heavily on Intel to give us sufficient warning of attack which would allow us to make best attempts to effect a timely reinforcement.
Given how the cracks appear to be showing with Libya and Afghan, all it would take would be an increase in legimate Argentine/ joint South American exercise activity in the region and the potential for FIPZ incursions.
I dont think anything will happen for at least a couple of years. All the noise that Kirchner is coming out with now is just that. Noise for domestic consumption. If they are going to go for it, she and/or her successor will wait until we have started making deep cuts to muscle rather than trimming off fat and when the procurement lines, if there are any are just too damned long to be able to react. And then, they will go for it.
An absolute minimum of 2 to 3 years wait, but certainly before the QE carrier comes onstream. I reckon between 2015 and 2018, they're likely to go for it. The UN will do nothing, as it always does, Britain does not have the diplomatic support in South America or even in the Whitehouse any more and certainly will not have the capability to launch a CORPORATE type venture.
We're going down a path where we will barely be able to protect our own shores, let alone anyone elses.
On unmanned sites subject to known limitations. And, given how often hardware limitations on the older now superceded platforms in the 80's and 90's used to leave holes, the lack of a permanently assigned Area Air Defence DDG potentially exacerbates the situation.
The Woodward scenario has got nothing to do with how capable Typhoon is as an air superiority asset. You dont have to get into a tangle with one or more, you just have to keep them occupied and out of the way at the edges of the FIPZ for long enough to prosecute the capture of the airfield.
This then, becomes ultimately much less about individual platform capabilities and far more to do with numbers available and multi-layered AD including SHORAD, accounting for as many of the possible threat scenarios. If all your assets are away from the nest providing QRA, what are you protecting the homeplate with? Look how many times in the 80's a relatively low number of Tu95's buzzing about in the North Atlantic had our Q resources stretched. More times than I care to remember.
As it is at the moment, we are, to my mind, relying too heavily on Intel to give us sufficient warning of attack which would allow us to make best attempts to effect a timely reinforcement.
Given how the cracks appear to be showing with Libya and Afghan, all it would take would be an increase in legimate Argentine/ joint South American exercise activity in the region and the potential for FIPZ incursions.
I dont think anything will happen for at least a couple of years. All the noise that Kirchner is coming out with now is just that. Noise for domestic consumption. If they are going to go for it, she and/or her successor will wait until we have started making deep cuts to muscle rather than trimming off fat and when the procurement lines, if there are any are just too damned long to be able to react. And then, they will go for it.
An absolute minimum of 2 to 3 years wait, but certainly before the QE carrier comes onstream. I reckon between 2015 and 2018, they're likely to go for it. The UN will do nothing, as it always does, Britain does not have the diplomatic support in South America or even in the Whitehouse any more and certainly will not have the capability to launch a CORPORATE type venture.
We're going down a path where we will barely be able to protect our own shores, let alone anyone elses.
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Europe
Age: 56
Posts: 409
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Unnecessary verbiage 10W. Clearly an Air Trafficker, and a civvy as well.
If you want to contribute to a purely military forum, it would help if you had some understanding of military life and personnel, and be prepared for some uncompromising and blunt rebuffs. Also don't let your "humorous" comments be misunderstood
Quote:
Do you know what Moderator means ?
It may be taken as offensive and arrogant.
Try not to give lectures
Quote:
I think you'll find that it's not a requirement for a Moderator on a site run principally (but not exclusively) for civil professional pilots, to have any military service whatsoever.
You may find that you offend people.
All of which is why I say "get some time in"
I'll let others support or shoot you down (a mil term) because I don't wish to lecture.
If you want to contribute to a purely military forum, it would help if you had some understanding of military life and personnel, and be prepared for some uncompromising and blunt rebuffs. Also don't let your "humorous" comments be misunderstood
Quote:
Do you know what Moderator means ?
It may be taken as offensive and arrogant.
Try not to give lectures
Quote:
I think you'll find that it's not a requirement for a Moderator on a site run principally (but not exclusively) for civil professional pilots, to have any military service whatsoever.
You may find that you offend people.
All of which is why I say "get some time in"
I'll let others support or shoot you down (a mil term) because I don't wish to lecture.
I've met 10W and he is a good egg, but clearly hasn't the first idea about what going to war is like, and never will. Sorry mate but you are way off course with your comments.
As the man said, get some time in before trying to lecture military men, otherwise you just sound a bit silly.
Back on thread, I was in Argentina earlier this year. While the Falklands always comes up when people find out I'm not only a Brit but Ex Mil, with very, very few exceptions they believe they are theirs passionately, but recoil in horror at the thought of another military spat over them. So relax the Presidents rants are for domestic consumption.
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Temporarily missing from the Joe Louis Arena
Posts: 2,131
Received 27 Likes
on
16 Posts
Jabba TG12 - Although I'm stepping well beyond my comfort zone here really given my knowledge isn't the true limitation of one's own GBAD assets measured against the compartive quality of the assumed opposition?
Are the Argentine forces in any position to exploit any 'weaknesses' in UK GBAD assets in the Falklnads given the complete lack of support said forces have experienced from their government over the last 29 years?
As a 'for instance' it is believed by many sources that the only ground attack a/c the Argentine military can muster in any numbers at the moment are some A4s and a small number of Pucura. Just how 'limited' would GBAD assets need to be in order to allow subsonic and short-legged a/c such as these to approach the Falklands?
Are the Argentine forces in any position to exploit any 'weaknesses' in UK GBAD assets in the Falklnads given the complete lack of support said forces have experienced from their government over the last 29 years?
As a 'for instance' it is believed by many sources that the only ground attack a/c the Argentine military can muster in any numbers at the moment are some A4s and a small number of Pucura. Just how 'limited' would GBAD assets need to be in order to allow subsonic and short-legged a/c such as these to approach the Falklands?