Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Aircrew Forums > Military Aviation
Reload this Page >

UK & Argentine Falklands Rapprochement

Wikiposts
Search
Military Aviation A forum for the professionals who fly military hardware. Also for the backroom boys and girls who support the flying and maintain the equipment, and without whom nothing would ever leave the ground. All armies, navies and air forces of the world equally welcome here.

UK & Argentine Falklands Rapprochement

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old 26th Dec 2016, 12:07
  #21 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: No longer a hot and sandy place....but back to the UK for an indefinite period
Posts: 177
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Fareastdriver, you are spot on. If it was economically viable it would have been exploited many years ago. With the current glut of oil extending into the foreseeable future, I find it difficult to foresee the FI ever being a rich oil based economy.
Boy_From_Brazil is offline  
Old 26th Dec 2016, 13:23
  #22 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: UK.
Posts: 4,390
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Nevertheless, why give away a possible asset even if not valuable until the future?

Why did we sell the Harriers?
Basil is offline  
Old 26th Dec 2016, 13:41
  #23 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Argentina
Age: 48
Posts: 132
Received 45 Likes on 13 Posts
For the record, Argentine claim has some grounds. Last time Iīve check the majority of the international community supports Argentine position...even US backed the claim before 1982.

I donīt want to convince anyone here, just I think is appropiate to mention it.

Regards to all,
Marcantilan is offline  
Old 26th Dec 2016, 13:45
  #24 (permalink)  
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Peripatetic
Posts: 17,413
Received 1,593 Likes on 730 Posts
Forget the oil, the associated islands to the south gives the UK it's historic rights to its territories in Antarctica - which whilst currently unexploited for environmental reasons, are worth untold trillions in the future.


https://www.bas.ac.uk/about/antarcti...ection/mining/

https://www.princeton.edu/~ota/disk1...926/892606.PDF

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brit...ctic_Territory

https://www.theguardian.com/news/200...ca.sciencenews
ORAC is online now  
Old 26th Dec 2016, 20:57
  #25 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: UK.
Posts: 4,390
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Originally Posted by Marcantilan
For the record, Argentine claim has some grounds. Last time Iīve check the majority of the international community supports Argentine position...even US backed the claim before 1982.

I donīt want to convince anyone here, just I think is appropiate to mention it.

Regards to all,
Courteously put, as I'd expect from an Argentinian gentleman.
The whole thing was a disaster for our relationship.
Basil is offline  
Old 27th Dec 2016, 08:18
  #26 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London
Posts: 7,072
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Good post by Marcantilan

But the rest of us should be careful about saying the oil price will "never" recover - it has done so many times. It takes about 3-5 years for the projects approved and started at $ 120 a barrel to finally be completed. After that the oil companies start again, and their supply chain readjusts to $ 50 a barrel - less gold plating, less specialisation, wage cuts and job cuts (the UK oil business has lost tens of thousands of jobs in the last 2 years).

Governments adjust the fiscal terms to keep jobs, financiers see "bargains", and the oil fields still pump away 24/7 generating cash flow

Happened in 1986-88, 1999-2001 etc etc

Last edited by Heathrow Harry; 27th Dec 2016 at 08:50.
Heathrow Harry is offline  
Old 27th Dec 2016, 11:09
  #27 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 5,222
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes on 3 Posts
It's slightly different this time. OPEC hasn't got the clout that it used to have especially when the world's largest consumer doesn't need it. The world is awash with oil and even China is using its clout to make itself self sufficient.

<a href='http://www.macrotrends.net/2562/us-crude-oil-production-historical-chart'>U.S. Crude Oil Production - Historical Chart</a>

There's a lot more bad news for OPEC in the attached graphs.

Crude Oil Prices - 70 Year Historical Chart | MacroTrends
Fareastdriver is offline  
Old 27th Dec 2016, 13:43
  #28 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London
Posts: 7,072
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
OPEC didn't have muchclout on 1999-2000 but the price still came back

US shale oil/gas will undoubtedly have an effect but the oil companies have a very long history of re-inventing themsleves and still making money......
Heathrow Harry is offline  
Old 28th Dec 2016, 01:35
  #29 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: In a van down by the river
Posts: 706
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
As this is a military forum and not a political one I would be far more interested in a professional assessment of the respective Argentinian and British forces and an analysis of the likely outcome of events should hostilities recommence today with all the unexpected suddeness that they did back in 1982.

It is interesting to me that many of the major weapon systems from 34 years ago are still in use today albeit in upgraded forms. The Type 42 destroyer wasn't new in 1982 and only saw an end to its active service just 3 years ago, the Argentinians are still flying A-4s, Rapier (which didn't work very well in 1982) is still in service, Sea Wolf, Stingray, Chinook, and Lynx to name but a few systems are still in service, amazingly even Sea Skua which must have shelf life issues at this point. Mercifully the appalling Seacat and Blowpipe missile systems are a thing of the past, along with the equally useless Tigerfish torpedo. I could bang on ad nauseam about the individual merits and demerits of specific systems but bigger picture wise I do wonder how things would play out today especially with the UK lacking any carriers and the absence of superb assets like the Sea Harrier FA2.

As for saying it could never happen again with today's more "evolved" Argentina - I don't personally subscribe to that opinion as emotions still run very hot on the subject down south.
Fonsini is offline  
Old 28th Dec 2016, 09:27
  #30 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London
Posts: 7,072
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
The UK is far better off - a very large air base is the main change and a few state of the art fighters (far more effective one hopes than the SHAR) - but without any medium/long range AA missile defence it must be open to a take-out strike

Argentina is certainly less effective - the Armed Forces have been short of cash for maintenance and upgrades for a couple of decades...........
Heathrow Harry is offline  
Old 28th Dec 2016, 13:01
  #31 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: France
Age: 80
Posts: 6,379
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Surely the key is that about 98% of Falkland Islanders want to remain British
Wander00 is offline  
Old 28th Dec 2016, 13:09
  #32 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London
Posts: 7,072
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I think Fonsini was thinking about another invasion scenario in the future
Heathrow Harry is offline  
Old 28th Dec 2016, 14:50
  #33 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Fife
Posts: 271
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
You've got to imagine that the Brits keep at least one Hunter Killer down there ready to TLAM the Arg air bases should the need arise
Coochycool is offline  
Old 28th Dec 2016, 15:29
  #34 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London
Posts: 7,072
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
They may have an SSN down there some of the time but it's to frighten off any invasion fleet

We didn't attack the mainland in the war and I really doubt we'd do so in another flare up
Heathrow Harry is offline  
Old 28th Dec 2016, 15:48
  #35 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Lincs
Posts: 2,307
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Fonsini,
The A-4s are scheduled to be retired.

The Argentine Air Force has informed the Ministry of Defence that it will be retiring its fleet of Lockheed Martin (McDonnell Douglas) A-4AR Fightinghawks by 2018 due to the scarcity of replacement parts and high maintenance costs.

The decision follows the recent retirement of the Dassault Mirage fleet (the only supersonic fighter in Argentina's inventory) and would leave the air force's combat capabilities limited to the FAdeA IA-63 Pampa armed trainer and IA-58 Pucara counter-insurgency aircraft, with the latter having issues with spare parts for its Astazou engines.

Argentina received a total of 32 A-4M and 4 TA-4F aircraft in the early 1990s and these were upgraded to the A-4AR by Lockheed Martin (mostly in Argentina via a deal that included FAdeA's transfer to the US company).
Argentina to retire ageing A-4AR fleet by 2018 | IHS Jane's 360
TEEEJ is offline  
Old 29th Dec 2016, 15:28
  #36 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: In a van down by the river
Posts: 706
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Originally Posted by Heathrow Harry
We didn't attack the mainland in the war and I really doubt we'd do so in another flare up
We certainly had no reservations about doing so and had every intention:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Mikado

SAS 'suicide mission' to wipe out Exocets - Telegraph
Fonsini is offline  
Old 29th Dec 2016, 15:43
  #37 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 327
Received 4 Likes on 4 Posts
I appreciate the political implications of striking the mainland. But at the same time it has always struck me as odd to think that if a country is sending military aircraft to attack you, you should feel obliged to refrain from attacking and disabling the military sites (and only those military sites) that are launching the attacks because it's somehow not cricket to do so.
Frostchamber is offline  
Old 29th Dec 2016, 15:51
  #38 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: In a van down by the river
Posts: 706
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Originally Posted by TEEEJ
Fonsini,
The A-4s are scheduled to be retired.



Argentina to retire ageing A-4AR fleet by 2018 | IHS Jane's 360
Yes, the A-4ARs are currently grounded with only 5 out of the original 36 remaining airworthy. Janes reported last year that they had been offered a range of alternatives including F-16s (which have long been denied to them) but that a specific request for the F-5E had been refused by the US ?!

Current favourite is the KAI FA-50, but I would say that the Mirage 2000 makes more sense for a variety of reasons.

In other news the argentine navy has also woken up of late, their Espora class corvette the ARA Rosales was out testing Exocets in February:



They still need to be watched.
Fonsini is offline  
Old 29th Dec 2016, 16:17
  #39 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London
Posts: 7,072
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
never sure why S American countries spend $$$ on newish kit - it's been a while since there was any sort of war on (other than the FI of course....)
Heathrow Harry is offline  
Old 29th Dec 2016, 17:14
  #40 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: London
Posts: 628
Received 193 Likes on 108 Posts
never sure why S American countries spend $$$ on newish kit - it's been a while since there was any sort of war on (other than the FI of course....)
Maybe they feel it's working. A bit like the argument that there's no point in spending money on nuclear weapons, because no-one's used one for 70 years.
pasta is online now  


Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.