Falklands Farce
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: teeing it up on the 16th
Posts: 57
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Falklands Farce
After a lengthy discussion at happy hour last week, as to the relevance, or indeed need of an air power prescence over the Falkland Isles I thought I'd open this up for debate.
In the light of rumours regarding the closure of another RAF base on mainland UK due to budgetary constraints, why is the government (Labour) persisting in the maintenance of A: The Falklands Isles B: Ascension - a base that only serves as a stopping point on the journey to the former. This is highlighted in the improved political relations with Argentina as it undergoes a fiscal nightmare. . .Surely we should be concentrating our resources in areas far more consumate with the current political climate. It seems to me that maintaining an aged and ineffective fleet of F3s (a jet that apparently goes fast in a straight line and little else) with tanker support (!) merely puts a myriad of holes in the RAF's purse rather than attempting to plug the existing ones.
I'd appreciate your comments.
In the light of rumours regarding the closure of another RAF base on mainland UK due to budgetary constraints, why is the government (Labour) persisting in the maintenance of A: The Falklands Isles B: Ascension - a base that only serves as a stopping point on the journey to the former. This is highlighted in the improved political relations with Argentina as it undergoes a fiscal nightmare. . .Surely we should be concentrating our resources in areas far more consumate with the current political climate. It seems to me that maintaining an aged and ineffective fleet of F3s (a jet that apparently goes fast in a straight line and little else) with tanker support (!) merely puts a myriad of holes in the RAF's purse rather than attempting to plug the existing ones.
I'd appreciate your comments.
At least there were only a couple of small hand grenades for the sensitive souls to cotton onto in your post!
Do you really think we'd still be there if there wasn't a sodding good reason? There are many ideologies - the main one being the primary reason behind the Gulf War ..... OIL. Unfortunately though, getting at it is a bit of a problem as the South Atlantic seabed is a long way down, unlike the North Sea. The technological problems that this presents alone are taking time to solve, notwithstanding the odd iceberg thrown in for good measure (OK - not in the immediate vicinity, but within the area of exploration).
Secondly, whether you like it or not, both the Falkland Islands and Ascension are British and the adage "once bitten, twice shy" holds true. Besides, when you are effectively saying "let's forget about them" you're also forgetting that British servicemen died to keep them British. 20 years is not a watershed to give up. And, yes, I have spent 4 months down there (not long compared to some) and seen the different war memorials and done the battlefield tours......they don't deserve to die in vain.
To answer your inflammatory comments regarding the F3s at MPA - although the crews are being stretched to cover many theatres, it is still a very effective platform to cover the perceived threat. You show your naiivity with your comments - if only the real world were so black and white!!
These are only my thoughts on the subject... <img src="smile.gif" border="0">
Do you really think we'd still be there if there wasn't a sodding good reason? There are many ideologies - the main one being the primary reason behind the Gulf War ..... OIL. Unfortunately though, getting at it is a bit of a problem as the South Atlantic seabed is a long way down, unlike the North Sea. The technological problems that this presents alone are taking time to solve, notwithstanding the odd iceberg thrown in for good measure (OK - not in the immediate vicinity, but within the area of exploration).
Secondly, whether you like it or not, both the Falkland Islands and Ascension are British and the adage "once bitten, twice shy" holds true. Besides, when you are effectively saying "let's forget about them" you're also forgetting that British servicemen died to keep them British. 20 years is not a watershed to give up. And, yes, I have spent 4 months down there (not long compared to some) and seen the different war memorials and done the battlefield tours......they don't deserve to die in vain.
To answer your inflammatory comments regarding the F3s at MPA - although the crews are being stretched to cover many theatres, it is still a very effective platform to cover the perceived threat. You show your naiivity with your comments - if only the real world were so black and white!!
These are only my thoughts on the subject... <img src="smile.gif" border="0">
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 11
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
AG,
Were you involved in the "Discussion" or just listening in?
Also, were there any F3 Aircrew involved? I suspect not, since you don't mention about being beaten-up afterwards.
Kaa
[ 29 January 2002: Message edited by: Kaa050 ]</p>
Were you involved in the "Discussion" or just listening in?
Also, were there any F3 Aircrew involved? I suspect not, since you don't mention about being beaten-up afterwards.
Kaa
[ 29 January 2002: Message edited by: Kaa050 ]</p>
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: ivory tower basement
Posts: 32
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This thread appears to have got some people's back's up. Personally, when I was there everyone I spoke to thought being there was a waste of time. I couldn't find anyone, except the islanders, who thought we were actually achieving anything by being there. . . For what it's worth I don't think that the Argentinians would try another invasion (once bitten etc.), unless anyone knows different!.
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: uk
Posts: 358
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The fiscal nightmare in Argentina that AG refers to is itself a good reason for continued vigilance over the Falklands. Fervent nationalism can easily be whipped up to deflect attention from intractable problems at home. It is the second level politicos looking for a soapbox that you have to look out for.. .Maintainiing a presence at least sends the signal, lacking before Falklands war, that the UK sees that it has a defence commitment down there.
chippy 63
chippy 63
Guest
Posts: n/a
AG. .Have you really been to Cranwell or are you having a Steffi at your own expense. Bless you, you must have been asleep for the WHOLE Def Stud phase, as this very subject is covered in some considerable detail! Chimp.
Now quit putting inane drivel on this site and leave it to meaningful, useful posts!
Love Rules!
Now quit putting inane drivel on this site and leave it to meaningful, useful posts!
Love Rules!
AG's inane characterisation of the F3 masks the fact that for relatively little expenditure, the aircraft could also be a fully SEAD/TIALD/EO GP(1) capable and flexible tactical fighter, sending Argentina an even more powerful message.
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Glorious Devon
Posts: 721
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bluntie
"For what its worth, I don't think the Argies would try another invasion..."
That was the FCO's official policy line a few weeks before the Argies landed at Port Stanley in '82. The FCO's South Atlantic desk proved to be a waste of rations. Are you SO sure you are right? For my money there are a few other commitments we could give up before the Falklands.
<img src="smile.gif" border="0">
"For what its worth, I don't think the Argies would try another invasion..."
That was the FCO's official policy line a few weeks before the Argies landed at Port Stanley in '82. The FCO's South Atlantic desk proved to be a waste of rations. Are you SO sure you are right? For my money there are a few other commitments we could give up before the Falklands.
<img src="smile.gif" border="0">
Join Date: Jun 2001
Posts: 341
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
AG. .Yet again you manage to make what you perceive to be a couple of relevent questions, but can't resist from doing so in a remarkably insulting way. You really do seem to be a uniquely balance little tw@t - chips on both shoulders. Just for a laugh try asking a question without the sarcastic and/or insulting little asides. You never know - you may actually get some answers! . .Were you abused as a child or are you like this for no good reason? <img src="confused.gif" border="0">
Oh! by the way the AAR support is fine when the jet is servicable and the F3 (same applying)is more than adequate for the job. The problem is we are there primarily for politacal reasons not military ones. Militarily we would need far more airframes in theatre to sustain a credible deterrant.
Oh! by the way the AAR support is fine when the jet is servicable and the F3 (same applying)is more than adequate for the job. The problem is we are there primarily for politacal reasons not military ones. Militarily we would need far more airframes in theatre to sustain a credible deterrant.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: teeing it up on the 16th
Posts: 57
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yet again I feel berated for little good reason. I had a knowledgable chat about this in the bar on friday, yet you still question my knowledge!. .JEEP - I think retention is about money not postings. I refer you to my previous thread "Whinging aircrew".
Scarlet Pimp - I am astounded. Oil? Colonialism? I ask you exactly how many barrels of oil do we produce as a nation in the Falklands or get any benefit from? Is this justification for closing Lyneham instead? You talk about the real world! I refer you to the real world of budgets and meeting requirements.
BLUNTIE - One of the few valid points. You obviousely understand my initial argument.
BGA - Cranwell? Of course i have been there. If you had been there you would know they hardly touch on the Falklands apart from the Vulcan (now not in service) mission.
JACKONICKO - Why do you post on a military aircrew forum? Anyone knows the F3 would not be a suitable SEAD aircraft. Its role down the Falklands is surely hours building and training.
Flattus - By your own logic should we not be suspicious of the Germans/Spanish/Romans that have invaded British territory in the past?
I await some rather more informed responses.
Scarlet Pimp - I am astounded. Oil? Colonialism? I ask you exactly how many barrels of oil do we produce as a nation in the Falklands or get any benefit from? Is this justification for closing Lyneham instead? You talk about the real world! I refer you to the real world of budgets and meeting requirements.
BLUNTIE - One of the few valid points. You obviousely understand my initial argument.
BGA - Cranwell? Of course i have been there. If you had been there you would know they hardly touch on the Falklands apart from the Vulcan (now not in service) mission.
JACKONICKO - Why do you post on a military aircrew forum? Anyone knows the F3 would not be a suitable SEAD aircraft. Its role down the Falklands is surely hours building and training.
Flattus - By your own logic should we not be suspicious of the Germans/Spanish/Romans that have invaded British territory in the past?
I await some rather more informed responses.
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
AG,. .yes oil you dimwit. Do you not follow world events or even take an interest in things which may concern you while you are still in the airforce.. .Take a look at a map and then reassess your coments. You will find that the Falklands are remarkably close to a very large area called Antarctica, where there are quite vast deposits of oil. Sorry for being so patronising but you really do deserve it.. .Also Asi is not just used as a staging post for getting to/from MPA.. .The AT fleet uses it quite a bit to get to other places in the world. <img src="tongue.gif" border="0">
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
AG "Why do you post on a military aircrew forum? ", you said it! Jacko is as welcome as anybody else on the forum, even if he is press <img src="rolleyes.gif" border="0"> I say keep em, cos you can count the penguins on your day off.
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: The front end and about 50ft up
Posts: 510
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Admin Guru, I thought that your question was a little more valid than your previous thread and so I will attempt to give you a sensible answer. This is how I see it-
The Falkland Islands are legitimately British territory. There was no indigenous population, and under the right to self determination, the British inhabitants who have been there for generations wish to retain absolute British Sovereignty, (despite the willingness of our PM to entertain the idea of dual sovereignty both there and in Gib).
<unrelated rant - if I had my way I'd be sending troops into Zimbabwe to protect the interests of more Brits who are being murdered, raped, abused by a corrupt, racist dictator - could start a whole new thread on that alone>
As has already been pointed out, Argentina took the undefended islands with ease in 82, and reclaiming them is something of a crusade. At a time of Argie instability and belligerence we must not drop our guard. The presence on the islands is formidable and FI is one of the best defended pieces of real estate in the world.
Additionally FI makes a good training environment, free of noise complaints, and oil exploration must be seen as a speculative investment for the future which could pay off big time. Don't forget that in all areas apart from defence the FI Government makes a nett contribution to the UK economy, through fisheries etc.
As for ASI, a more cost effective way of rotating aircraft has been devised (see the C17 thread) and ASI itself is a useful staging post for a number of routes, in the same way as Diego Garcia.
Hope that helps answer the question. I've tried to be nice but I have a sneaking suspicion that you're a journo looking for column inches. ps thanks for pointing out that the government is Labour and the Vulcan has retired. Cheers. (Joke). <img src="wink.gif" border="0">
The Falkland Islands are legitimately British territory. There was no indigenous population, and under the right to self determination, the British inhabitants who have been there for generations wish to retain absolute British Sovereignty, (despite the willingness of our PM to entertain the idea of dual sovereignty both there and in Gib).
<unrelated rant - if I had my way I'd be sending troops into Zimbabwe to protect the interests of more Brits who are being murdered, raped, abused by a corrupt, racist dictator - could start a whole new thread on that alone>
As has already been pointed out, Argentina took the undefended islands with ease in 82, and reclaiming them is something of a crusade. At a time of Argie instability and belligerence we must not drop our guard. The presence on the islands is formidable and FI is one of the best defended pieces of real estate in the world.
Additionally FI makes a good training environment, free of noise complaints, and oil exploration must be seen as a speculative investment for the future which could pay off big time. Don't forget that in all areas apart from defence the FI Government makes a nett contribution to the UK economy, through fisheries etc.
As for ASI, a more cost effective way of rotating aircraft has been devised (see the C17 thread) and ASI itself is a useful staging post for a number of routes, in the same way as Diego Garcia.
Hope that helps answer the question. I've tried to be nice but I have a sneaking suspicion that you're a journo looking for column inches. ps thanks for pointing out that the government is Labour and the Vulcan has retired. Cheers. (Joke). <img src="wink.gif" border="0">
AG - you asked for opinions/comments and I gave you one! You say you are knowledgeable (based on a pissed conversation with a mirror no doubt) and yet you show an alarming lack of understanding on British Defence Policy, history, geography and the capabilities of the nation's forces. In fact you have demonstrated a remarkable lack of any knowledge at all. I pity the station that has to put up with you.
AG: Why do I post? Do you mean what right/qualifications do I have to post?
More flying hours than you, I suspect. More military P1 hours than you definitely (Oh OK, even if only UAS). More mates who are aircrew. Probably more understanding of the strengths and weaknesses of F3. And I dare say that I know more about the studies into F3 for SEAD than you do, too, though the whole subject is a mite sensitive beyond the fact that it's been looked at (including flying trials at Spadeadam, I understand). Better spelling and grammar than you (Not Admin Sec, clearly) even if not 'consumate with the current political climate'.
Tourist had it spot on. "AG you are a tw@t".
Max Stout: He hasn't got even the limited abilities required to make it as a journo.
More flying hours than you, I suspect. More military P1 hours than you definitely (Oh OK, even if only UAS). More mates who are aircrew. Probably more understanding of the strengths and weaknesses of F3. And I dare say that I know more about the studies into F3 for SEAD than you do, too, though the whole subject is a mite sensitive beyond the fact that it's been looked at (including flying trials at Spadeadam, I understand). Better spelling and grammar than you (Not Admin Sec, clearly) even if not 'consumate with the current political climate'.
Tourist had it spot on. "AG you are a tw@t".
Max Stout: He hasn't got even the limited abilities required to make it as a journo.
