Telegraph - Tucano a well-armed and reconnaissance-capable aircraft?
airpolice,
A few things wrong with your thinking:
You say: "I'm not saying they are coming before Easter, but if they did, we're in no position to stop them."
This is not true. The Typhoons would be more than a match for anythig the Argentines could put up against them (they have not recieved any new combat aircraft since before 1982). I know quantity has a quality all its own, but the FAA wouldn't even get close. They know this too which is probably why they raised such a stink when they were deployed. Also, their navy would not put to sea as they have no way to counter the UK's nuclear submarines.
With no air or sea dominance (or even parity) they wouldn't be so stupid as to try and invade.
Secondly, you say: " Since the US didn't help us the last time, it's fair to expect them not to help us next time."
Again, you're wrong. They did help by allowing us to dip into NATO stocks of the latest Sidewinder missile which allowed for shots other than directly behind. This missile was the main reason for the Sea Harrier's success. Satellite imagery was also provided and they offered us the use of an aircraft carrier but this was turned down for political reasons. It is fair to assume that such 'behind the scenes' help would again be offered if needed.
Again; "Losing one Typhoon would be a huge hole in the air defence cover, but losing one Hawk out of maybe four or five times as many Hawks as Typhoons would be less of an issue." The point is that the FAA wouldn't get close enough to take down any Typhoons. If it were Hawks they were up against it would be a very different story.
A few things wrong with your thinking:
You say: "I'm not saying they are coming before Easter, but if they did, we're in no position to stop them."
This is not true. The Typhoons would be more than a match for anythig the Argentines could put up against them (they have not recieved any new combat aircraft since before 1982). I know quantity has a quality all its own, but the FAA wouldn't even get close. They know this too which is probably why they raised such a stink when they were deployed. Also, their navy would not put to sea as they have no way to counter the UK's nuclear submarines.
With no air or sea dominance (or even parity) they wouldn't be so stupid as to try and invade.
Secondly, you say: " Since the US didn't help us the last time, it's fair to expect them not to help us next time."
Again, you're wrong. They did help by allowing us to dip into NATO stocks of the latest Sidewinder missile which allowed for shots other than directly behind. This missile was the main reason for the Sea Harrier's success. Satellite imagery was also provided and they offered us the use of an aircraft carrier but this was turned down for political reasons. It is fair to assume that such 'behind the scenes' help would again be offered if needed.
Again; "Losing one Typhoon would be a huge hole in the air defence cover, but losing one Hawk out of maybe four or five times as many Hawks as Typhoons would be less of an issue." The point is that the FAA wouldn't get close enough to take down any Typhoons. If it were Hawks they were up against it would be a very different story.
Melmothtw...''With no air or sea dominance (or even parity) they wouldn't be so stupid as to try and invade.''
from what i recall, they didn't have parity - or anything like it - last time, yet they still went for it.
i accept that there is a force on the islands where there wasn't last time, however the Argies still chose to go up against a power with long range strategic bombers, aircraft carriers, nuclear submarines, the second biggest fleet in NATO, and a fearsomely trained and respected army - i somehow fail to see why anybody thinks that cold hard logic (the idea that 'they wouldn't be that stupid') is neccessarily part of the Argentine political decision making process when applied to the islands. i think people utterly fail to see the 'glistening eyes' effect in Argentina (particularly when the economy is in the shitter) whenever an on-the-ropes politician starts banging on about 'las Malvinas' and how suddenly, all else is forgiven...
four airframes, while very good airframes, is still only four airframes - they will at some stage run out of missiles/go U/S and need to land, and it wouldn't take a professor of air supremacy to devise a situation where the four aircraft were kept busy chasing wild geese and then forced to re-arm/re-fuel while a main force carried out an attack that effectively neutralised them.
i would contend that while the RAF would probably win any air battle, i fear it would be rather closer than we would like - and given that a 'reforger' type operation would take rather longer than what remains of the AAF flying home, refueling and picking up more missiles for a return match, four airframes isn't enough. Typhoons if possible, GR4's as a dedicated strike force if not...
from what i recall, they didn't have parity - or anything like it - last time, yet they still went for it.
i accept that there is a force on the islands where there wasn't last time, however the Argies still chose to go up against a power with long range strategic bombers, aircraft carriers, nuclear submarines, the second biggest fleet in NATO, and a fearsomely trained and respected army - i somehow fail to see why anybody thinks that cold hard logic (the idea that 'they wouldn't be that stupid') is neccessarily part of the Argentine political decision making process when applied to the islands. i think people utterly fail to see the 'glistening eyes' effect in Argentina (particularly when the economy is in the shitter) whenever an on-the-ropes politician starts banging on about 'las Malvinas' and how suddenly, all else is forgiven...
four airframes, while very good airframes, is still only four airframes - they will at some stage run out of missiles/go U/S and need to land, and it wouldn't take a professor of air supremacy to devise a situation where the four aircraft were kept busy chasing wild geese and then forced to re-arm/re-fuel while a main force carried out an attack that effectively neutralised them.
i would contend that while the RAF would probably win any air battle, i fear it would be rather closer than we would like - and given that a 'reforger' type operation would take rather longer than what remains of the AAF flying home, refueling and picking up more missiles for a return match, four airframes isn't enough. Typhoons if possible, GR4's as a dedicated strike force if not...
"Melmothtw...''With no air or sea dominance (or even parity) they wouldn't be so stupid as to try and invade.''
from what i recall, they didn't have parity - or anything like it - last time, yet they still went for it."
They didn't have parity in 1982, they had superiority - no UK air or naval presence and only a token force of marines and local territorial unit.
They didn't think we would fight last time (and so were only concerned with UK assets already in theatre). I think they probably know better now...
from what i recall, they didn't have parity - or anything like it - last time, yet they still went for it."
They didn't have parity in 1982, they had superiority - no UK air or naval presence and only a token force of marines and local territorial unit.
They didn't think we would fight last time (and so were only concerned with UK assets already in theatre). I think they probably know better now...
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Exiled in England
Age: 48
Posts: 1,015
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
To all those who doubt the Argies invasion plans -
Would you care to wager anything on that??
Say a few thousand loyal British Subjects, or how about mineral rights....
running everything else down to desperately fund the current coin war is a mistake. Any cash saved over and above the minimums that the lying bast4rd's' would spend would be lost in the give all our cash to lazy git scheme.
I don't disagree that we need to fund the war properly, I do disagree we need to hamsting everything else to give the illusion of funding it.
We need to stand together and say NO to the mandarins in whitehall, but then - I think that would take a leader and not a yes man or an empire builder.
In real terms the forces have been cut (in terms of numbers) by how much and for how long?
Need I say anymore
Would you care to wager anything on that??
Say a few thousand loyal British Subjects, or how about mineral rights....
running everything else down to desperately fund the current coin war is a mistake. Any cash saved over and above the minimums that the lying bast4rd's' would spend would be lost in the give all our cash to lazy git scheme.
I don't disagree that we need to fund the war properly, I do disagree we need to hamsting everything else to give the illusion of funding it.
We need to stand together and say NO to the mandarins in whitehall, but then - I think that would take a leader and not a yes man or an empire builder.
In real terms the forces have been cut (in terms of numbers) by how much and for how long?
Need I say anymore
I don't disagree with you that running everything else down to fund COIN is a mistake, I'm just saying that Argentina will not invade the Falklands again (not in my lifetime at least).
And yes, I would be happy to place a wager on it (although quite how I would claim on such a bet as until they do invade the bet is still live!)
And yes, I would be happy to place a wager on it (although quite how I would claim on such a bet as until they do invade the bet is still live!)
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Wiltshire
Age: 62
Posts: 22
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Notwithstanding the excellent debate on Falkands Islands defence, the Tucano/Typhoon debate misses one huge point (at least). That is - the Typhoons are paid for! We (the UK) have been trying to get out of buying our allocation for years but our unique procurement system has contracted us into a place where it is more expensive not to buy something! perhaps Gen Richards would like to identify the Rifle Battalion he wishes disbanded to pay for some new Tucanos.
We are unable to afford inflexible assets - ie something that can only operate in a benign environment - we have to be able to cover the whole spectrum of possible war. As for FJs being inflexible, isn't the valuable CAS support to TICs currently being very effectively provided by an aircraft purchased for low level IMC nuclear strike?
Bottom line - in an ideal world COIN platforms would be nice - given no ganja to smoke we'd better manage with what we've got!
We are unable to afford inflexible assets - ie something that can only operate in a benign environment - we have to be able to cover the whole spectrum of possible war. As for FJs being inflexible, isn't the valuable CAS support to TICs currently being very effectively provided by an aircraft purchased for low level IMC nuclear strike?
Bottom line - in an ideal world COIN platforms would be nice - given no ganja to smoke we'd better manage with what we've got!
Join Date: May 2006
Location: 2 m South of Radstock VRP
Posts: 2,042
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by cornish-stormrider
Would you care to wager anything on that??
Say a few thousand loyal British Subjects, or how about mineral rights....
Say a few thousand loyal British Subjects, or how about mineral rights....
Ah, mineral rights. They will count for sod all if we are denied free access to them. The Argentineans are unlikely to be happy with the situation near their sea area and will, undoubtedly, probe and harass by every means available too them. If we think about the more Southern Atlantic, it may not just be Argentina we need worry about. To date, the Army remains unable to walk on water, so may not be that useful in asserting our National interests.
Anyway, this has sod all to do with Tucanos (a Brazilian aeroplane from a Nation that might become sympathetic to Argentina).
"Anyway, this has sod all to do with Tucanos (a Brazilian aeroplane from a Nation that might become sympathetic to Argentina)."
They famously weren't in the last spat.
They famously weren't in the last spat.
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: bristol
Age: 56
Posts: 1,051
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dan Winterland
I take your above point, but can we rely on the Brazilians to be any good if they help us?
I seem to remember that they could not even spell the name of their air force correctly on their canberra's during the last spat
I take your above point, but can we rely on the Brazilians to be any good if they help us?
I seem to remember that they could not even spell the name of their air force correctly on their canberra's during the last spat
Barnstormer,
You have mixed up Brazil and Chile. Brazil didn't operate the Canberra.
It wasn't the Chilean Canberras that had the spelling mistake on them but the RAF Hercules in country.
The Chief of the Chilean Air Force at the time of the conflict, General Fernando Matthei, revealed the following during a documentary.
"RAF C-130 with electronic intelligence equipment flew from the Pacific via Easter Island disgused as Chilean Air Force aircraft. This was done on the premise they had to fly between internal destinations within Chile collecting intelligence. The aircraft were noted by the misspelling of the Fuerza Area de Chile."
The Chilean documentary is available in Spanish on You Tube. Unfortunately not subtitled.
1/6
YouTube - Chile y su participacion en Malvinas (1/6)
2/6
YouTube - Chile y su participacion en Malvinas (2-6)
3/6
YouTube - Chile y su participacion en Malvinas (3-6)
4/6
YouTube - Chile y su participacion en Malvinas (4-6)
5/6
YouTube - Chile y su participacion en Malvinas (5-6)
6/6
YouTube - Chile y su participacion en Malvinas (6-6)
TJ
You have mixed up Brazil and Chile. Brazil didn't operate the Canberra.
It wasn't the Chilean Canberras that had the spelling mistake on them but the RAF Hercules in country.
The Chief of the Chilean Air Force at the time of the conflict, General Fernando Matthei, revealed the following during a documentary.
"RAF C-130 with electronic intelligence equipment flew from the Pacific via Easter Island disgused as Chilean Air Force aircraft. This was done on the premise they had to fly between internal destinations within Chile collecting intelligence. The aircraft were noted by the misspelling of the Fuerza Area de Chile."
The Chilean documentary is available in Spanish on You Tube. Unfortunately not subtitled.
1/6
YouTube - Chile y su participacion en Malvinas (1/6)
2/6
YouTube - Chile y su participacion en Malvinas (2-6)
3/6
YouTube - Chile y su participacion en Malvinas (3-6)
4/6
YouTube - Chile y su participacion en Malvinas (4-6)
5/6
YouTube - Chile y su participacion en Malvinas (5-6)
6/6
YouTube - Chile y su participacion en Malvinas (6-6)
TJ
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Brasil
Posts: 351
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The latest Super Tucano is a superb aircraft, good range, excellent flying characteristics, great weapons capability, designed for a datalink environment and considerable cheaper than a Typhoon, BUT that doesn't mean it can fulfil the roles allocated to the Typhoon 
If it really was that capable why is Brazil currently running the FX2 program? Brazil is a relatively poor country, so this line of thinking should lead us to Super Tucanos, yet the government is planning to spend billions on the Gripen/Rafale/F18 aircraft when Embraer apparently builds the answer to our problem right here in Sao Jose dos Campos. Don't forget that the Typhoon was also considered for FX2 in the early stages.
Barnstormer, Brazil's armed forces are quite capable and reasonably well equipped in all branches, retaining a large cadre of long term professionals, so yes, IF they decided to help they would be a very useful ally. However, in the extremely unlikely event of a second Argentine invasion of the Falklands, Brazil will do what Brazil normally does in these situations, and that is keep out of it.
TTFN
If it really was that capable why is Brazil currently running the FX2 program? Brazil is a relatively poor country, so this line of thinking should lead us to Super Tucanos, yet the government is planning to spend billions on the Gripen/Rafale/F18 aircraft when Embraer apparently builds the answer to our problem right here in Sao Jose dos Campos. Don't forget that the Typhoon was also considered for FX2 in the early stages.
Barnstormer, Brazil's armed forces are quite capable and reasonably well equipped in all branches, retaining a large cadre of long term professionals, so yes, IF they decided to help they would be a very useful ally. However, in the extremely unlikely event of a second Argentine invasion of the Falklands, Brazil will do what Brazil normally does in these situations, and that is keep out of it.
TTFN
Last edited by alemaobaiano; 23rd Jan 2010 at 09:03. Reason: Response to Barnstormer
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Hong Kong
Age: 60
Posts: 491
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not sure if I go along with the general trend of opinion in this thread.
Seems to be that there is a wish to reduce or even eliminate elements of our strategic defence in favour of higher spending on tactical equipment to strengthen our efforts in the Middle East and Afghanistan.
The AQ threat may be real but our response is really rather pointless, wherever we invade, they will dissappear elsewhere (like from Afghanistan to Yemen) and leave us and the by now very pissed off indigenous population to fight it out. We will then bleed money, equipment and of course Trained manpower, very slowly but very steadily with a cumulative effect on our operational capability to defend ourself when it really matters.
I hope that this is an accidental outcome of our own stupidity and not a result of clever planning by OBL and AQ, otherwise we really are fu**ed.
The planet is undergoing some seismic shifts in power and influence with a strong emerging Asia, particularly China, of course and western politicians don't seem to find anything odd about mortgaging our economies to an upcoming rival to fund a totally pointless (but bravely fought) regional military operation.
At the same time, some very unpromising and unreliable political systems are getting their hands on nuclear weapons.
Meanwhile we have narrowly escaped by the skin of our teeth from global financial meltdown, and historically this kind of financial meltdown has given way to wars resulting in staggering levels of death and destruction (that would make 9/11, 7/7 and anything else that AQ could pull off, look like a quiet afternoon on the front).
On another thread there is discussion that we will be giving up our nuclear deterrent. This would be a disaster. By all means give up trident, but giving up nukes altogether while the Pakistanis, Indians, N. Koreans and others are only just getting their hands on them, what the hell would we be doing ??
Would we be relying on the US ? have they not shown that their only real interest is the US ?
And related to this thread, I have read somewhere (correct me if I am wrong) that JSF has been ACM with up to five F18 against one JSF, and it has ended with a 5-0 JSF victory, before the F18's could even find the JSF.
So you could put up 50 Hawks against new technologies and they would all be splashed before they knew WTF was going on. Broadswords against Musket, Bows and Arrows against Rifles, Cavalry against Machine Guns, Blenheims and Defiants against Messerschmidts (that worked out well didn't it) technology moves on guys, so must we.
We need to work out what possible real threats of the future will be and prepare ourselves to fight the most dangerous ones and not allow our treasury and our budget to be deflected in to focusing on an expensive, painful but ultimately ineffective sideshow.
Rmac
Seems to be that there is a wish to reduce or even eliminate elements of our strategic defence in favour of higher spending on tactical equipment to strengthen our efforts in the Middle East and Afghanistan.
The AQ threat may be real but our response is really rather pointless, wherever we invade, they will dissappear elsewhere (like from Afghanistan to Yemen) and leave us and the by now very pissed off indigenous population to fight it out. We will then bleed money, equipment and of course Trained manpower, very slowly but very steadily with a cumulative effect on our operational capability to defend ourself when it really matters.
I hope that this is an accidental outcome of our own stupidity and not a result of clever planning by OBL and AQ, otherwise we really are fu**ed.
The planet is undergoing some seismic shifts in power and influence with a strong emerging Asia, particularly China, of course and western politicians don't seem to find anything odd about mortgaging our economies to an upcoming rival to fund a totally pointless (but bravely fought) regional military operation.
At the same time, some very unpromising and unreliable political systems are getting their hands on nuclear weapons.
Meanwhile we have narrowly escaped by the skin of our teeth from global financial meltdown, and historically this kind of financial meltdown has given way to wars resulting in staggering levels of death and destruction (that would make 9/11, 7/7 and anything else that AQ could pull off, look like a quiet afternoon on the front).
On another thread there is discussion that we will be giving up our nuclear deterrent. This would be a disaster. By all means give up trident, but giving up nukes altogether while the Pakistanis, Indians, N. Koreans and others are only just getting their hands on them, what the hell would we be doing ??
Would we be relying on the US ? have they not shown that their only real interest is the US ?
And related to this thread, I have read somewhere (correct me if I am wrong) that JSF has been ACM with up to five F18 against one JSF, and it has ended with a 5-0 JSF victory, before the F18's could even find the JSF.
So you could put up 50 Hawks against new technologies and they would all be splashed before they knew WTF was going on. Broadswords against Musket, Bows and Arrows against Rifles, Cavalry against Machine Guns, Blenheims and Defiants against Messerschmidts (that worked out well didn't it
) technology moves on guys, so must we.We need to work out what possible real threats of the future will be and prepare ourselves to fight the most dangerous ones and not allow our treasury and our budget to be deflected in to focusing on an expensive, painful but ultimately ineffective sideshow.
Rmac
Last edited by rmac; 23rd Jan 2010 at 10:08.
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Exiled in England
Age: 48
Posts: 1,015
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well put RMAC.
And the only way to do that is to increase investment not shrink it. To increase it we must cut a bit off some of Noo Liarbors Bullsh*t vote earning programs from the masses.
And the only way to do that is to increase investment not shrink it. To increase it we must cut a bit off some of Noo Liarbors Bullsh*t vote earning programs from the masses.
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: bristol
Age: 56
Posts: 1,051
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi TEEEJ.
Thanks for the correction. That will teach me to post when I am tired!
Now you have said it, it's pretty obvious it was Chile, and I must admit it was even a pretty thick error, even going by my usual standards
I had still thought this applied to the Canberras too, especially as the number of Canberras in Chile's inventory rose after the conflict (done as a thank you from our PM so rumour has it).
Thanks for the correction. That will teach me to post when I am tired!
Now you have said it, it's pretty obvious it was Chile, and I must admit it was even a pretty thick error, even going by my usual standards
I had still thought this applied to the Canberras too, especially as the number of Canberras in Chile's inventory rose after the conflict (done as a thank you from our PM so rumour has it).
Hi Barnstormer,
No problem. The problem with the Fuerza Aerea De Chile titles is that the Chilean Canberra wouldn't have carried them.
Airfix Canberra PR9 - Fuerza Aérea de Chile
The Argentine Air Force Canberras on the other hand carried large titles.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...ber_B-108.jpeg
The Chilean documentary along with the Hercules also mentions the Nimrods in Chile. No mention of any Canberras being operated in country by the RAF during the conflict.
TJ
No problem. The problem with the Fuerza Aerea De Chile titles is that the Chilean Canberra wouldn't have carried them.
Airfix Canberra PR9 - Fuerza Aérea de Chile
The Argentine Air Force Canberras on the other hand carried large titles.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...ber_B-108.jpeg
The Chilean documentary along with the Hercules also mentions the Nimrods in Chile. No mention of any Canberras being operated in country by the RAF during the conflict.
TJ
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Scotland
Age: 45
Posts: 67
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Perhaps Gen Richards is on to something. How about instead of buying Tucanos the UK buys ex Argentinian Air Force FMA IA 58 Pucaras which seem to be of similiar calibre in the COIN/CAS role as the Tucano? That way we get some nice cheap propeller aircraft to send to Southern Asia while Argentina can spend the money on updating its airforce with modern Russian built jets just as their friend Hugo Chavez has done in Venezuela
Mischief aside, I think the UK should retain a balanced military force and not simply become a Division of the US Army. That will entail either increasing the defence budget or reducing commitiment in Afghanistan so that we can properly equip the troops that are in the theatre. Halving the number of deployed soldiers would still leave us with more troops on the ground than the next largest contributor Germany.
Mischief aside, I think the UK should retain a balanced military force and not simply become a Division of the US Army. That will entail either increasing the defence budget or reducing commitiment in Afghanistan so that we can properly equip the troops that are in the theatre. Halving the number of deployed soldiers would still leave us with more troops on the ground than the next largest contributor Germany.
Though the New Statesman reported that RAF Canberra PR9s DID operate from Chile during the war (and that they were spotted at Punta Arenas by Jon Snow), this may not be true. They were certainly destined to operate from Chile (which was not then a Canberra operator) but the aircraft apparently got only as far as Belize, where re-painting in Chilean markings may have begun.
There was also a proposal to fit an AAR probe (one aircraft may have trialled this, according to a then PR9 mate) for ops from somewhere else (South Africa?).
Chile got a shed-load of Hunters and three PR9s after the war, as a 'thank you'.
There was also a proposal to fit an AAR probe (one aircraft may have trialled this, according to a then PR9 mate) for ops from somewhere else (South Africa?).
Chile got a shed-load of Hunters and three PR9s after the war, as a 'thank you'.
